🚀 go-pugleaf

knudsen%ihades.UUCP.UUCP%ATT.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
(a.k.a. m.h.kundsen@att.com)
>...
>I think what really broke IMS was the first company that made and
>stuffed his circuit boards -- they really hosed it up.
>Then AMD shipped him some wrong devices thru a distributor,
>and then the distributor and AMD each blamed each other and
>refused to make good on the parts (this held up the I/O boards for
>months).

I remember the scsi chip mixup... I would have sued!  Bastards screw up
something that big.  After all, they did not provide what was ordered.
I don;t care who is responcible... the person who takes the order is expected
to deliver the goods;if there is a breakdown after he/she forwards an order
is the responsibliey of the original vender. (No, I'm not a lawer, but I can
play one on the net :-))

>IMS had the best software hacker and the best Moto hardware hacker
>in the country (both named Kevin) designing the stuff, and got

And still do!  Now they have some other hackers floating around as well!

>stuck with 10-thumbs Beltway Bandits trying to build it.

I assume they had a good rep. in the business, or do Paul and co. go with
the "cheap" alternative?

>Then there was his insistence on FCC approval, which resulted in
>big delays after the FCC lab gorillas broke his sample machine.

"insistence"??? It was my understanding any complete computer system sold must
have FCC aproval?

>The kits got around the FCC problem and helped steer the first
>machines into us hackers' hands, which was the right thing to do
>anyway -- let us iron out bugs and write some software before
>marketing the box to "plain folks."

Even that took forever {see above.}

>>I remember back when he was apparently running around trying to get
>>software companies to port stuff, etc. I feel sorry for the guy. He
>
>I feel sorry too, having known Paul personally.  He was a real
>visionary with a passionate belief in what he was doing, and not
>some jerk out to make a buck.  We OS9 freaks are crazy but we
>aren't stupid :-)

We are all visionaries.... I get kidded alot around here (CATT-Computer
and Technologies Theme program @ NCSU) about having "the MAC throw off" :-)
"Why don't you get a real computer?"  At which point, they atempt to bring
me to the above-world of IBM/Amiga/MAC (have a mac tho'--it sucks in a major
way)

>He did succeed with one company, Microware, who gave him a good
>license deal on Professional OSK and saw the MM/1 as a route into
>non-industrial computing.

Part of that has to do with image too I would guess-- IBM+Intel,Microware+Mot.
It would be nice if we could get some REAL software for the beast.
I speak of course of spreedsheets, word processors, editors, etc.
We are headed in the right direction, IMHO.  The wr_demo (Write Rite???) wp
is a very good start, but I (personally) don't think the 60$ price can
be justified.  But that's just me--I use Interleaf <grin>; When you get
Interleaf 5 running on the MM/1(a) you can say you have done something.
<big grin>

>I'm still glad I bought mine.

I think we all are!

>...  Between the one-track mind of MSDOS,
>the bulk and inefficiency of UNIX, and the prison paradise of MacIntosh,
>I still haven't seen a computer I'd rather have in my basement.

Nice put down!  I assume _ALL_ the computers are in the basement :-)

>The mix of features (SCSI, DMA stereo sound) was great and ahead
>of its time.  The design was amazingly compact, and I've seen
>hardly any glitches.

Mind to clarify "hardly any"? :-)  I've seen enough glitches in the serial
drivers and windio.  I actually got so pissed on one occassion as to knock
the cpu, modem, and almost the monitor too, off the desk--granted it wasn't
in a case at the time :-)

>Some have accused Paul of marketing hype.  Hype comes from other
>places too.  When Frank Hogg announced he would build his own
>68070 box (the TC-70), I predicted this would split the market and
>cause both sides to fail.  Others said there was plenty of room
>for two or more vendors, lots of market, so be glad for the
>diversity of choices, etc.  So who was hyping whom?
>(DelMar's boxes were and are a great buy for the money too, but I
>consider them different enuf not to be direct competitors in the
>sense that the TC-70 was).

Hype is hype... bull gets formes no matter what you do!  As for the TC-70,
it's had its share of troubles.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I think
the TC-70 is no longer being made?

>Speaking of fizzles, Frank's TC-9 Coco 3.5 didn't do anybody much
>good either.  I think it was doomed the day they decided to make
>it run DECB programs.

Nah, it was doomed from the onset... look at the main processor <grin> :-)

--Ricky (MM/1a SN 120890/1)

=====================================================================
= cramer@catt.ncsu.edu NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program =
= jfbeam@tx.ncsu.edu   NCSU College of Textiles                     =
= jfbeam@eos.ncsu.edu  NCSU College of Engineering                  =
=====================================================================
= 414E Wood, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27607      (919) 512-4653            =
= 2600 Royster Rd., Shelby, NC 28150-2889 (704) 538-9060            =
=====================================================================