🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7 Dec 1995 09:31:02 -0800, Roger David Carasso <rdc@shellx.best.com> wrote:
 : 
 : A side by side comparison of Java versus a Times Sinclair Emulator.
 : You be the judge.
 : 
 : Hands down, the Timex Sinclair Emulator wins over Java.  Which tool
 : would you rather have in your dishwasher, computer, interactive tv,
 : computer, phone, etc.?  Answer: the one that is the *complete*
 : operating system, that has a proven history, that has thousands of
 : applications, that fits in under 8K, that is written in a language you
 : don't have to train your engineers, and was the operating system of
 : choice for the number one selling computer in all of history.  Timex
 : Sinclair.
 : 
Get real.  The fact that the Sinclair is practical, cheap, and easy to 
develop for exactly the reason that it will be abandoned in favor of a 
costly high priest's machine that has no public documentation and that 
only a few people know how to use.  This is a world of trade guilds, 
including the computer and memory chip makers' trade guild and the 
programmer hall of infamy trade guild.  The whole idea is to conquer 
megabytes of memory that do the work of an 8K algorithm without letting
anyone know.  Get with the program, Jack, and fill memory with useless 
graphics that do nothing.

DITTOS TO:

In article <slrn4cesid.37.root@tailor.roman.org>,
root <root@tailor.roman.org> wrote:
>On 7 Dec 1995 09:31:02 -0800, Roger David Carasso <rdc@shellx.best.com> wrote:
> : 
> : A side by side comparison of Java versus a Times Sinclair Emulator.
> : You be the judge.
> :
> : [...]
> : 
>Get real.  The fact that the Sinclair is practical, cheap, and easy to 
>develop for exactly the reason that it will be abandoned in favor of a 
>costly high priest's machine that has no public documentation and that 
>only a few people know how to use.  This is a world of trade guilds...
>The whole idea is to conquer megabytes of memory that do the work of
>an 8K algorithm...

I LOVE IT!!!  These posts have been great!  However, I must take
a minor exception: memory usage increase has not been simply a
silly excursion into time-wasting on the part of programmers and
memory chip-makers.  There is something real being built "under the
hood".  The potential of this "something" has not yet been fully
realized.  This "something" is called Software Abstraction.  It
is an effort to increase the overall profficiency of development
teams, and SIMULTANEOUSLY increase the QUALITY of the product.
You know, object-oriented programming and all that.

I remember programming on the Timex Sinclair.  Sure, I could build
a quicky-program.  However, I didn't have room to include quality
checks, support for efficient evolution of the product, support
for very large data sets, and so on.  I was working on software
to aid an optometrist in his work.  We abandoned the project.  Why?
Quality problems and the lack of the ability to program a COMPLETE
set of business, medical and technical rules.  It didn't take us
long, in 1980-ish, to find the limits of our efforts.

+-----------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Nicole Tedesco                    | Office    : 716-888-3567           |
| Consultant                        | Fax       : 716-888-3447           |
| CTG, Inc.                         | Voice Mail: 800-992-5350 box 3567  |
| 700 Delaware Avenue               | Internet  : nicole.tedesco@ctg.com |
| Buffalo, New York USA 14209-2281  |             or ctg83158@ctg.com    |
+-----------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Visit our World-Wide Web page at http://www.ctg.com                    |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
-- 

In <30CC6D31.17EB@mmcd1.ericsson.se> "Mattias O.C. B��th" <Etxmbaa@mmcd1.ericsson.se> writes:

>Roger David Carasso wrote:
>> 
>> A side by side comparison of Java versus a Times Sinclair Emulator.
>> You be the judge.
>> 
>>                         JAVA            TIMEX SINCLAIR EMULATOR
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
   Object orientation?     Jepp!           No way!
   Can pick up and throw?  Nope            Very satisfying!

Roger David Carasso wrote:
> 
> A side by side comparison of Java versus a Times Sinclair Emulator.
> You be the judge.
> 
>                         JAVA            TIMEX SINCLAIR EMULATOR
> ---------------------------------------------------------------  Object orientation?     Jepp!           No way!


-- 

...............................     ___________________
   MATTIAS O.C. B��TH              |"Tabloid Reporter  |
    Tele: +46-8- 875221            |in Spacedout Dream"|
    B�llstaV�gen 299,              |      /Zak         |
    161 54 Bromma                  |___________________|
    SWEDEN                                





Dungeon: XYZZY, 
         The dragon was scared by a brid. 
         Exits in all directions.

Simon Tooke wrote:
> >Roger David Carasso wrote:
> >>
> >> A side by side comparison of Java versus a Times Sinclair Emulator.
> >> You be the judge.
> >>
> >>                         JAVA            TIMEX SINCLAIR EMULATOR
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>    Object orientation?     Jepp!           No way!
>    Can pick up and throw?  Nope            Very satisfying!

Did Timex-Sinclair's operating system catch and throw exceptions? Way ahead 
of its time ...
-- 
Eric True -> Spaznik Consulting (spaznik@cruzio.com)
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the oven!" - Pat Oliphant

In article <30CFEEE3.152D@cruzio.com>, Eric True <spaznik@cruzio.com> writes:

> Did Timex-Sinclair's operating system catch and throw exceptions? Way ahead 
> of its time ...

Nonsense.  You think all those mainframe OS's of the '60s didn't have
any exception handling?
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________

 Chris Gray        Chris_Gray@bcs.org.uk          Compuserve: 100065,2102
     Opinions expressed are purely personal unless otherwise stated.
__________________________________________________________________________

I hate to stick my neck out, but what is a Timex Sinclair 
Emulator?


Duncan Kinder
dckinder@ovnet.com

In article <4asb7f$i9n@news.mountain.net>, "Duncan C. Kinder"
<dckinder@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com> writes:
> I hate to stick my neck out, but what is a Timex Sinclair 
> Emulator?
> 

Same thing as a Sinclair Spectrum Emulator ( Timex rebadged / manafactured ( I'm
not sure which ) the spectrum in the US ).

SJJ

 _____________________________________________________________________________
|SIMON JENNINGS � E-MAIL : SE1SJ@DMU.AC.UK                                    |
|               � HOME PAGE : Not Finished Yet ! Give Me Time !               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|<*********************************-QUOTES-**********************************>| 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| " Life's Not Fair, Is It " - Scar ( The Lion King )                         |
|                                                                             |
| " Has Anybody Seen My Mole ? " - The badger from AFW ( what's his name ? )  |
|                                                                             |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|

-- Simon Jennings wrote:
> 
> In article <4asb7f$i9n@news.mountain.net>, "Duncan C. Kinder"
> <dckinder@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com> writes:
> > I hate to stick my neck out, but what is a Timex Sinclair
> > Emulator?
> >
> 
> Same thing as a Sinclair Spectrum Emulator ( Timex rebadged / manafactured ( I'm
> not sure which ) the spectrum in the US ).
> 

Well ... In fact the Sinclair's were English. Designed by Clive 
Sinclair's company Sinclair Research. In England they were known as the 
ZX80 and the ZX81. Later came the Sinclair Spectrum. Sir.Clive went out 
of business after an abortive attempt to get into the electric car 
business with Hoover. HA! Now there's a funny story! Last I heard back 
in 1989 he was building a core microprocessor to emulate all other 
microprocessors. Timex was simply a reseller.

--
Steven Ericsson Zenith - Sunnyvale, California.
mailto:Steven@TheTemple.com, http://www.TheTemple.com/Steven
"Never confuse wisdom with luck." Rule #44

ctg83158@gateway.ctg.com (Nicole Tedesco) wrote:
>
 >I LOVE IT!!!  These posts have been great!  However, I must take
>a minor exception: memory usage increase has not been simply a
 >silly excursion into time-wasting on the part of programmers and
>memory chip-makers.  There is something real being built "under the
 >hood".  The potential of this "something" has not yet been fully
>realized.  This "something" is called Software Abstraction.  It
 >is an effort to increase the overall profficiency of development
>teams, and SIMULTANEOUSLY increase the QUALITY of the product.
 >You know, object-oriented programming and all that.
>
Software abstraction is directly responsible for the existence of the
Risks Digest.

L.

Steven Ericsson Zenith (zenith@TheTemple.com) wrote:
: -- Simon Jennings wrote:
: > 
: > In article <4asb7f$i9n@news.mountain.net>, "Duncan C. Kinder"
: > <dckinder@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com> writes:
: > > I hate to stick my neck out, but what is a Timex Sinclair
: > > Emulator?
: > >
: > 
: > Same thing as a Sinclair Spectrum Emulator ( Timex rebadged / manafactured ( I'm
: > not sure which ) the spectrum in the US ).
: > 

: Well ... In fact the Sinclair's were English. Designed by Clive 
: Sinclair's company Sinclair Research. In England they were known as the 
: ZX80 and the ZX81. Later came the Sinclair Spectrum. Sir.Clive went out 
: of business after an abortive attempt to get into the electric car 
: business with Hoover. HA! Now there's a funny story! Last I heard back 
: in 1989 he was building a core microprocessor to emulate all other 
: microprocessors. Timex was simply a reseller.

Not quite. The later Timex/Sinclair machines had different designs than the
english versions! Especially the TS spectrum derivative! It had an AY chip
years before sinclair released the SPECCY 128!
 
: --
: Steven Ericsson Zenith - Sunnyvale, California.
: mailto:Steven@TheTemple.com, http://www.TheTemple.com/Steven
: "Never confuse wisdom with luck." Rule #44

--
______________________________________________________________________________
| 			|What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crackin  |
|u5a77@cc.keele.ac.uk	|the ground beneath a giant bolder, which you can't  |
|			|move, with no hope of rescue.			     |
|Andrew Halliwell	|Consider how lucky you are that life has been good  |
|Principal in:-		|to you so far... 				     |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts	|	-The BOOK, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <30D22F02.6476@TheTemple.com>, Steven Ericsson Zenith
<zenith@TheTemple.com> wrote:

> Well ... In fact the Sinclair's were English. Designed by Clive 
> Sinclair's company Sinclair Research. In England they were known as the 
> ZX80 and the ZX81. Later came the Sinclair Spectrum. Sir.Clive went out 
> of business after an abortive attempt to get into the electric car 
> business with Hoover. HA! Now there's a funny story! Last I heard back 
> in 1989 he was building a core microprocessor to emulate all other 
> microprocessors. Timex was simply a reseller.

Well, not just a reseller, they manufactured the Spectrum in Scotland
(Dundee I think) it was supposed to be the saviour of the British watch
industry - Timex being watch manufacturers.

-- 
<<< Real Shopping is here now! >>

Jonathan Duckworth wrote:
> 
> In article <30D22F02.6476@TheTemple.com>, Steven Ericsson Zenith
> <zenith@TheTemple.com> wrote:
> > ... Timex was simply a reseller.
> 
> Well, not just a reseller, they manufactured the Spectrum in Scotland
> (Dundee I think) it was supposed to be the saviour of the British watch
> industry - Timex being watch manufacturers.

Thank you for the correction. I wasn't aware that Timex were so involved 
with Sinclair. Timex manufacture I'm not really surprised at - the 
additional design work made by Timex does surprise me. What was the 
point of that?

-- 
Steven Ericsson Zenith - Sunnyvale, California.
mailto:Steven@TheTemple.com, http://www.TheTemple.com/Steven
"Never confuse wisdom with luck." Rule #44

Please reply to this message if you're interested in this thread, it has rec.humour removed 
from the reply-to line for reasons of un-funnyness. Thank you :-)

How many computer programmers does it take to change a lightbulb ?

None, it's a hardware problem !!

Maarten Schenk			"Person who say it cannot be done
tl940077@beta.ufsia.ac.be	 should not interrupt person doing it."
					Chinese Proverb

In article <4air6a$9ik@gateway.ctg.com> ctg83158@gateway.ctg.com (Nicole Tedesco) writes:
   I LOVE IT!!!  These posts have been great!  However, I must take
   a minor exception: memory usage increase has not been simply a
   silly excursion into time-wasting on the part of programmers and
   memory chip-makers.  There is something real being built "under the
   hood".  The potential of this "something" has not yet been fully
   realized.  This "something" is called Software Abstraction.  It
   is an effort to increase the overall profficiency of development
   teams, and SIMULTANEOUSLY increase the QUALITY of the product.
   You know, object-oriented programming and all that.

Oh, like X windows. A giant overengineered object oriented piece of
crap. Taken to its logical extreme in something called "CDE" that
requires several megabytes just to present me with a button I can use
to start a program with. And because it leaks memory all over the place,
I have to log out every few days to reclaim swap space.

   I remember programming on the Timex Sinclair.  Sure, I could build
   a quicky-program.  However, I didn't have room to include quality
   checks, support for efficient evolution of the product, support
   for very large data sets, and so on.  I was working on software
   to aid an optometrist in his work.  We abandoned the project.  Why?
   Quality problems and the lack of the ability to program a COMPLETE
   set of business, medical and technical rules.  It didn't take us
   long, in 1980-ish, to find the limits of our efforts.

With object-oriented software technology, people are now able to program
well beyond the limits of their efforts!

Ben A. Mesander (ben@goldman.gnu.ai.mit.edu) wrote:
: In article <4air6a$9ik@gateway.ctg.com> ctg83158@gateway.ctg.com (Nicole Tedesco) writes:
:    I LOVE IT!!!  These posts have been great!  However, I must take
:    a minor exception: memory usage increase has not been simply a
:    silly excursion into time-wasting on the part of programmers and
:    memory chip-makers.  There is something real being built "under the
:    hood".  The potential of this "something" has not yet been fully
:    realized.  This "something" is called Software Abstraction.  It
:    is an effort to increase the overall profficiency of development
:    teams, and SIMULTANEOUSLY increase the QUALITY of the product.
:    You know, object-oriented programming and all that.

: Oh, like X windows. A giant overengineered object oriented piece of
: crap. Taken to its logical extreme in something called "CDE" that
: requires several megabytes just to present me with a button I can use
: to start a program with. And because it leaks memory all over the place,
: I have to log out every few days to reclaim swap space.

And of course, object oriented programming doesn't always improve
quality.  What it does is allow programmers to reuse code whether
it is bloated and buggy or elegant and efficient.  Languages like
C++ can be abused just like older programming languages.

:    I remember programming on the Timex Sinclair.  Sure, I could build
:    a quicky-program.  However, I didn't have room to include quality
:    checks, support for efficient evolution of the product, support
:    for very large data sets, and so on.  I was working on software
:    to aid an optometrist in his work.  We abandoned the project.  Why?
:    Quality problems and the lack of the ability to program a COMPLETE
:    set of business, medical and technical rules.  It didn't take us
:    long, in 1980-ish, to find the limits of our efforts.

: With object-oriented software technology, people are now able to program
: well beyond the limits of their efforts!

Back in the late seventies I knew an opthamologist who was using a series
of programs, written on an Apple II in BASIC, to grind out parameters for
laser surgery.  It worked very well for him.  The programs were designed
from the top down rather than just gluing bits of "reuseable" code
together.
--
Rick Kelly  rmk@tencats.rmkhome.com  rmk@rmkhome.com 
            http://tencats.rmkhome.com

It would be interesting to write a ZX81 emulator in Java. It would be
enough if it could run Basic programs. If anyone ever does this,
please let me know.
Med v�nlig h�lsning
// Mikael Bonnier,  Lund 
// mikaelb@empathy.df.lth.se http://www.df.lth.se/~mikaelb
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

>>Get real.  The fact that the Sinclair is practical, cheap, and easy to 
>>develop for exactly the reason that it will be abandoned in favor of a 
>>costly high priest's machine that has no public documentation and that 
>>only a few people know how to use.  This is a world of trade guilds...
>>The whole idea is to conquer megabytes of memory that do the work of
>>an 8K algorithm...

>I LOVE IT!!!  These posts have been great!  However, I must take
>a minor exception: memory usage increase has not been simply a
>silly excursion into time-wasting on the part of programmers and
>memory chip-makers.  There is something real being built "under the
>hood".  The potential of this "something" has not yet been fully
>realized.  This "something" is called Software Abstraction.

ROFL!  Spoken like a true Microsoft Employee.  IMO, it's not about wasting 
time - now your typical major application consists of autonomous teams of 
developers who essentially don't give a damn about the big picture unlike the 
old days.  I wouldn't be so bold as to even give them credit for intentionally 
wasting resources - it has more to do with a general lack of respect for 
hardware.

>I remember programming on the Timex Sinclair.  Sure, I could build
>a quicky-program.  However, I didn't have room to include quality
>checks, support for efficient evolution of the product, support
>for very large data sets, and so on.

It must have been a real drag.  You couldn't waste a few megabytes embedding 
super-secret pop-up screens listing the developers' favorite soft drinks.  You 
couldn't afford to waste memory with exceptions like making sure your 
competitor's software wouldn't run properly, or that icons representing 
services you want to promote cannot be arbitrarily deleted from the desktop.  

=================================================
 No Web Site                           No E-Mail
 No Services                  No "Free Web Page"
           No Shameless Self-Promotion
=================================================

In <4c76ba$5lq@news.enterprise.net> wisdom@wisdom.com (Mike) writes: 

>=================================================
> No Web Site                           No E-Mail
> No Services                  No "Free Web Page"
>           No Shameless Self-Promotion
>=================================================
>

But enuff self-righteousness to last till the cows come home...
-- 
    _/_/_/    _/_/_/  _/_/_/   / Bob Roberds ////// broberds@ix.netcom.com /
   _/    _/ _/    _/ _/    _/ /////////////////////////////////////////////
  _/_/_/   _/    _/ _/_/_/   ////          Vodka corrupts;            ////
 _/    _/ _/    _/ _/    _/ //    Absolut vodka corrupts absolutely.   //
_/_/_/    _/_/_/  _/_/_/   /////////////////////////////////////////////

In article <4c7tek$cp7@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
Bob Roberds  <broberds@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4c76ba$5lq@news.enterprise.net> wisdom@wisdom.com (Mike) writes: 
>
>>           No Shameless Self-Promotion
>>
>
>But enuff self-righteousness to last till the cows come home...

It ain't self-righteousness... he's just plain right. All those
"easter eggs" in an operating system, and people wonder why the
"new, improved" version takes twice as much memory, and runs 
slower, on a "faster" machine, than the old "obsolete" version. 

It's because the software industry has become like Detroit in 
the early '60's, or at least one company has... The products
that emerge from their "campus" are like the cars that lost 
the auto industry for America: Sleek, fat, powerful, thirsty, 
ineficient, full of superficial gadgets that break, hard to 
start when it's cold, and hard to park. 

On Mon, 1 Jan 1996, Carl S. Gutekunst wrote:

> In article <4calgp$1rd@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> you write:
> >It ain't self-righteousness... he's just plain right. All those
> >"easter eggs" in an operating system, and people wonder why the
> >"new, improved" version takes twice as much memory, and runs 
> >slower, on a "faster" machine, than the old "obsolete" version. 
> >It's because the software industry has become like Detroit in 
> >the early '60's, or at least one company has...
> 
> You are absolutely right, but just as a thought exercise, I ask you who is
> going to tear down Bill Gates' pedestal?  And when?  Not the Japanese; they
> still show no sign whatsoever of understand software development.  I've worked
> pretty closely with people from Sony and Hitachi; these folks are clueless.
> Not the UNIX vendors; they seem to have completely forgotten what it was that
> made them successful in the first place, and they never have gotten a handle
> on the idea that end users are *not* PhDs in CS.
> 
Now it's *your* turn to be absolutely right :) I am aware of the Japanese
failure to understand the consumer software industry. They might be able
to make embedded systems, and even good video games, but when it comes
to business and home software, I think they fail because they don't 
know western culture, or maybe western "mind" is a better term. 

It's good to recall just how Microsoft got to be where it is, and that's
from developing *necessary* applications -- first product was the first
high level language for the first personal computer, a BASIC for the 
Altair. They were then able to port that language to the Apple, the 
Atari, and maybe the TRS-80 and Commodore line (don't remember for sure). 
Of course, their *real* "killer app" was MSDOS, for a major hardware
introduction. 

The point is, Microsoft got to where it is because of serendipity
to a large extent. They were in the right place at the right time
with the right stuff, or at least something that worked. So for some
other company or nation to give them the kick they need, there needs
to be some *significant* new niche in the market. The closest thing
I've seen to that niche is the explosive development in the internet
in the past year. That would give you some clues to who might become
the "next microsoft", except I don't see Sun or Netscape doing it. 

If you throw a "which country" angle on the question, I've seen some
very impressive figures on software growth from India, and the former
Soviet bloc countries also have "what it takes", IMO. 

We might see India become a country where software subcontracts go,
as long as the competent programers from there, stay there. The 
cost of development is just too cheap to overlook. Sigh, another
industry gone offshore. 

The Russians also have the minds, and a more generally well educated
society than India (better than just about anybody, in fact). They
have a good understanding of western mind, and like to compete. We'll
probably see a lot of work farmed out that way. Because of their 
level society, it's not hard for an engineer to listen to an artist,
and vice versa. The contribution of the arts in sofware should not
be underestimated. 

But what "killer app"? I dunno. I don't think Netscape or Java are 
really going to be enough to bootstrap a giant. There might be a 
new hardware bombshell on the market to help catylize the industry, 
in which case Sun better make it. 

My mind is all sweaty now. 

John Long wrote:

> Of course, their *real* "killer app" was MSDOS, for a major hardware
> introduction.
> 

I know this isn't strictly relevant to the discussion but it Microsoft 
just generally pisses me off because they have taken over the market 
with clearly inferior products. The worst thing is, that first 'killer 
app' wasn't even theirs. It belonged to Digital Research and Microsoft 
bought it out just in time to license it to IBM. Good marketing strategy 
but then what did they do with it? From a technical standpoint, they 
held consumers hostage for years and years. We're only now getting to 
the point where the operating systems from Microsoft are nearly usable.

Okay, my mind is getting sweaty too. Not to mention my hands.

Ric

-- 
*	'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.'
*		- Hunter S Thompson

Ric Messier
Framework Technologies
603/443-5524

Ric Messier <Ric.Messier@Valley.Net> wrote:

>John Long wrote:

>> Of course, their *real* "killer app" was MSDOS, for a major hardware
>> introduction.
>> 

>I know this isn't strictly relevant to the discussion but it Microsoft 
>just generally pisses me off because they have taken over the market 
>with clearly inferior products. The worst thing is, that first 'killer 
>app' wasn't even theirs. It belonged to Digital Research and Microsoft 
>bought it out just in time to license it to IBM. Good marketing strategy 
>but then what did they do with it?

At the risk of continuing an off-topic thread I have to correct you.  MSDOS
was not bought from DR by MS.  Bill Gates did buy it and the license it to
IBM but it was not purchased from DR.  DR had their own competing product
CP/M 86 but most of us who were around at that time remember that Gary was
happier flying than talking to IBM :-(

End of thread?

 *==[FREE-FAX GATEWAY INTO THE AUCKLAND NZ TOLL-FREE AREA]==*
 *   FREE listings in NZ's largest WWW Business Directory   *
 *          http://www.actrix.gen.nz/biz/faxmail/           *
 *==========================================================*

In article <30EAA8DD.2640@Valley.Net>, Ric Messier
<Ric.Messier@Valley.Net> wrote:

> John Long wrote:
> 
> > Of course, their *real* "killer app" was MSDOS, for a major hardware
> > introduction.
> > 
> 
> I know this isn't strictly relevant to the discussion but it Microsoft 
> just generally pisses me off because they have taken over the market 
> with clearly inferior products. The worst thing is, that first 'killer 
> app' wasn't even theirs. It belonged to Digital Research and Microsoft 
> bought it out just in time to license it to IBM. Good marketing strategy 
> but then what did they do with it? From a technical standpoint, they 
> held consumers hostage for years and years. We're only now getting to 
> the point where the operating systems from Microsoft are nearly usable.
> 
> Okay, my mind is getting sweaty too. Not to mention my hands.
> 
> Ric
> 

I think you just stated what I've been trying to explain to people for the
last year much more elequently than I have been able to. Nuff said.

-- 
     Navigate to 'south'   -----   http://speakeasy.org/~south

   \|/            \|/           \|/           \|/           \|/
 -- s --        -- s --       -- s --       -- s --       -- s --
   /|\            /|\           /|\           /|\           /|\

south@speakeasy.org (Scott Soderstrom) wrote:

>In article <30EAA8DD.2640@Valley.Net>, Ric Messier
><Ric.Messier@Valley.Net> wrote:

>> John Long wrote:
>> 
>> > Of course, their *real* "killer app" was MSDOS, for a major hardware
>> > introduction.
>> > 
>> 
>> I know this isn't strictly relevant to the discussion but it Microsoft 
>> just generally pisses me off because they have taken over the market 
>> with clearly inferior products. The worst thing is, that first 'killer 
>> app' wasn't even theirs. It belonged to Digital Research and Microsoft 
>> bought it out just in time to license it to IBM. Good marketing strategy 

Digital Research wrote CP/M which was the predecessor to MS-DOS.
Microsoft bought MS-DOS from someone else. Also, Digital Research was
the prefered vendor that IBM wanted to buy the OS from but they blew
it and Mr. Bill grabbed the opportunity.

-Ed Fladung

>>>>> "Fast" == Fast Eddie <fladung@emf.net> writes:

Fast> south@speakeasy.org (Scott Soderstrom) wrote:
>> In article <30EAA8DD.2640@Valley.Net>, Ric Messier
>> <Ric.Messier@Valley.Net> wrote:

>>> John Long wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Of course, their *real* "killer app" was MSDOS, for a major hardware
>>> > introduction.
>>> > 
>>> 
>>> I know this isn't strictly relevant to the discussion but it Microsoft 
>>> just generally pisses me off because they have taken over the market 
>>> with clearly inferior products. The worst thing is, that first 'killer 
>>> app' wasn't even theirs. It belonged to Digital Research and Microsoft 
>>> bought it out just in time to license it to IBM. Good marketing strategy 

Fast> Digital Research wrote CP/M which was the predecessor to MS-DOS.
Fast> Microsoft bought MS-DOS from someone else. Also, Digital Research was
Fast> the prefered vendor that IBM wanted to buy the OS from but they blew
Fast> it and Mr. Bill grabbed the opportunity.

Not quite.  According to the "MS-DOS Technical Reference Encyclopedia," in
the section titled "The Historical View," Tim Paterson of Seattle
Computer Products began work on a CP/M-like OS which he called 86-DOS.
This was done because CP/M-86 was not ready, nor did it do the things
Tim wanted.  This was started in April, 1980.

In August, 1980, Microsoft signed a consulting agreement with IBM.
Originally IBM wanted Microsoft to write a ROM BASIC for an 8-bit
computer they were designing, and to finish it before April, 1981.
Microsoft convinced them to go to 16-bit.  IBM later added requests for
FORTRAN, Pascal, and COBOL; all in the same time frame.  At this point
Bill Gates suggested to Jack Sams (The IBM rep) that in order to run
those languages, they would need an operating system.  Gates suggested
that Jack call Digital Research (the makers of CP/M-86).

IBM went to Digital Research the next day, but Digital Research was
nervous about IBM's non-disclosure requirements and the meeting never got
off the ground.

Microsoft wanted to write the languages, all of them.  In order to do
that in the six-month time limit, they needed some assurances about the
operating system.  They estimated that to write the languages they were
looking at 400k of code.  To do the OS too would only add another 30k.
They had just seen Paterson's rudimentary OS (he had come to Microsoft
to ask them to write a ROM BASIC for 86-DOS), and they knew exactly
where it stood.

   It was Sunday night, September 28, 1980.  Gates and [Paul] Allen were
   in Gates' office on the eighth floor of the Old National Bank
   Building in Bellevue.  They were reviewing all the facts with Kay
   Nishi, a Microsoft vice president and president of ASCII Corp. in
   Japan, who was preparing the proposal for IBM.

   The more they talked about it, the more it seemed possible--even
   preferable--to write their own operating system.  Finally Nishi got
   up and said, "Let's do it!  We've got to do it!"

					[The Historical View from
				         the MS-DOS Technical Reference
					 Encyclopedia, Page 11]

At this point Allen contacted Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer Products.
He told them of the plans, and arranged to purchase the rights to
86-DOS.  With 86-DOS in hand, Microsoft submitted it's proposal to IBM
in October 1980.  IBM signed in November 1980.

Work progressed in improving 86-DOS to fulfill the contract.  A
prototype machine was delivered from IBM to Microsoft at Thanksgiving
time in 1980.  The OS first ran on the prototype in February 1981.  In
August of 1981, IBM announced the first IBM PC, and MS-DOS 1.0 was
unleashed upon the world.

BTW, I've seen several comments about EDLIN being a Microsoft product.
Actually EDLIN was written by Tim Paterson for 86-DOS for his *own
personal use*.  If he had known how many people would come to use EDLIN,
I wonder what he would have done differently.  ;-)
--
Mark Galbraith                          Senior UNIX Engineer/Postmaster
PGP Key (E3468605) = 1C B9 74 81 AD 5C 57 09    69 0B AC 09 7F 65 D6 F6
"Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1773)

As I recall the story Microsoft bought DOS from Seattle Computer where
is was known as QDOS (Quick & Dirty Operating System) did a little
work on it & licensed it to IBM.  When IBM released the 1st rev or the
PC 3 OSs were offered; MS(IBM)-DOS, CPM/86 and PICK.

I'm pretty sure this is accurate.

Gary Handler


bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:

>Ric Messier <Ric.Messier@Valley.Net> wrote:

>>John Long wrote:

>>> Of course, their *real* "killer app" was MSDOS, for a major hardware
>>> introduction.
>>> 

>>I know this isn't strictly relevant to the discussion but it Microsoft 
>>just generally pisses me off because they have taken over the market 
>>with clearly inferior products. The worst thing is, that first 'killer 
>>app' wasn't even theirs. It belonged to Digital Research and Microsoft 
>>bought it out just in time to license it to IBM. Good marketing strategy 
>>but then what did they do with it?

>At the risk of continuing an off-topic thread I have to correct you.  MSDOS
>was not bought from DR by MS.  Bill Gates did buy it and the license it to
>IBM but it was not purchased from DR.  DR had their own competing product
>CP/M 86 but most of us who were around at that time remember that Gary was
>happier flying than talking to IBM :-(

>End of thread?

> *==[FREE-FAX GATEWAY INTO THE AUCKLAND NZ TOLL-FREE AREA]==*
> *   FREE listings in NZ's largest WWW Business Directory   *
> *          http://www.actrix.gen.nz/biz/faxmail/           *
> *==========================================================*



Gary Handler - gdh@pluto.skyweb.net

In article <1f7cc$1415.388@news.skyweb.net>,  <gdh@pluto.skyweb.net> wrote:
>As I recall the story Microsoft bought DOS from Seattle Computer where
>is was known as QDOS (Quick & Dirty Operating System) did a little
>work on it & licensed it to IBM.  When IBM released the 1st rev or the
>PC 3 OSs were offered; MS(IBM)-DOS, CPM/86 and PICK.
>
>I'm pretty sure this is accurate.

The 3rd OS was the UCSD p-System and there was also a 4th, XENIX, which 
was a Microsoft port of UNIX to the 8088.

At the time, we bought PC-DOS because it was the cheapest. As I remember 
it, the pricing on PC-DOS was just under $100 and CPM/86 was about $400.


-- 
Michael Dillon                                    Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc.                                 Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com                             E-mail: michael@memra.com