🚀 go-pugleaf

in article <8912020815.AB27991@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, AMEIJ@vax.oxford.ac.UK (Jan Ameij) says:

> Anyone notice the collossal damage done to IBM by the availability of MS-DOS?

It really works both ways.  That MS-DOS was available to anyone, and IBM PCs were
real easy to clone, the IBM PC underwent a magic transformation that changed
"proprietary" to "industry standard".  So, at least for awhile, IBM could pawn
off any pile of dross as the latest technology, and get away with it.  Then
they started to lose market share to the cloners, and had to start getting real.
This started happening shortly after they introduced the PC-AT.  And it's
still going on.  Sure, IBM managed to assure that the PC would be necessary and
not obselete for some time to come, despite how bad it was all done.  However,
they also managed to lose control.  IBM is no longer necessary for the success
of the PC, they continue to lose market share, and they're having to sell you
something that goes faster for less money than they were.  That's good for the
consumer, as is most competition, but it's not so great for IBM.  It's hard to
say what would have happened if IBM were as closed as Apple (software wise of
course -- the Mac is even easier to clone in hardware than the PC, as
witnessed by things like Spectre or AMAX).  Certainly there never would have
been a Compaq, Tandy might have continued souping up TRaSh-80s, and there
might have been even more proprietary systems.  Or maybe all the "other guys"
would have settled on something superior to MS-DOS long ago.  In any case,
the effect on IBM isn't as clear cut as it might seem.

> Love, Jan
-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
                    Too much of everything is just enough