Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?

For each copy of MS-DOS, yes. They didn't get royalties for each copy of IBM-DOS that IBM distributed.

Notice the different letters, "MS-DOS" and "IBM-DOS", that indicates they're separate products, with separate licensing terms.

--
Sorry, she meant to say "stripped naked and thrown out an airlock",
I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
 -- John Sheridan, B5

plenty

The sarcasm is unnecessary as I think I can tell the difference. IIRC it was called PC-DOS and not IBM-DOS. At any rate, I don't care whether they got royalties or not, I just want to see some proof that IBM only paid them $80,000 for the whole shebang.

Hmm... you mean Delphi as in visual programming? Gee I thought DBLEXPOSURE was referring to D4 as in Dimension 4 by Rob Chambers

Was I mistaken?

______________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within Word 2000

Appreciate why the IBM PC had a successful marketing plan AND why IBM corporate philosphy repeatedly attacked and undermined that game plan. The Estridge plan was superb. For example, Estridge would have sold IBM PCs with a solution to the kludge "Real / Protected mode" problem found in Intel's

80286s. It would have kept the clones in a game of catchup. He adocated innovation to stay ahead of any competition. But when the corporate MBAs discovered a kludge solution around that "Real / Protected mode" problem using the keyboard's single chip computer (yes, the keyboard was a complete and separate computer), then IBM again lost oppurtunity to dominate the PC market. Those with basic computer hardware knowledge understand this completely.

Estridge's game plan also included clones. A successful and dominant player in any industry wants clone competitors. Clones are essential to a productive #1 in any industry. But bean counters in IBM corporate management promoted Cannavino to run the PC Entry Division. Cannavino did everything to stifle clones - and therefore also stifled all innovation in IBM's personal computer division.

As BillW50 accurately notes, IBM created the obsolete technology OS/2 using Cannavino's MBA school philosophy of "what is good for IBM is good for all computer users". This is not even debateable because it is so obvious and so well documented in history - including a PBS report.

What so many never learned is why IBM's personal computer business model changed. Someone with dirt under his finger nails was replaced by someone who ran business as taught in the business schools. A devil is named Cannavino - who was as satanic as his boss John Akers.

The Estridge business model became a precursor to how free market, innovative, and therefore patriotic American industries operate today. But when top management does not even know how to use a comptuer and is trained in business school philosophies, then we have a classic example of the man most responsible for IBM's loss in the personal computer industry. Jim Cannavino - a man who routinely stifled innovation promoted a mythical belief that profits were more important.

Let's not lose sight of why this discussi> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:25:47 -0400

"Anthony Fremont" wrote in message news:dxb9f.36934$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.texas.rr.com... Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:10:17 GMT

Well okay, you have me there.

Bob Cringely produced "Triumph of the Nerds" for PBS back in '96. It was truly a great documentary. Cast of characters included were:

Robert X. Cringely...Himself (host/interviewer) Douglas Adams...Himself (author) Sam Albert...Himself (former IBM executive) Paul Allen...Himself (co-founder, Microsoft) Bill Atkinson...Himself (designer, Macintosh Development Team) Steve Ballmer...Himself (vice-president, Microsoft) Dan Bricklin...Himself (VisiCalc inventor) David Bunnell...Himself (founder, PC World and Macworld magazines) Rod Canion...Himself (co-founder, Compaq) Jim Cannavino...Himself (former head, PC division, IBM) Christine Comaford...Herself (CEO, Corporate Computing International) Eddy Curry...Himself Esther Dyson...Herself (computer industry analyst) Larry Ellison...Himself (founder and president, Oracle) Chris Espinosa...Himself (manager, Media Tools, Apple) Gordon Eubanks...Himself (former head of language research, Digital Research) Lee Felsenstein...Himself Bob Frankston...Himself (VisiCalc programmer) Bill Gates...Himself (co-founder, Microsoft) Adele Goldberg...Herself (former Xerox PARC researcher; founder, PARC Place Systems) Marv Goldschmitt...Himself Andy Hertzfeld...Himself (designer, Macintosh Development Team) Steve Jobs...Himself (co-founder, Apple Computer) Gary Kildall...Himself (founder, Digital Research) Joe Krause...Himself (president, Architext Software) Bill Lowe...Himself (Head, IBM PC Development Team 1980) Roger Melen...Himself Bob Metcalfe...Himself (former Xerox PARC researcher; founder, 3Com) Gordon Moore...Himself (co-founder, Intel) Dana Muise...Himself (founder, Hypnovista) Doug Muise...Himself (software designer) Bill Murto...Himself (co-founder, Compaq) Tim Patterson...Himself (programmer) Vern Raburn...Himself (former vice-president, Microsoft; president, The Paul Allen Group) Jeff Raikes...Himself (vice-president, Microsoft) Jean Richardson...Herself (former VP, corporate communications, Microsoft) Ed Roberts...Himself (founder, MITS) Arthur Rock...Himself (venture capitalist) Jack Sams...Himself (former IBM executive) John Sculley...Himself (president, Apple Computer, 1983-1993) Rich Seidner...Himself (former IBM programmer) Charles Simonyi...Himself (chief programmer, Microsoft) Sparky Sparks...Himself (former IBM executive) Claude Stern...Himself (Silicon Valley attorney) Bob Taylor...Himself (former head of computer science lab, Xerox PARC) Larry Tesler...Himself (former Xerox PARC researcher; chief scientist, Apple Computer) Mark Van Haren...Himself (programmer, Architext Software) John Warnock...Himself Jim Warren...Himself (founder, West Coast Computer Faire 1978) Steve Wozniak...Himself (co-founder, Apple Computer)

You can find the transcript at:

The quote of $80,000 is in Part 2:

Bill Gates: "The key to our...the structure of our deal was that IBM had no control over...over our licensing to other people. In a lesson on the computer industry in mainframes was that er, over time, people built compatible machines or clones, whatever term you want to use, and so really, the primary upside on the deal we had with IBM, because they had a fixed fee er, we got about $80,000 - we got some other money for some special work we did er, but no royalty from them. And that's the DOS and Basic as well. And so we were hoping a lot of other people would come along and do compatible machines. We were expecting that that would happen because we knew Intel wanted to vend the chip to a lot more than just than just IBM and so it was great when people did start showing up and ehm having an interest in the licence."

Well I don't know if I would say that about pot head Kildall? Getting into bar room fights and all.

Yes MS did make money from the clone market. But there was no clone market when Gates and IBM made the deal.

That battle cost both Apple and MS lots of money and nobody won. And then Apple needed money and MS bailed them out. Go figure.

Yeah well nobody put a gun to their heads to sign any agreements either. And companies do this all of the time and I don't like these agreements either. For example Coke gets stores, restaurants, etc. to sell only their brand. So you can't throw stones at just Microsoft.

I don't know? Redhat?

No you got it close enough. But lots of folks just purchased and supported CP/M. But one day Gary said we are not doing CP/M anymore because we lost interest. That wasn't right! Take their money and then refuse support. I'm sure that was totally illegal.

Because when I added it all up and all the other companies who had taken my money and then dropped support. Microsoft turned out to be the cheapest bang for the buck. And it still is true today IMHO.

No... not really. But what I'm saying that Microsoft was cheaper. So you can't ask for big bucks with competition.

Well I was building my own PCs from scratch as a side hobby (as being an EE). Although I never thought about selling the damn things. But when others were mass producing them, I started buying them instead of building my own.

Well I know there was virtually nothing about it on the net. So I had taken a peek and I found this (forgive the long and broken link you will have to piece together).

Yes the VTAS computer was so great, they used it for military purposes too like in the F4.

You're right there.

Isn't that like saying Apple does okay against the IBM clones?

__________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

for

the

stable

unstable

system.

fixed.

development

working

OS/2.

sucking

didn't

paid

IBM

get

well

with

Microsoft

see

royalty

proof.

I saw this once, I wish I had it recorded.

Research)

Place Systems)

The Paul Allen Group)

Microsoft)

I can't help but think of "the incredible liar" from Saturday Night Live fame. Yeah, that's the ticket. ;-) $80,000 still seems a bit low to me as they would have had more than that invested themselves. But I will concede that you actually did back up your statement, even though I don't believe Bill for a minute. ;-) I certainly will never believe that DOS 2 and DOS 3 were included in that $80K.

gets

great

to

Oh come on now, are you suggesting that those geeky kids, flying a jolly roger over their corporate headquarters weren't toking it up a bit, are you?

I don't recall seeing his mugshot anywhere. Sure can't say the same for B.G. though, huh? ;-) No nasty anti-trust suits either.

which

the

all

of

nickel

off,

plenty

M$ was so late with DOS 1.0 that the clone market was probably already booming in Korea. Remeber those days? The Peach computer?(an apparently perfect Apple II clone) If it hadn't been for Compaq and The Compatible, the clone market wouldn't have done so well so quickly.

NOTHING!

stealing

place.

didn't

for

Sure we all won. Look and feel is freely copyable, it's the only piece of sanity left in the trademark/copyright/patent/ip scandal that's taking place these days.

along. So

they

on

third

did

Except that to survive as an OEM you need to not piss of M$, it's that simple. Even after the courts ruled that OEMs couldn't force you to buy an OS with hardware, many of the smaller OEMs continued to do it out of fear of retribution.

so.

I'll give you that. ;-) I do the Gentoo thing myself. I guess I've been tinkering with Linux for a little over ten years now, wow time sure flys when you're having fun. My favorite computer toys are microcontrollers though.

the

why

had

about

until he

creep to

PC,

I

Illegal? It seems to work well for M$ and most other vendors out there today. Read your EULA, software is never guaranteed to be fit for "any particular purpose". ;-D

other

burned

their

But the extent of "support" is to provide some security fixes, but not too many bug fixes. You have to upgrade for that. How about all those poor people that bought 3.0 and then had to turn around and pay for 3.1? Or the really unfortunate people that bought ME?

had

to

efforts

Well it certainly proves the old adage about getting what you pay for.

playing

which

get my

I 80's.

I was too young and poor to play with the 8080 stuff. Stuff like my ELF was all I could afford to build back then. I could only dream about building an Altair or an Imsai.

the

can't

Ah the infamous mud shark, proof that with a big enough engine, even a brick can fly. ;-)

than

be

any

and

Kildall needed a cut throat business man to be really successful. Gates and Allen, Jobs and Wozniak, it's how it works. Interestingly enough, it's not who has the best techy stuff that wins. It's he who can tell the biggest lies, cut the most throats and stab more backs that usually comes out on top.

when

IBM completely killed of Honeywell and Burroughs with good marketing skills, not better hardware. The competition lay in salesmanship and brainwashing, not making better stuff or even trying to be cost competitive.

butt

in

many

Torvalds

I think the key is that it wasn't JUST $80K... It was $80K, plus Microsoft got unlimited distribution rights of their own.

In other words, Microsoft got somebody else to pay the development costs of a product that Microsoft was now selling.

--
Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.

No, "in other words" Microsoft had the insight to retain distribution rights on non-IBM products and IBM didn't mind one whit because they didn't take the PC market seriously to begin with. Besides, it was a 'steal' at $80,000 and who gives a dam about 'clones'?

Microsoft has the same kind of arrangement with Apple and they didn't care either because both Apple and IBM figured on a 'system' sales model of hardware and software. IBM expected their 'business machines' reputation to swamp all other considerations and Apple depended on closed hardware.

On the other hand, Microsoft decided to be simply a supplier of software that ran on any clone.

In fact, the 'Windows' GUI was originally developed as a means to run Microsoft's 'Apple' business software, like Word, on PC clones and that is not a trivial distinction. While IBM was trying to sell an 'O.S.', because you 'have to' in order to sell hardware, Microsoft was selling Word (and the rest), which happened to run on Windows. It's the applications that sold the O.S., not the O.S. by itself.

Just like Intel--their first microprocessor was developed for a calculator, but the calculator company (Busicom) decided to drop it and signed over all rights to Intel. And if these things had not happened, we might not have microprocessors or PC operating systems or even PCs today. So be glad.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

A wise decision. Build an essential component, then encourage the market to do the rest. If Apple had adopted the same philosophy, there might be 50% Macs and 50% PCs today, instead of 4% Macs and 96% PCs.

Yes. A simple difference but one that earns billions.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dang! THAT'S why the air was all swirly and sparkly when I opened the cover... stuck in the TIme Warp!

Seriously, in case you haven't been paying attention for the last several decades, magazines do this so that the ones sold off the newsstand appear to be current, and thus easier to sell, well past the actual printing date. Not too interesting any more!

Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis

Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator

Well, write some applications for operating systems other than Microsoft, and help the cause.

Remember, Microsoft is really only dominant for operating systems and its Office suite of products. In other domains, someone else is dominant. Office and operating systems won't keep Microsoft is business forever.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Microsoft Word existed and was sold long before Windows 1.0 was on the market.

--
        If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
           my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Imagine life without an ATM, or online access to banking? Without OS/2, those things would only now be coming of age. Better yet, imagine an ATM running Win95? they are crashing all over the place now that banks are upgrading to M$. That never happened before, and it will only get worse. The kiosks for printing digital pics in K-Mart, etc are littered with blue screens, and even some sit stupidly with the start menu desktop :-) Its pathetic, but that is what American wants, so that is what America gets.

Hmmmm. IBM still has not fully dropped support for OS/2. After all, it is ten years old, soon to be obsolete, yes, but go and ask M$ for support on Win2000, and then ask yourself why you get upset when IBM turns off OS/2.

Again, the lack of knowledge by the newbie generation that thinks M$ invented computers....... M$ BOUGHT the rights to those portions of the code, or took them with them when they left IBM, just as they have BOUGHT everything else that makes up their products. Someone name one decent piece of software that M$ CREATED from scratch. How about Bob? Michael Jackson owns almost all the Beatles music, but you don't go around saying he wrote them all, do you?

For those who were not even alive at the time, a lot happened between IBM and billy bob that explains all these things.

The war is over, but M$ didn't win with superior technology. The fact that there are more Fords on the American roads, than BMWs, is not a statement that Ford is a superior product. Its a commentary on cheap, and public relations, which is okay, so don't get torqued about it. People want Fords, so they get Fords, but that doesn't make them technically superior to a BMW or other high end, quality car.

People wanted M$ windows, so they got it. Its okay, there are no hard feelings, but the number of sales does not equate the quality of the product in any area of business. Ask Walmart about that.

Those who couldn't figure out how to use OS/2 because is was "too hard" simply turned to an OS that does their thinking for them, and they got what they deserved. That's fine. Nothing to get one's panties in a bunch over. Most things worth using or having require the owner to be above average in intelligence anyway.

Its really okay. Windows sucks. It always has. It always will. Not a big deal, but those who do not know history ought to study it, and learn it, rather than just rewriting it to fit their agenda.

What do you mean Jeff? There are tons of choices out there. Like Mac, BeOS, UNIX, Linux, XWindows, FreeDOS, GEOS, GEM, OS/2, DEC, etc. How many more choices would you like?

__________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

My point is precisely the opposite. That it isn't a matter of 'who you hate more' but rather a matter of different visions of the market and different business strategies, not to mention different 'businesses'. Microsoft wasn't in the 'hardware' business and IBM was into software primarily to sell hardware, or 'systems'.

Not really surprising since it was the same thing IBM had done for decades with what they might have called, by comparison, 'a real computer' and selling (proprietary) 'hardware' was big business prior to the PC. You'd buy "an IBM " or "a Burroughs " or a DEC PDP" and they each had their own proprietary operating systems, which they'd really rather not have to mess with but you need one to sell 'the computer'. So who gives a tinker's dam if you let an O.S. developer 'sell to others'? It runs on 'an IBM', and a specific model at that, so they have to buy 'an IBM', which is what they wanted to sell anyway.

Microsoft had the vision of running the same software on anyone's 'PC clone' and while it may seem obvious today it was anything but obvious in

1980 as the 'home computer' world was a hodge podge of individual hardware types each running their own O.S. (of a sorts) just like the mainframe world was. Commodore stuff didn't run on an Apple and Apple stuff didn't run on an Atari, and Atari stuff didn't run on a CPM machine (CPM being the closest to a 'multiple hardware supplier' O.S.). Point being that 'retaining the rights' to sell Atari DOS on non-Atari computers would have gotten you exactly nothing as it didn't run on anything else and nobody but Atari made Atari computers.

IBM was right in that their 'PC', by virtue of the IBM name and reputation (who knows about Atari but IBM is here to stay), put just about every other 'home computer' type out of business but, somehow, they missed the fact that their 'PC', the design for which they had purchased anyway, wasn't proprietary. It was freely copyable, and copied it was, so you didn't 'have to' buy 'an IBM' to get a 'PC'. IBM later tried to 'fix' that mistake with the proprietary PS/2 MCA bus but it was too late. They were hoisted on their own petard of an 'IBM (clone) Standard' and roasted alive for trying to close it.

Nobody held a gun to either Microsoft or IBM's head nor was Microsoft anything 'special' at the time. They weren't an 'industry leader' in anything nor did they have some 'special' wonder DOS, or even a proven one, to hold over IBM's head in order to 'force' a deal. IBM simply figured they had a steal at only $80,000 for a DOS to sell 'PCs' with, just like buying the hardware design had been a cheap, quick and dirty, way to get into the questionable 'home computer' market.

Microsoft made very little on the deal gambling, instead, on future sales of software to a then nonexistent clone market where they could have ended up with the equivalent of a 'right to sell to others' an Atari DOS that only runs on Ataris made by Atari.

It's simply a matter that Microsoft had the vision to see it (what's to loose when you have nothing?) and IBM didn't.

Never could have happened. Apple is too obsessed with everything being 'their way' to live with someone else's perceived design flaws.

What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a handful of boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation', no history of development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else in the field, somehow 'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old IBM.

What in the world do these folks think MS used to 'force' IBM into the deal?

There are a lot of operating systems that could be used for ATMs, not just OS/2. Windows NT Workstation was/is popular for ATMs. I don't know what they favor today.

ATMs don't run Windows 95. They started switching from OS/2 to Windows NT Workstation ages ago, and I don't know what they are running most often today, but it's not Windows 95.

Besides, in a dedicated system, crashes are rare. You only need to run one application, all day long, and it's not that hard to get it to run without ever crashing.

I've never seen an ATM crash. Nor have I ever heard of ATMs running Windows 95. And there is certainly no one migrating to Windows 95 _now_--it's a dead operating system.

How about Windows NT?

For those who were not even alive at the time, Microsoft was a couple of guys practically working out of a garage in those days, and people like you were saying exactly the same things about IBM that you are saying today about Microsoft.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Microsoft won by being smarter than IBM. They certainly didn't do it with money or influence or power, since they had none of these back then.

Nobody cares.

It seems to really upset you.

That's debatable.

I was actually there, so I don't have to study it, and Microsoft was not big and bad back then. IBM was the usual target of the angry young males, followed by Apple. To some extent it depended on which company had rejected their résumés first.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.