3 ms·

Compaq, on the other hand, was the first “PC clone” company. It’s a term that sounds rather quaint today. At the time, though, Compaq sent a shudder through the

Compaq, on the other hand, was the first “PC clone” company. It’s a term that sounds rather quaint today. At the time, though, Compaq sent a shudder through the industry. Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS without ever looking at the BIOS code. That was harder than you might think, because IBM actually published the assembly code for the PC BIOS in its technical reference manuals. Compaq was able to prove that its engineers never looked at the code or disassembled the original BIOS to come up with their own. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/57702-hewlettpackard-compaq-a-trip-down-memory-lane http://www.extremetech.com/computing/57702-hewlettpackard-co...

Sharlin 10y ago
So the code was available but certainly not permitted to be used in a competing product without licensing. The BIOS had to be clean-room reverse engineered to legally build PC clones. If anything, the availability of the code made things more difficult for Compaq!
- carussell 10y ago
  Sure, but the conversation is wandering now. The original comment wasn't about Compaq. (It didn't even mention it.) It was about the IBM PC and whether IBM "schematics and BIOS source code". Which they did. And regarding the burden that IBM's choice strained Compaq with, in the overall impact on the industry, any difficulty was by far offset by the benefits. If we're going to focus on BIOSes, for example, the fact that the source code was available certainly helped Phoenix.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    It is not wandering. All computers on those days had such manuals and extension slots. Had Compaq not done a clean room reverse engineering, everyone would have to license from IBM just like in other computer systems and the PC market would never have blossomed as it did. In fact we are just going back to those days in what concerns selling packaged hardware and software as one single product.
    - carussell 10y ago
      Geez, can we not do this? Original commenter mentioned IBM's publication of its source code and schematics. You spoke up to dispute that it happened. You took action. As if to call them out and say, "Hey, just as a point of fact, that isn't true". But as a point of fact, it is true. If you have some commentary that focuses on some other market/industry forces that you think were more salient, then fine, let's have that conversation. But don't dispute facts and then try to rewrite the record as if that's not what you did. This is text. We have the conversation on record, you know.

Sharlin 10y ago

So the code was available but certainly not permitted to be used in a competing product without licensing. The BIOS had to be clean-room reverse engineered to legally build PC clones. If anything, the availability of the code made things more difficult for Compaq!

carussell 10y ago
Sure, but the conversation is wandering now. The original comment wasn't about Compaq. (It didn't even mention it.) It was about the IBM PC and whether IBM "schematics and BIOS source code". Which they did. And regarding the burden that IBM's choice strained Compaq with, in the overall impact on the industry, any difficulty was by far offset by the benefits. If we're going to focus on BIOSes, for example, the fact that the source code was available certainly helped Phoenix.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  It is not wandering. All computers on those days had such manuals and extension slots. Had Compaq not done a clean room reverse engineering, everyone would have to license from IBM just like in other computer systems and the PC market would never have blossomed as it did. In fact we are just going back to those days in what concerns selling packaged hardware and software as one single product.
  - carussell 10y ago
    Geez, can we not do this? Original commenter mentioned IBM's publication of its source code and schematics. You spoke up to dispute that it happened. You took action. As if to call them out and say, "Hey, just as a point of fact, that isn't true". But as a point of fact, it is true. If you have some commentary that focuses on some other market/industry forces that you think were more salient, then fine, let's have that conversation. But don't dispute facts and then try to rewrite the record as if that's not what you did. This is text. We have the conversation on record, you know.