6 ms·

On the value of limiting yourself to standards: ...which was why the idea of 100 percent IBM compatibility took so long to be accepted. "Why be compatible when

On the value of limiting yourself to standards: ...which was why the idea of 100 percent IBM compatibility took so long to be accepted. "Why be compatible when you could be better?" the smart guys asked on their way to bankruptcy court. It sounds a bit like a jab at Apple (or maybe even NeXT, which I believe was struggling in 1992 with its hardware releases). AFAIK neither company ever went bankrupt. Or was it referring to the crop of other personal computing platforms from the late 70s/early 80s? (Vic20/C64, TRS-80, Sinclair, Heathkit, etc.) Or something else? Big SGI workstations, etc.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
simonh 8y ago
There were tons of almost-PC-compatible manufacturers back then, selling their proprietary very slightly better, but incompatible systems. They'd have a slightly faster but incompatible bus system, slightly higher capacity floppy disks with a custom format, a proprietary interface that was quicker but only worked with their own printers, a higher resolution display or with more colours but which required special software to take advantage of it. The Unix workstation market that NeXT, Sun and SGI competed in was a bit different and didn't really overlap much with the PC market.
- ytjohn 8y ago
  I remember buying an LS-120 drive. To be fair, the drive was backwards compatible with 720/1.44MB floppies. But the 120MB 3.5 floppy could only be used in another LS-120 drive, oh which, I was the only one in my area with one. As the point of the floppies was to allow me to take my work with me, the larger disk capacity became essentially useless (except as a general backup). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDisk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDisk
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Many included "better" features that depended on a somehow non-compatible BIOS. Quite a few of those had dual modes so you could get PC compatible but slower or worse, or incompatible but better. They eventually died out. One company I remember that was pretty successful for a while were Apricot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_PC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_PC
einr 8y ago
It's referring to 8088/8086 machines that ran MS-DOS but were not 100% IBM PC compatible. Stuff like the Amstrad PC 1512 (an 8086 machine with proprietary graphics) and the DEC Rainbow 100 (a very expensive and versatile dual-CPU machine that could run both MS-DOS and CP/M)
- peteri 8y ago
  The PC1512 was very IBM compatible except for stuff that reprogrammed the 6845 into odd modes (IIRC) it had an odd 16 colour CGA mode that was available. The only other issues I can remember I think is the PSU was in the monitor so video connectors were odd and the keyboard/mouse were Amstrad custom designs so you couldn't swap with a regular PC or clone. I worked at Borland in the UK at the time and I don't remember any real issues. The other major vendor in the UK was Apricot which started out rebadging Victor machines and had a similar level of compatibility to the DEC rainbow (I think it used an 80186 as the CPU)
bonestamp2 8y ago
Yes, probably a jab at Apple... although funny how the tides have turned (and likely the reason for this pull quote).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

simonh 8y ago

There were tons of almost-PC-compatible manufacturers back then, selling their proprietary very slightly better, but incompatible systems. They'd have a slightly faster but incompatible bus system, slightly higher capacity floppy disks with a custom format, a proprietary interface that was quicker but only worked with their own printers, a higher resolution display or with more colours but which required special software to take advantage of it. The Unix workstation market that NeXT, Sun and SGI competed in was a bit different and didn't really overlap much with the PC market.

ytjohn 8y ago
I remember buying an LS-120 drive. To be fair, the drive was backwards compatible with 720/1.44MB floppies. But the 120MB 3.5 floppy could only be used in another LS-120 drive, oh which, I was the only one in my area with one. As the point of the floppies was to allow me to take my work with me, the larger disk capacity became essentially useless (except as a general backup). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDisk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDisk
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Many included "better" features that depended on a somehow non-compatible BIOS. Quite a few of those had dual modes so you could get PC compatible but slower or worse, or incompatible but better. They eventually died out. One company I remember that was pretty successful for a while were Apricot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_PC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_PC

einr 8y ago

It's referring to 8088/8086 machines that ran MS-DOS but were not 100% IBM PC compatible. Stuff like the Amstrad PC 1512 (an 8086 machine with proprietary graphics) and the DEC Rainbow 100 (a very expensive and versatile dual-CPU machine that could run both MS-DOS and CP/M)

peteri 8y ago
The PC1512 was very IBM compatible except for stuff that reprogrammed the 6845 into odd modes (IIRC) it had an odd 16 colour CGA mode that was available. The only other issues I can remember I think is the PSU was in the monitor so video connectors were odd and the keyboard/mouse were Amstrad custom designs so you couldn't swap with a regular PC or clone. I worked at Borland in the UK at the time and I don't remember any real issues. The other major vendor in the UK was Apricot which started out rebadging Victor machines and had a similar level of compatibility to the DEC rainbow (I think it used an 80186 as the CPU)

bonestamp2 8y ago

Yes, probably a jab at Apple... although funny how the tides have turned (and likely the reason for this pull quote).