9 ms·

No mention of the PS/2 and Micro Channel Architecture? MCA was IBM's attempt to put the genie back in the bottle and redefine the PC back to being something the

No mention of the PS/2 and Micro Channel Architecture? MCA was IBM's attempt to put the genie back in the bottle and redefine the PC back to being something they wholly controlled, and it utterly failed. It also didn't help that they were late to the market with 386-based computers (Compaq having beaten them to the punch with the Deskpro 386) which already signaled they were losing their market leadership position that allowed them to define the PC platform. In response to MCA, the PC industry formed an independent consortium to define the EISA bus and later Intel itself eventually took over as the de facto standards originator for PCs by developing PCI, USB, ATX, ACPI, AC'97/HD Audio, (U)EFI, and a large part of the other foundational standards on which modern PCs are built.

CurtHagenlocher 5y ago
PS/2s were overpriced and underpowered, and people I knew told me that a surprisingly high percentage of them arrived DoA. That was basically the end of "no one ever got fired for buying IBM".
city41 5y ago
According to this video[1], Compaq's portable also bested IBM. It was Compaq's first product, and everyone thought IBM's upcoming portable would wipe them out, but they held strong and counted on IBM to have production problems, which they did, so Compaq held onto this segment. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEMhpInIACk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEMhpInIACk
- northwest65 5y ago
  So handy for pirating software at PCCUG meetings.
D13Fd 5y ago
They did talk in the article about how slow IBM was to adopt the 386.
- protomyth 5y ago
  Hard to adopt the 386 when they basically bought the whole supply of 286's.
- jussij 5y ago
  And that then helped to kill OS/2 only because it delayed the release of OS/2 2.0 as that version needed a 386 to run. OS/2 2.0 used features found in the 386 to greatly improve the MS-DOS experience. IBM instead kept pushing the OS/2 1.x versions all of which had very bad support for MS-DOS applications. That delay was a massive bonus for Microsoft as it gave them time to work on Windows 95, which used the same 386 CPU features to deliver similar improvements in running MS-DOS applications.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    What killed OS/2 was that Gordon Letwin at Microsoft figured out a couple lines of assembler to switch Windows into protected mode. Microsoft then stopped their joint work on OS/2. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin (I did similar work on Minix 1.0 back in the day to use protected mode.) OS/2 was dead after that except maybe in factory automation. (ie. Heinz had an automation project in the late 80's to use OS/2 for a ketchup plant.)
  - meepmorp 5y ago
    Yeah, but also remember that Windows NT started as the next version of OS/2 after MS and IBM stopped collaborating. The UI was basically the presentation manager from os/2 until 4.0, and MS provided OS/2 APIs in NT.
    - D13Fd 5y ago
      I think you may be misremembering. Windows NT 3.51 had a UI that generally mirrored Windows 3.1: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winnt351 https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winnt351
      - 5y ago
SavantIdiot 5y ago
That's like when Intel switched to SECC (single edge card connector) with Pentium2/Pentium3 and stuck it on an Atari(NES?)-like catridge: this was to thwart clones and outstanding cross-licensing with AMD. What a weird decision. I'm not even sure if it worked tactically because it only lasted until Pentium 4. Weird days.
- xattt 5y ago
  The side connector lasted until Socket 370 in the Pentium III product cycle. The new socket took Pentium III chips that had integrated L2 cache (versus earlier PIIIs which had cache on an external chip). Pentium 4 never had a side connector model, but did have a “socket shrink” in the transition from Willamette (0.18 u) to Northwood (0.13 u) cores. Socket 478 was kept until the Prescott cores (0.09 u). The Prescott cores were also offered with an LGA 775 socket later.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Wow. Transistor sizes measured in um instead of nm. That takes me back...
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    Yup, that's why I said "until Pentium4". P6.0/P6S actually introduced multi-die packages at Intel, not the SECC. Well, actually that's not true either, because I worked on Sidewinder: a 486 that fit in a 386 socket with an ASIC on the top of the package that matched the busses. So it was technically "multi-die".
- meepmorp 5y ago
  Slot 1, or slot 2 for Xeons. AMD had slot A for a hot second in the early Athlon days, before they went back to a PGA. It's weird, yeah, but is it worse than aligning an expensive bunch of easily bent metal pins into a grid of small holes?
  - timw4mail 5y ago
    In terms of usable data/electrical connections, the slot is worse. This could mean you have to use multiple clock cycles to send the same data, due to fewer direct connections.
aurizon 5y ago
Yes, I recall the MCA, it was born a dead horse and never run a furlong. I recall all the companies who went through the lengthy MCA add-in card signup process - that took a year or more to be granted, whereupon they fielded cards that never sold. I recall the surplus tables at the Dayton hamfest being piled high with MCA detritus - cards that were eventually scrapped for gold. IBM tried mightily to force this dead interface, few bought the idea and made boxes - few sold. They were dead before they sold one. The supposed superior MCA bus, was soon humbled by a string of faster and better busses. There were a few old fogies who clung to big blue - I see them from time to time wandering in the wilderness...
- flyinghamster 5y ago
  I remember NCR making a few Micro Channel machines during its short not-quite-heyday. I always thought the idea of putting card configurations onto floppy disks was downright stupid. I wondered what the EISA crowd was thinking when they adopted that for EISA systems.
  - aurizon 5y ago
    Yes, Eisa, Vesa and MCA whose sun rose and set so rapidly. I had EISA and VESA bus boxes, but soon left them. I had 7 build your own box retail ops in the 80's, so it came in and went out, and as soon as it faded I stopped buying. Never bought MCA - terrible sticker shock, my student base would not go for it. I think that IBM ran with floppy config and EISA followed like a puppy dog and it died a quick death.
davidwtbuxton 5y ago
Relevant Computer Chronicles episode from 1988: BUS wars https://youtu.be/aYt4ZPxVkSs https://youtu.be/aYt4ZPxVkSs IBM engineer responding to the accusation that MCA is proprietary (around 14' 15"): "I really don't understand the term proprietary. To me that would mean that it's not available [snip] and it's available for use by anyone."

CurtHagenlocher 5y ago

PS/2s were overpriced and underpowered, and people I knew told me that a surprisingly high percentage of them arrived DoA. That was basically the end of "no one ever got fired for buying IBM".

city41 5y ago

According to this video[1], Compaq's portable also bested IBM. It was Compaq's first product, and everyone thought IBM's upcoming portable would wipe them out, but they held strong and counted on IBM to have production problems, which they did, so Compaq held onto this segment. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEMhpInIACk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEMhpInIACk

northwest65 5y ago
So handy for pirating software at PCCUG meetings.

D13Fd 5y ago

They did talk in the article about how slow IBM was to adopt the 386.

protomyth 5y ago
Hard to adopt the 386 when they basically bought the whole supply of 286's.
jussij 5y ago
And that then helped to kill OS/2 only because it delayed the release of OS/2 2.0 as that version needed a 386 to run. OS/2 2.0 used features found in the 386 to greatly improve the MS-DOS experience. IBM instead kept pushing the OS/2 1.x versions all of which had very bad support for MS-DOS applications. That delay was a massive bonus for Microsoft as it gave them time to work on Windows 95, which used the same 386 CPU features to deliver similar improvements in running MS-DOS applications.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  What killed OS/2 was that Gordon Letwin at Microsoft figured out a couple lines of assembler to switch Windows into protected mode. Microsoft then stopped their joint work on OS/2. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin (I did similar work on Minix 1.0 back in the day to use protected mode.) OS/2 was dead after that except maybe in factory automation. (ie. Heinz had an automation project in the late 80's to use OS/2 for a ketchup plant.)
- meepmorp 5y ago
  Yeah, but also remember that Windows NT started as the next version of OS/2 after MS and IBM stopped collaborating. The UI was basically the presentation manager from os/2 until 4.0, and MS provided OS/2 APIs in NT.
  - D13Fd 5y ago
    I think you may be misremembering. Windows NT 3.51 had a UI that generally mirrored Windows 3.1: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winnt351 https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winnt351
    - 5y ago

SavantIdiot 5y ago

That's like when Intel switched to SECC (single edge card connector) with Pentium2/Pentium3 and stuck it on an Atari(NES?)-like catridge: this was to thwart clones and outstanding cross-licensing with AMD. What a weird decision. I'm not even sure if it worked tactically because it only lasted until Pentium 4. Weird days.

xattt 5y ago
The side connector lasted until Socket 370 in the Pentium III product cycle. The new socket took Pentium III chips that had integrated L2 cache (versus earlier PIIIs which had cache on an external chip). Pentium 4 never had a side connector model, but did have a “socket shrink” in the transition from Willamette (0.18 u) to Northwood (0.13 u) cores. Socket 478 was kept until the Prescott cores (0.09 u). The Prescott cores were also offered with an LGA 775 socket later.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Wow. Transistor sizes measured in um instead of nm. That takes me back...
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  Yup, that's why I said "until Pentium4". P6.0/P6S actually introduced multi-die packages at Intel, not the SECC. Well, actually that's not true either, because I worked on Sidewinder: a 486 that fit in a 386 socket with an ASIC on the top of the package that matched the busses. So it was technically "multi-die".
meepmorp 5y ago
Slot 1, or slot 2 for Xeons. AMD had slot A for a hot second in the early Athlon days, before they went back to a PGA. It's weird, yeah, but is it worse than aligning an expensive bunch of easily bent metal pins into a grid of small holes?
- timw4mail 5y ago
  In terms of usable data/electrical connections, the slot is worse. This could mean you have to use multiple clock cycles to send the same data, due to fewer direct connections.

aurizon 5y ago

Yes, I recall the MCA, it was born a dead horse and never run a furlong. I recall all the companies who went through the lengthy MCA add-in card signup process - that took a year or more to be granted, whereupon they fielded cards that never sold. I recall the surplus tables at the Dayton hamfest being piled high with MCA detritus - cards that were eventually scrapped for gold. IBM tried mightily to force this dead interface, few bought the idea and made boxes - few sold. They were dead before they sold one. The supposed superior MCA bus, was soon humbled by a string of faster and better busses. There were a few old fogies who clung to big blue - I see them from time to time wandering in the wilderness...

flyinghamster 5y ago
I remember NCR making a few Micro Channel machines during its short not-quite-heyday. I always thought the idea of putting card configurations onto floppy disks was downright stupid. I wondered what the EISA crowd was thinking when they adopted that for EISA systems.
- aurizon 5y ago
  Yes, Eisa, Vesa and MCA whose sun rose and set so rapidly. I had EISA and VESA bus boxes, but soon left them. I had 7 build your own box retail ops in the 80's, so it came in and went out, and as soon as it faded I stopped buying. Never bought MCA - terrible sticker shock, my student base would not go for it. I think that IBM ran with floppy config and EISA followed like a puppy dog and it died a quick death.

davidwtbuxton 5y ago

Relevant Computer Chronicles episode from 1988: BUS wars https://youtu.be/aYt4ZPxVkSs https://youtu.be/aYt4ZPxVkSs IBM engineer responding to the accusation that MCA is proprietary (around 14' 15"): "I really don't understand the term proprietary. To me that would mean that it's not available [snip] and it's available for use by anyone."