> The canonical example here is the personal computer (PC). The first PCs were worse computers than every existing machine. They had less memory, less storage,

> The canonical example here is the personal computer (PC). The first PCs were worse computers than every existing machine. They had less memory, less storage, slower CPUs, less software, couldn’t multitask, etc. But they were better at one dimension: they were cheap. And for those people who didn’t have a computer at all that mattered a great deal. It is exactly this odd combination that made existing computer manufacturers (making mainframes down to mini computers) ignore the PC. Wow. There are so many factual errors in these sentences that I’m not even sure where to start. I’ll start by giving the author the benefit of doubt and assume that by „personal computer” they meant the IBM PC (1981) and its family. (Otherwise we’d have to assume that they completely ignore the existence of pre-PC home computers, many of which were both less powerful and significantly cheaper.) It’s also not true that the PC was unable to multitask (remember Concurrent CP/M-86?) First, note that IBM, at the time of introducing the PC, was – and continued to be, well into the 21st century – _the_ major purveyor of mainframes. So saying that they „ignored the PC” implies that they ignored themselves, which doesn’t make sense. Second, the initial PCs were just not powerful enough to compete with mainframes or minicomputers. The sets of usecases of „big” computers vs. PCs were almost completely disjoint until perhaps the 1990s. There were reasons why the PC exploded in popularity in the 1980s (open architecture being the #1 reason), but the author is silent about that. I know this is tangential, but I see a lot of handwaving in this post and, frankly, not much else. Why should I listen to someone who can’t get their facts straight? Why bother, indeed?