3 ms·

For most people the opposite was true. They couldn't write a large fast program on a PC because they couldn't afford to buy one. The "genius" of IBM was to rei

For most people the opposite was true. They couldn't write a large fast program on a PC because they couldn't afford to buy one. The "genius" of IBM was to reinvent an updated version of S-100, stick an IBM badge and a "business" price tag on a backward and underspecified machine, and spend millions on marketing. 16-bit hardware and operating systems were already available in the S-100 space. Between them IBM and MS traded performance for forced standardisation. This likely held back access to much better features - like higher reliability and multitasking - for a decade or so.

jojobas 3y ago
Except that clones appeared out of nowhere, dirt cheap and just as fast.
illys 3y ago
"Between them IBM and MS traded performance for forced standardisation" Maybe I misunderstand, but for me it is a strange statement: * IBM fought standardization: they initially released a PC compatible with nothing, even in their own product lines, and fought hard against any kind of clones - those that transformed the IBM-PC in a de-facto standard. They even tried with the PS/2 line to break compatibility for all third-party hardware extensions (the MCA bus that could be used only by paying royalties to IBM). * Microsoft cared neither for performance (obviously) nor for standardization. They just fought to own the market. Their products became de-facto standards because MS worked hard to kill competition and real standards. They even theorized and practiced the "embrace extend extinguish" process to kill competing products by breaking standards.