Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lynn Wheeler Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: The joy of Engine-Cars Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 10:42:14 -1000 Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler Lines: 49 Message-ID: <87ldy0yrq1.fsf@localhost> References: <874j4q886a.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 21:42:17 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1f9417782bdf7b454b5956d5cd73f4f2"; logging-data="563873"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AeRzuRp4EfC8FKtRpadmesyYQPDWrSJU=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:m/CaIVTDjY6oZVnlpjTcodEVdaA= sha1:gsJnJL62xvH9KkY+RIsoGzSPWaU= Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:228492 Bud Frede writes: > Detroit had slashed their R&D and engineering budgets, and I feel that > may also have led to the problems with US cars in the late '60s through > the '80s or so. > > My father knew a whole lot of people who had been let go at Chrysler in > the '60s, and used to say that was why Chrysler products were so > awful. I've read that similar things happened with the other US > automakers. trivia: 70s, US auto makers were being hit hard (and looses) by foreign makers with cheap imports. Congress establishes import quotas that was to provide US makers with significant profits for completely remaking themselves (however the US makers just pocketed the profits and continued business as usual, early 80s saw calls for 100% unearned profit tax). The foreign makers determined at quotas set, they could sell as many higher end cars (with greater profits, which further reduced any downward pressure on US car prices and increased the US industry significant profits that they pocketed). At the time, car business was taking 7-8yrs to come out with new design (from initial to rolling off the line, usually two efforts in parallel offset 3-4yrs to simulate something new, more often), and the foreign makers cut their elapsed time in half to 3-4yrs (as part of completely different product). In 1990, there was "C4 taskforce" (by us makers) to look at (finally?) completely remaking themselves and since they were planning on leveraging technology, technology companies were invited to participat and I was one from IBM (other was POK mainframe IBMer). At the time foreign makers were in the process of cutting elapsed time in half again, from 3-4yrs to 18-24months (while US was still 7-8yrs), giving foreign makers significant advantage in transition to new designs incorporating new technologies and changing customer preferences. US long development time was aggravated by most of US makers had spun off their part business ... and were finding that equipment that were part of 8yr old designs had changed and they had further delays adapting design for current equipment. Offline, I would chide the IBM mainframe rep what was their contribution, since they had some of the same problems. Roll forward two decades and bailouts showed they still hadn't been able to make the transition. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970