Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #148509 > unrolled thread

Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-19 13:25 +0000
    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-20 13:29 +0000
      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-07-20 14:42 +0100
        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-21 12:53 +0000
      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-07-20 07:50 -0600
      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 05:46 +1000
    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-20 13:29 +0000
      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-20 16:13 +0100
        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-21 12:53 +0000
          Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-07-21 14:01 +0100
            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-07-21 14:42 +0000
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-07-21 15:53 +0100
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-22 12:20 +0000
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-22 12:20 +0000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-22 16:58 +0100
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-22 16:07 +0000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-07-22 19:35 +0100
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-07-30 22:50 +0000
                        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-07-31 09:00 +0100
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:52 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 06:41 +1000
            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-22 12:20 +0000
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-22 07:25 -0700
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-22 16:02 +0000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-22 10:20 -0700
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-22 19:37 +0200
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-07-23 15:37 -0700
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-24 01:17 +0200
                        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-07-24 11:12 -0700
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-24 11:52 +0000
                        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-07-24 18:01 +0200
                        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 20:41 +0000
                          Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-07-24 17:06 -0400
                          Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-25 12:42 +0000
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-25 14:13 +0000
                              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-07-27 03:00 +0200
                                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-27 14:08 +0000
                                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-07-27 08:43 -0700
                                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-07-27 13:56 -0700
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-07-25 17:23 +0100
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 05:49 +1000
                              Re: process accounting, was 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-07-27 13:24 +0000
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-25 16:30 +0200
                              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-07-26 01:05 -0400
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-07-27 13:23 +0000
                              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 16:24 +1000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:58 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:58 +1000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-07-30 22:50 +0000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-07-31 14:00 +1000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-07-31 09:06 +0100
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:26 +0200
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-22 09:53 -0700
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-07-22 18:23 +0100
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-07-23 06:08 +1000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-22 22:44 +0200
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 06:38 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:57 +1000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-24 02:07 +0100
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 11:43 +1000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-24 00:54 +0200
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 10:21 +1000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-24 02:15 +0100
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 11:46 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-07-24 05:59 -0700
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-07-24 06:00 -0700
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-07-22 11:19 -0700
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-07-23 06:26 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:51 +1000
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 06:40 +1000

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#148857

Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <PM00051B75E9682BEF@aca40d0e.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <PM00051B623040E297@aca42ea8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It could just as easily have been described as being in the operating
>>>>> system business, each of which came with some free hardware.
>>>>
>>>>No.  We didn't make money on OSes.
>>>>
>>>>No; that was not the business plan.  Our tradeoffs were always based
>>>>on hardware being the primary business, not software.
>>>
>>> Doomed in the long run, then. It was never gonna compete with low-cost
>>> generic hardware.
>>>
>>> And what's the point of selling hardware with no software?
>>
>>You are assuming that all hardware was sold as _systems_.  this was not
>>the case until about 1980.
>>
>>> People buy
>>> computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>>> not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
>>> the guy's next door.
>>
>>The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>
> Not generally. But in labs and other such niches such as factory
> floors etc the computer-as-a-tool emerged as early as the early 70s.

I should have put this "computer as a tool" right after the line where
I wrote "sold as _systems_".  That's what I was talking about.

>
> For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
> was the case even a decade earlier.
>
> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
>
> But not from within DEC.
>
> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
> just as miserably.

I know.  There was only just so much we could have done :-( after
the two debacles which changed DEC's history forever.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148885

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00051B8A0E4F9560@aca24c78.ipt.aol.com...
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <PM00051B75E9682BEF@aca40d0e.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> In article <PM00051B623040E297@aca42ea8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>>>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It could just as easily have been described as being in the operating
>>>>>> system business, each of which came with some free hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>>No.  We didn't make money on OSes.
>>>>>
>>>>>No; that was not the business plan.  Our tradeoffs were always based
>>>>>on hardware being the primary business, not software.
>>>>
>>>> Doomed in the long run, then. It was never gonna compete with low-cost
>>>> generic hardware.
>>>>
>>>> And what's the point of selling hardware with no software?
>>>
>>>You are assuming that all hardware was sold as _systems_.  this was not
>>>the case until about 1980.
>>>
>>>> People buy
>>>> computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>>>> not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
>>>> the guy's next door.
>>>
>>>The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>>cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>
>> Not generally. But in labs and other such niches such as factory
>> floors etc the computer-as-a-tool emerged as early as the early 70s.

> I should have put this "computer as a tool" right after the line
> where I wrote "sold as _systems_".  That's what I was talking about.

Doesn’t change a thing, you are still wrong. Plenty were sold
as systems long before the mid-80s most obviously with with
PDP8s and TSS-8 and WPS-8 as well.

>> For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
>> was the case even a decade earlier.
>>
>> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
>> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
>> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
>> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
>>
>> But not from within DEC.
>>
>> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
>> just as miserably.
>
> I know.  There was only just so much we could have done :-(
> after the two debacles which changed DEC's history forever.

It had nothing to do with the two debacles, the world was moving
on, just like it always does and DEC never survived that move. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148895

On 23/07/2015 20:57, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>> I know.  There was only just so much we could have done :-(
>> after the two debacles which changed DEC's history forever.
>
> It had nothing to do with the two debacles, the world was moving
> on, just like it always does and DEC never survived that move.

Not quite. The third debacle was choosing not to follow the market in 
low end computing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148897

Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> I know.  There was only just so much we could have done :-(
>>> after the two debacles which changed DEC's history forever.

>> It had nothing to do with the two debacles, the world was moving
>> on, just like it always does and DEC never survived that move.

> Not quite. The third debacle was choosing not to follow the market in low 
> end computing.

They did attempt to do that with quite a few systems, but were
too stupid to realise that they were never going to compete with
Taiwan and that is why none of them ever achieved a damned thing.

It took a long time before IBM woke up,
smelt the coffee, and realised that too.

Apple damned near died because they didn’t either but managed
to work out what the problem was and diverged into very well
designed low end stuff like the ipods initially and then went on
to turn entire industrys like the mobile phone industry completely
on its head and decided to not even attempt to compete with
very low end phones made in asia and to concentrate on the
high end and get them made in china for them.

Google didn’t even attempt to do much with hardware,
just provided the OS instead. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148893

In article <PM00051B8A0E4F9560@aca24c78.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <PM00051B75E9682BEF@aca40d0e.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> In article <PM00051B623040E297@aca42ea8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>>>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It could just as easily have been described as being in the operating
>>>>>> system business, each of which came with some free hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>>No.  We didn't make money on OSes.
>>>>>
>>>>>No; that was not the business plan.  Our tradeoffs were always based
>>>>>on hardware being the primary business, not software.
>>>>
>>>> Doomed in the long run, then. It was never gonna compete with low-cost
>>>> generic hardware.
>>>>
>>>> And what's the point of selling hardware with no software?
>>>
>>>You are assuming that all hardware was sold as _systems_.  this was not
>>>the case until about 1980.
>>>
>>>> People buy
>>>> computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>>>> not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
>>>> the guy's next door.
>>>
>>>The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>>cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>
>> Not generally. But in labs and other such niches such as factory
>> floors etc the computer-as-a-tool emerged as early as the early 70s.
>
>I should have put this "computer as a tool" right after the line where
>I wrote "sold as _systems_".  That's what I was talking about.
>
>>
>> For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
>> was the case even a decade earlier.
>>
>> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
>> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
>> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
>> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
>>
>> But not from within DEC.
>>
>> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
>> just as miserably.
>
>I know.  There was only just so much we could have done :-( after
>the two debacles which changed DEC's history forever.
>
>/BAH

It was not a debacle or two. It was Moore's Law. Steadily eroding the
price per computing unit by half every 18 months. Sure, for 4-5 years
you can do more of the same, but you will have to shift architectures
when the price per unit has gone down by 90%. 

Go look at a plot of Moore's Law. It is a log-log straight line from
the mid 1950s (as early as we can have reliable input) until today.

OK, speed per single processor reached a peak ca 2006. But the cost per
computing unit is still going down very much according to Moore's Law.

What is simply amazing is that NOONE inside the industry saw what
was happeing with the primary driver of their business. At least saw
it clearly enough to act on it. 

All the same, we on the outside saw it well and clear. I still harp
about our May 27th 1983 bet. 

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148894

"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
news:dt788c-0tn.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <PM00051B8A0E4F9560@aca24c78.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>Morten Reistad wrote:
>>> In article <PM00051B75E9682BEF@aca40d0e.ipt.aol.com>,
>>> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> In article <PM00051B623040E297@aca42ea8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>>>>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could just as easily have been described as being in the 
>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>> system business, each of which came with some free hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No.  We didn't make money on OSes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No; that was not the business plan.  Our tradeoffs were always based
>>>>>>on hardware being the primary business, not software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doomed in the long run, then. It was never gonna compete with low-cost
>>>>> generic hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what's the point of selling hardware with no software?
>>>>
>>>>You are assuming that all hardware was sold as _systems_.  this was not
>>>>the case until about 1980.
>>>>
>>>>> People buy
>>>>> computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>>>>> not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same 
>>>>> as
>>>>> the guy's next door.
>>>>
>>>>The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>>>cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>>
>>> Not generally. But in labs and other such niches such as factory
>>> floors etc the computer-as-a-tool emerged as early as the early 70s.
>>
>>I should have put this "computer as a tool" right after the line where
>>I wrote "sold as _systems_".  That's what I was talking about.
>>
>>>
>>> For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
>>> was the case even a decade earlier.
>>>
>>> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
>>> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
>>> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
>>> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
>>>
>>> But not from within DEC.
>>>
>>> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
>>> just as miserably.
>>
>>I know.  There was only just so much we could have done :-( after
>>the two debacles which changed DEC's history forever.
>>
>>/BAH
>
> It was not a debacle or two. It was Moore's Law. Steadily eroding the
> price per computing unit by half every 18 months. Sure, for 4-5 years
> you can do more of the same, but you will have to shift architectures
> when the price per unit has gone down by 90%.
>
> Go look at a plot of Moore's Law. It is a log-log straight line from
> the mid 1950s (as early as we can have reliable input) until today.
>
> OK, speed per single processor reached a peak ca 2006. But the cost per
> computing unit is still going down very much according to Moore's Law.
>
> What is simply amazing is that NOONE inside the industry saw what
> was happeing with the primary driver of their business. At least saw
> it clearly enough to act on it.

That is very arguable with both Apple and IBM.

Yes, IBM fucked it up very comprehensively indeed and never
did make any real money out of PCs, but Apple did very well
indeed as did Microsoft.

> All the same, we on the outside saw it well and clear.

Some insiders did too.

> I still harp about our May 27th 1983 bet.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148896

On 23/07/2015 23:54, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <PM00051B8A0E4F9560@aca24c78.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>> In article <PM00051B75E9682BEF@aca40d0e.ipt.aol.com>,
>>> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> In article <PM00051B623040E297@aca42ea8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>>>>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could just as easily have been described as being in the operating
>>>>>>> system business, each of which came with some free hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.  We didn't make money on OSes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No; that was not the business plan.  Our tradeoffs were always based
>>>>>> on hardware being the primary business, not software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doomed in the long run, then. It was never gonna compete with low-cost
>>>>> generic hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what's the point of selling hardware with no software?
>>>>
>>>> You are assuming that all hardware was sold as _systems_.  this was not
>>>> the case until about 1980.
>>>>
>>>>> People buy
>>>>> computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>>>>> not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
>>>>> the guy's next door.
>>>>
>>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>>
>>> Not generally. But in labs and other such niches such as factory
>>> floors etc the computer-as-a-tool emerged as early as the early 70s.
>>
>> I should have put this "computer as a tool" right after the line where
>> I wrote "sold as _systems_".  That's what I was talking about.
>>
>>>
>>> For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
>>> was the case even a decade earlier.
>>>
>>> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
>>> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
>>> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
>>> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
>>>
>>> But not from within DEC.
>>>
>>> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
>>> just as miserably.
>>
>> I know.  There was only just so much we could have done :-( after
>> the two debacles which changed DEC's history forever.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> It was not a debacle or two. It was Moore's Law. Steadily eroding the
> price per computing unit by half every 18 months. Sure, for 4-5 years
> you can do more of the same, but you will have to shift architectures
> when the price per unit has gone down by 90%.
>
> Go look at a plot of Moore's Law. It is a log-log straight line from
> the mid 1950s (as early as we can have reliable input) until today.
>
> OK, speed per single processor reached a peak ca 2006. But the cost per
> computing unit is still going down very much according to Moore's Law.
>
> What is simply amazing is that NOONE inside the industry saw what
> was happeing with the primary driver of their business. At least saw
> it clearly enough to act on it.
>
> All the same, we on the outside saw it well and clear. I still harp
> about our May 27th 1983 bet.
>
> -- mrr
>
>

The directors had to decide to put a new computer on the catwalk every 
18 months. When one computer went on sale the design team needed to be 
commanded to start work on its replacement.

There is still a deep believe that the customer can have any colour he 
likes providing it is black around.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148898

"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:V5CdnbstLJk4DCzInZ2dnUU78bWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 23/07/2015 23:54, Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <PM00051B8A0E4F9560@aca24c78.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> In article <PM00051B75E9682BEF@aca40d0e.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> In article <PM00051B623040E297@aca42ea8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>>>>>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It could just as easily have been described as being in the 
>>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>>> system business, each of which came with some free hardware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.  We didn't make money on OSes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No; that was not the business plan.  Our tradeoffs were always based
>>>>>>> on hardware being the primary business, not software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doomed in the long run, then. It was never gonna compete with 
>>>>>> low-cost
>>>>>> generic hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what's the point of selling hardware with no software?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are assuming that all hardware was sold as _systems_.  this was 
>>>>> not
>>>>> the case until about 1980.
>>>>>
>>>>>> People buy
>>>>>> computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, 
>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>> not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same 
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the guy's next door.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs 
>>>>> became
>>>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>>>
>>>> Not generally. But in labs and other such niches such as factory
>>>> floors etc the computer-as-a-tool emerged as early as the early 70s.
>>>
>>> I should have put this "computer as a tool" right after the line where
>>> I wrote "sold as _systems_".  That's what I was talking about.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
>>>> was the case even a decade earlier.
>>>>
>>>> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
>>>> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
>>>> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
>>>> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
>>>>
>>>> But not from within DEC.
>>>>
>>>> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
>>>> just as miserably.
>>>
>>> I know.  There was only just so much we could have done :-( after
>>> the two debacles which changed DEC's history forever.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> It was not a debacle or two. It was Moore's Law. Steadily eroding the
>> price per computing unit by half every 18 months. Sure, for 4-5 years
>> you can do more of the same, but you will have to shift architectures
>> when the price per unit has gone down by 90%.
>>
>> Go look at a plot of Moore's Law. It is a log-log straight line from
>> the mid 1950s (as early as we can have reliable input) until today.
>>
>> OK, speed per single processor reached a peak ca 2006. But the cost per
>> computing unit is still going down very much according to Moore's Law.
>>
>> What is simply amazing is that NOONE inside the industry saw what
>> was happeing with the primary driver of their business. At least saw
>> it clearly enough to act on it.
>>
>> All the same, we on the outside saw it well and clear. I still harp
>> about our May 27th 1983 bet.

> The directors had to decide to put a new computer on the catwalk every 18 
> months. When one computer went on sale the design team needed to be 
> commanded to start work on its replacement.

The problem was that hardly anyone except those who
had bought DEC systems before that were interested in
what they designed and that was never enough once
the PC showed up to allow DEC to remain viable.

> There is still a deep believe that the customer can have any colour he 
> likes providing it is black around.

That wasn’t the problem with DEC. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148906

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-6, Morten Reistad wrote:

> For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
> was the case even a decade earlier.

That is an unwarranted conclusion.

If you look at the front panel of an IBM 704 computer, you will find that it says:

Electronic Data Processing Machine, Type 704.

Computers sold by the Computer Control Company Inc., or 3c, later bought by Honeywell, had designations such as

Digital Data Processor - 24

Thus, the fact that the full official name of the PDP-8 was

Programmed Data Processor - 8

doesn't mean that it _came with_ programs, but simply that it would be programmed when it was doing something; a number of computer companies, at that time, had designations for their systems that were basically another way of saying "computer".

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148907

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-6, Morten Reistad wrote:

> For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
> was the case even a decade earlier.

That is an unwarranted conclusion.

If you look at the front panel of an IBM 704 computer, you will find that it says:

Electronic Data Processing Machine, Type 704.

Computers sold by the Computer Control Company Inc., or 3c, later bought by Honeywell, had designations such as

Digital Data Processor - 24

Thus, the fact that the full official name of the PDP-8 was

Programmed Data Processor - 8

doesn't mean that it _came with_ programs, but simply that it would be programmed when it was doing something; a number of computer companies, at that time, had designations for their systems that were basically another way of saying "computer".

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148809

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:20:09 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Tim Streater wrote:

> > People buy
> > computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
> > not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
> > the guy's next door.

> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.

Your sentence alone, quoted in isolation, without the context of what you were 
replying to, would obviously be inaccurate.

A "tool" is a machine that enables people to do things more easily than they 
could without it. Thus, a crowbar is a tool, and MANIAC I was a tool - it let 
people do the large number of numerical calculations required to design a 
hydrogen bomb more easily than if they had to do them by hand.

But _given_ the context, you're talking about computers being used to run 
packaged software, and not being programmed. That is a different matter.

And it is true that few computers - not even PDP-8 computers - were bought to 
run only packaged software. (Of course, a PDP-8 in an embedded system, some of 
which existed, would naturally do so.) That did only happen as the usual 
practice with micros.

That computers were used to run _some_ packaged software, other than compilers 
and utilities and so on, though - that had been around for longer. Lots of 
companies sold things like database programs for the IBM 360. That got started 
with something called "unbundling".

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148826

"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
news:349e8c20-708b-4f0d-b15a-834df4459bc1@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:20:09 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> > People buy
>> > computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>> > not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
>> > the guy's next door.
>
>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>
> Your sentence alone, quoted in isolation, without the context of what you 
> were
> replying to, would obviously be inaccurate.
>
> A "tool" is a machine that enables people to do things more easily than 
> they
> could without it. Thus, a crowbar is a tool, and MANIAC I was a tool - it 
> let
> people do the large number of numerical calculations required to design a
> hydrogen bomb more easily than if they had to do them by hand.
>
> But _given_ the context, you're talking about computers being used to run
> packaged software, and not being programmed. That is a different matter.
>
> And it is true that few computers - not even PDP-8 computers - were bought 
> to
> run only packaged software.

Quite a few of those were, most obviously with TSS-8 which was
about the cheapest timeshared teaching environment buyable at
one time. And the 8s used for word processing too.

> (Of course, a PDP-8 in an embedded system,

Plenty of them weren't.

> some of which existed, would naturally do so.)
> That did only happen as the usual practice with micros.

That's not correct either.

> That computers were used to run _some_ packaged software, other than 
> compilers
> and utilities and so on, though - that had been around for longer. Lots of
> companies sold things like database programs for the IBM 360. That got 
> started
> with something called "unbundling".
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148853

Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:20:09 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> > People buy
>> > computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>> > not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
>> > the guy's next door.
>
>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>
> Your sentence alone, quoted in isolation, without the context of what you
were
> replying to, would obviously be inaccurate.

Sorry.  Change that to "computer system as a tool" where system implies
a canned hard/software entity.  Does that sound better?

>
> A "tool" is a machine that enables people to do things more easily than they
> could without it. Thus, a crowbar is a tool, and MANIAC I was a tool - it
let
> people do the large number of numerical calculations required to design a
> hydrogen bomb more easily than if they had to do them by hand.
>
> But _given_ the context, you're talking about computers being used to run
> packaged software, and not being programmed. That is a different matter.
>
> And it is true that few computers - not even PDP-8 computers - were bought
to
> run only packaged software. (Of course, a PDP-8 in an embedded system, some
of
> which existed, would naturally do so.) That did only happen as the usual
> practice with micros.

There were other businesses which would buy our hardware and resell
the hardware with their prepackaged software as an entity.  DEC didn't
do that.

>
> That computers were used to run _some_ packaged software, other than
compilers
> and utilities and so on, though - that had been around for longer. Lots of
> companies sold things like database programs for the IBM 360. That got
started
> with something called "unbundling".

Sure.  DEC didn't sell "off the shelf" systems.  EAch piece of hardware
sold was a line item on the bill of sale.  If the buyer of the hardware
wanted the software, which we had developed in order to sell that hardware,
there would be another line item on the bill of sale.  Support of for that
software (which meant bug fixes and distribution of new versions) was
a separate contract.  There were a lot of customers who didn't do this.
However, this changed (guesstimate)  in the mid-80s; customers bought
prepacked systems with some software add-ons.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148881

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00051B89F41FC9A8@aca24c78.ipt.aol.com...
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:20:09 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>>> > People buy
>>> > computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>>> > not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same 
>>> > as
>>> > the guy's next door.
>>
>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>
>> Your sentence alone, quoted in isolation, without the context of what you
> were
>> replying to, would obviously be inaccurate.

> Sorry.  Change that to "computer system as a tool" where system
> implies a canned hard/software entity.  Does that sound better?

Still doesn’t work with your mid-80s claim, that started
to happen well before the mid 80s and had nothing to
do with PCs, DEC was doing it with PDP-8s and TSS-8.

>> A "tool" is a machine that enables people to do things more easily than 
>> they
>> could without it. Thus, a crowbar is a tool, and MANIAC I was a tool - it 
>> let
>> people do the large number of numerical calculations required to design a
>> hydrogen bomb more easily than if they had to do them by hand.

>> But _given_ the context, you're talking about computers being used to run
>> packaged software, and not being programmed. That is a different matter.

>> And it is true that few computers - not even PDP-8 computers - were 
>> bought
>> to run only packaged software. (Of course, a PDP-8 in an embedded system,
>> some of which existed, would naturally do so.) That did only happen as 
>> the
>> usual practice with micros.

> There were other businesses which would buy our hardware and resell
> the hardware with their prepackaged software as an entity.  DEC didn't
> do that.

DEC did actually with PDP8s and TSS-8 and WPS-8 as well.

In spades with word processors.

>> That computers were used to run _some_ packaged software, other than
>> compilers and utilities and so on, though - that had been around for 
>> longer.
>> Lots of companies sold things like database programs for the IBM 360.
>> That got started with something called "unbundling".

> Sure.  DEC didn't sell "off the shelf" systems.

They did actually with PDP8s and TSS-8 and WPS-8 as well.

> EAch piece of hardware sold was a line item on the bill
> of sale.  If the buyer of the hardware wanted the software,
> which we had developed in order to sell that hardware,
> there would be another line item on the bill of sale.

Only because not all say 8s were sold with software supplied by DEC.

> Support of for that software (which meant bug fixes and
> distribution of new versions) was a separate contract.

That mangles the real story with OSs.

> There were a lot of customers who didn't do this.

Irrelevant to those who did. Yes, DEC allowed you to
choose how you did stuff like maintenance. I did it myself.

> However, this changed (guesstimate)  in the mid-80s;

You've mangled the date completely.

> customers bought prepacked systems
> with some software add-ons.

Some were doing that LONG before that. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148829

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00051B75E9682BEF@aca40d0e.ipt.aol.com...
> Tim Streater wrote:
>> In article <PM00051B623040E297@aca42ea8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>
>>>> It could just as easily have been described as being in the operating
>>>> system business, each of which came with some free hardware.
>>>
>>>No.  We didn't make money on OSes.
>>>
>>>No; that was not the business plan.  Our tradeoffs were always based
>>>on hardware being the primary business, not software.
>>
>> Doomed in the long run, then. It was never gonna compete with low-cost
>> generic hardware.
>>
>> And what's the point of selling hardware with no software?
>
> You are assuming that all hardware was sold as _systems_.  this was not
> the case until about 1980.
>
>> People buy
>> computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>> not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
>> the guy's next door.
>
> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s

BULLSHIT. The computer was ALWAYS a tool, right from the start.

> when PCs became cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.

Joe Shmoe is irrelevant, the same thing happened with all computers
before that. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web