From: GARY ALBERS
To: BOB BLAYLOCK (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53260 (OS/2)
   I enjoyed reading, and empathized with most of, your comments.
   As far as the 8080/8085 evolution is concerned, the two chips are very similar. I learned my computer hardware theory while studying for an EE inelectronics engineering, almost a decade ago. At the time, the 8080/8085 was the "prototype" CPU that we had to dissect -- thus, I just happened toknow a bit about them and their evolution into the 8088/86.
   Although it is true that the 8088/86 was evolved to maintain hardware compatibility with the 8085, the CP/M influence WAS very great, but in theOS arena. Thus, the first release of MS(PC)-DOS was VERY CP/M-like, especially in the area of file management (as opposed to other system services). DOS 1.0, we should remember, didn't implement hierarchical directories and through all DOS versions (even 5.0) you can still create/manipulate files by using File Control Blocks (FCBs), which were a direct port from CP/M. Of course the "recommended" method (and frankly better method) for file access has been to use file "handles."
   I have always felt that the Motorola 680x0 chips were technically better than the Intel line. And there is no question in my mind that a 32-bit OS,with all the "transparent" features you wisely mentioned, will be a MAJOR advance over ol' DOS -- and rightly so. Which one it will be -- OS/2, Unix, Windows NT -- will NOT be decided by rational discussions amongst technically literate people (e.g., you and me), but by marketing hype and clout. I again cite the contest between Beta and VHS video formats -- there are few technically knowledgeable people who will claim that the "better man won"! But such is life. Windows is OK -- not great, but OK -- and Windows NT will be better by a mile. Given MSoft's track record in thebusiness vs. IBM's, I have little trouble predicting that Windows NT will nbe the dominant OS on the desktop for the better part of this decade.
   Apple pioneered the commercial implementation of the GUI -- it was Steve Job's baby. Thus, we should not be surprised at the leading-edge features in the Next machine: it's truly remarkable. However, my enthusiasm for Apple in the early eighties was inspired by Jobs and the Woz! When the Woz left, my spirit became restless. When Jobs was "booted," I was more than suspicious! Then, as a certified developer for Apple, I watched their evolution from an inspired company into just another MBA-management controlled corporation. The Mac had its chance several years ago: if Sculley had dropped the price to be truly competitive against the PC, I honestly believe that the Mac might have become the dominant desktop platform. But,MBAs are seldom inspired enough to make those kinds of decisions. In fact, I suggest that a company's slugishness may be directly proportional to thenumber of MBAs they retain.
   I personally direct my attention and efforts toward those machines, OSs, applications, languages, that do, or are most likely to, dominate the market -- not those I might feel are "the better Man!" Atthe present moment, if asked to predict the "killer" machine two years from now, I would say: a desktop PC running Digital's Alpha CPU, Windows NT OS, with video I/O through a local bus to a dedicated TI graphics processor, and a high-speed 32-bit I/O buss, with on-board DSP capabilities. I think both Intel and Motorola are going to have to hop pretty high to keep up with the pace.

From: BOB BLAYLOCK
To: GARY ALBERS (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53263 (OS/2)
   Compared to the actual IBM products, or to IBM-compatible machines made by companies of similar repute, Apple's Macintosh line has always been very well priced. It's only when you factor in the hoardes of low-end fly-by-night clones that the Macintoshes start to look expensive.

From: GARY ALBERS
To: BOB BLAYLOCK (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53266 (OS/2)
   Well, Bob -- for some years now, the "masses" have been bypassing what you call "actual IBM products" and companies of "similar repute" (e.g., Compaq?). You seem to be implying that the Dells and Gateways of the world are "low-end, fly-by-night clones." The actual facts are roughly this:
   * Apple sales account for something like 15% of the total PC market, up from about 10% since they unleashed their "hordes" of cheap, disappointing models;
   * The IBM-compatible PC is a COMMODITY now; i.e., people no longer need the security of buying a NAME, which is what IBM, COMPAQ, DEC and HP have been trying to do, with declining success, for the last ten years; COMPAQ appears to have gotten the message; I don't think IBM ever will;
   * Despite the hype, a "clone" built by a reputable dealer will be a BETTER QUALITY, BETTER PERFORMING machine than ANYTHING you could get from IBM for almost TWICE the price. In advising clients, I don't just recommend that they buy a clone -- I strongly advise that they don't go with an true IBM brand machine unless they enjoy throwing money away and don't mind backing themselves into a proprietary corner!
   * Apple is still trying to sell a NAME. Unless they market their HIGH-END machines at a competitive price, and preferably license their ROM, OS and other enabling technology, to "clone" makers (in order to really saturate the market), I doubt they will ever significantly increase their present market share.
   * I can buy the following system for about $2500: a 33Mhz 486 with 8MB ram, 170 IDE HD, SVGA video, 2 FDs, mouse, 2 Ser.Ports, 1 Par. Ports, 1 game port... Name a MAC system with that capability for anything near thatprice! We're talking a machine that rivals an entry-level Quadra. When Apple starts letting Quadras go for $2500, they might gain ground. I am not arguing the relative merits of any particular computer, as I've said before. I AM talking about computing power/dollar and where the great majority of the world is. That's how I plan to make my living for years to come.

From: BOB BLAYLOCK
To: GARY ALBERS (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53277 (OS/2)
   Whether the name itself really means anything or not, the simple fact is, that there are certain companies who, having developed a solid reputation, can charge more for their products. Even today, IBM and Compaq products command higher prices than products from GateWay or Dell, or any of the hoards of other similar companies. And it's not just because these companies are greedy, and out to screw the consumer; it's because in general, the consumers perceive these to be superior brands. Apple has this same kind of name-brand value too. Whether the quality of the product really lives up to the name's reputaion or not, it's a simple fact that the name does carry considerable value.
   So, when comparing Apple's prices to those of IBM-type machines, I think it's only fair to compare Apple's prices to those of similarly reputable IBM-compatible manufactures. After all, you wouldn't criticise a Mercedes Benz for being overpriced, simply because it happens to cost more than a Hyundai.
   And every time I have had occasion to compare, Apple's prices have been very competetive against thse brands of IBM-compatibles that come from manufacturers with similar levels of name-brand value.
   In fact, when I bought my Mac II back in 1987, the only other true 32-bit personal computers available were the Compaq DeskPro '386 and the IBM PS/2-80, bot of which cost considerably more than the Mac II. I recall observing that the IBM model which came in at about the same price as the Macintosh II was the PS/2-60, which was an 80286-based machine. At the time, the Macintosh II was also the only 32-bit personal computer thatyou could actually use as a 32-bit computer.

From: HARVEY WHEELER
To: GARY ALBERS (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53277 (OS/2)
   Both Gallant and ABI have offered me a 386 40mhz with VGA, 170mg HD, two floppies, regular ports, 2400 baud modem & mouse for approx $1400.

From: GARY ALBERS
To: BOB BLAYLOCK
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53304 (OS/2)
   If you insist that it's "only fair" to compare Apple's prices with those IBM compatibles who are marketing a "name," I have failed to make my point.
   The marketing of a name was a viable approach to profits by many companies back when the public was less informed and PCs were still novel technology. My point is that that time has past. A personal computer is a COMMODITY; there are enough good-quality, low-priced IBM compatibles around to present a serious challenge to the "name-vendors," and that is where the market is.
   I am not criticizing Apple's technology, by any means. The Mac is a good machine with a good CPU and a good OS -- in fact, from a technical viewpoint, I would assert that the 680x0 is better than the 80x86, chip for chip, and System 7 is superior to DOS-based Windows. But, the market issues are something totally different. If Apple abandons the "name-selling" game (like Compaq has, and IBM hasn't) and substantially lowered the price of their high-end machines, they could make a real splash. If they don't, I think they will eventually come to be known as one of those 80's technology companies that couldn't keep up.

From: NOAH'S ARK
To: ROBERT KEITH MCHENRY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53190 (OS/2)
   There is a meeting of the disktop pub. group tonight thurs. and there is a guest speaker and the talk will be on os 2 they should be able to ans OS 2 questions they meet at the gol. libeary 7:00 pm frist thrs. of the month. everyone welcome. tonight OS2

From: ROBERT KEITH MCHENRY
To: NOAH'S ARK
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53315 (OS/2)
   You stated "frist thrs. of the month". Today is the LAST thrs. of the month. What gives? Are you a week ahead of sched.?

From: NOAH'S ARK
To: GARY ALBERS (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53207 (OS/2)
   I donnot know about all u but any system that makes all my software obsolete will have to be reallllllllllly gooooooooooood. I have a big investment in software and upgrades. I just sent off another 119 for the picture pub. update. do u mean all the old dos programs will be obsolete or will all the win programs also need upgrading. if so that winx will not play very well with me. win 3.1 made me have to upgrade vido drivers but that was it. hope u are wrong and they can figure a way to run old dos stuff and still take advanage of the 32 bit.

From: GARY ALBERS
To: BOB BLAYLOCK (Rcvd)
Subj: 8088
   P.S. -- Re IBM's decisions in the PC market. I could never understand why IBM persisted in using the 8088 through so many iterations of the PC. If I am not mistaken, they were still putting it into their XT-type models just a couple of years ago. The clone people immediately adopted the 8086 and a 16-bit buss. That's one reason why almost any clone will perform better than a True Blue machine.

From: BOB BLAYLOCK
To: GARY ALBERS (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53264 (8088)
   Hmmm. Are you sure of that? I've seen a few exceptions, but the vast majority of XT-type machines that I looked into well enough to see, were all 8088-based.

From: GARY ALBERS
To: BOB BLAYLOCK (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53267 (8088)
   If you've looked into an IBM machine, you will have seen 8088s. From day one in the clone market, the IBM PC was improved. My memory is foggy, but I seem to recall that COMPAQ lead the way many years ago with the 8086, and every clone maker I was familiar with followed suit. The other CPU improvement was NEC's chip (was it the V5, or something like that?). In recent years (e.g., the last 6-7 years), IBM is the only PC maker I know of who has continued to produce machines with an 8088 and an 8-bit buss.
   Instead of learning from the advances of their competitors, IBM has consistently pursued a self-defeating, opposing course. A couple of examples:
   1.) When IBM brought out the AT running @ 8 MHz, techies quickly realized that they could increase the clock speed by simply replacing the clock xtal. IBM's response?: They altered the OS POST tests to make the machines test their speed and not boot if they were running faster than 8 MHz. The PEOPLE's reply: They let their machines boot at 8 MHz to satisfy IBM's PC DOS fetish, then boosted to turbo speed for the rest of the day!
   2.) After the initial success of the original PC, IBM decided that, "Hey! Perhaps Apple is right -- there IS a market for computers among the little people. Let's make a REAL personal computer." The result: the PC Jr., with so many proprietary features that people who still own them are hoping to sell them to the Smithsonian, or convert them to duty as ignition controllers for Edsels.
   3.) More recently, pursuing the old "proprietary technology" gambit, IBM designed the 32-bit MCA buss. The response of everybody else: the EISA buss. The latter is comparable to MCA in most performance respects, but doesn't charge a proprietary fee for independent vendors who develop adapter boards for that buss; and, the EISA buss allows consumers to continue using their older (and ubiquitous!) ISA adapters. Surely, EISA has more appeal to us "common folk" -- and market penetration of each buss design reflects that.
   Let's face it: IBM has failed us and, in doing so, has failed itself. That's a big part why the headlines today say: "IBM to get rid of 32,000 workers." That a few days after DEC announced tehey will lay off another 20,000. Getting those huge companies to respond to today's volatile market and fast-paced technology is a little like "kicking a dead elephant down the beach!"

From: HARVEY WHEELER
To: GARY ALBERS (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53278 (8088)
   These have been very interesting and informative messages, Gary; many thanks.
   And in addition to your points I think that one of the problems with the information technology companies is that they have followed the production, marketing and style obsolescence models of conventional consumer high ticket hardware and I feel that an entirely new model-change process will have to emerge with new obsolescence and updating criteria. Possibly the modularity of the 486 points toward the solution.
   But in addition to those who enjoy, or profit from, life on the leading edge - which obviously includes many others in addition to yourself on this board - there is also need for a newly engineered mass market "appropriate technology" modular, low cost, "Volkswagen" computer, possibly with pay-as-you-lease fiber optic accessed, engineer-personalized, applications for the most expensive and difficult to configure software.
   For example, you could start one of the new miracle WAN based operations containing site licensed versions of the most sophisticated software items and then offer to provide clients with personalized configurations for lease - whose file products they would save and keep secure on their own machines. Something of the sort seems to be necessary for the short term (five to ten years) future.
   Maybe IBM (and I agree with nearly all of your indictment of it as well as of "Yuppie-generation Scully") was closer to the mark with its mainframes.That is, sell or lease the hardware but lease only the software, and keep it all operating, updated, and serviced constantly on a contractual basis.
   Maybe with the modular, updatable, 486 as a base, people like yourself, in addition to the prior software application deal, could furnish mid-sized firms with hardware and applications on a contract/lease basis, a la IBM main and mini frames, with the ability to upgrade everything on a fee basis.
   In fact, I might be interested in partnering such a business with some HiTech guys.

From: MARVIN JOHNSTON
To: GARY ALBERS (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53278 (8088)
   Just a slight correction on your 8 MHz IBM; it was actually a 6 MHz machine that IBM came out with that could be speeded up to 8 MHz until the BIOS check was added.
   BTW, on a related subject, I just saw for the first time 128K chips that appeared to be 2 64K chips (4164s?) piggybacked onto each other. I read someplace that until the 128K chips came out, the two piggybacked chips were used as a substitute. Any idea of what is actually going on there?
   Somehow, just piggybacking two 4164s seem like it wouldn't work, although I haven't really looked into it. I have one of the 6 MHz IBM AT motherboards that I will probably end up framing as a display piece similiar to the core memory boards I have.

From: BOB BLAYLOCK
To: GARY ALBERS (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53278 (8088)
   Well, I have to admit that there are probably a lot of XT-type machines that I didn't examine. I am aware that Compaq had an 8086-based machine, but I think it was the exception rather than the rule. Off the top of my head, I can think of three XT-type machines that I have delved deeply enough into to know for sure. None were genuine IBM, and all were 8088, not 8086 based. I know that a common "soup-up" operation for XT-types of all brands was to replace the CPU with an NEC V-20, which is an 8088, not an 8086 clone.
   I just now remembered a fourth specific machine I have tinkered with, which was also an 8088. I also just now remembered from the computer maintenance class that I took at SBCC a few years ago, where we had a sizeable assortment of XT-type machines of various brands to dissect, that I did not notice any which were 8086-based, and that the schematices we were given to work from all described 8088-based systems.
   I am aware that there were some 8086-based XT clones, including at leastone from Compaq, but I think these were really the exception, not the rule.

From: BOB BLAYLOCK
To: MARVIN JOHNSTON
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53303 (8088)
   <<I just saw for the first time 128K chips that appeared to be 2 64K chips (4164s?) piggybacked onto each other. I read someplace that until the 128K chips came out, the two piggybacked chips were used as a substitute. Any idea of what is actually going on there? Somehow, just piggybacking two 4164s seem like it wouldn't work, although I haven't really looked into it. >>
   Well, lesse, a 64Kbit chip would have 16 address lines into it. Is that right? Seems right, but I don't think the chip has that many pins, or at least not enough pins to have 16 address lines, plus the other lines it would need. I guess I'll have to look up the pinout of a 4164 some time.
   Anyway, each 4164 would also have, I am sure, a chip-select line. Probably you could have all of the pints of a pair of chips connectd together, except the chip select lines. There's be a little bit more logic needed, then, to assert the chip select line on the appropriate one of the two chips, depending on what address is being accessed.
   I guess I don't know enough about the way RAM chips are accessed to know exactly how this would be done, but I do know enough to have a vague idea of how this could be done.

From: GARY ALBERS
To: HARVEY WHEELER (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53288 (8088)
   Interesting comments, Harvey. The French seem to be ahead of us in these matters. I'll be interested to see if Al Gore implements any of these ideas, should he become our next VP. (I'm not optimistic that Dan Quayle would be inspired in this direction, should we be doomed to another four years of "Quayle in the Bush" politics). I don't know that much about him,but I understand Gore has been a real innovator in the hi-tech areas.

From: GARY ALBERS
To: MARVIN JOHNSTON
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53303 (8088)
   Thanks for the correction, Marvin. My memory is foggy for things that far back. No, I don't know the technicalities behind piggy-backing 64K chips, although I remember having a disagreement once with a local hardware expert, who claimed that the world jumped directly from 64K to 256K memory chips. I informed him that there had, indeed, been a short appearance of 128K chips. How time (and technology) flies!

From: GARY ALBERS
To: BOB BLAYLOCK
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53305 (8088)
   Could be, Bob. That was not my experience, but my memory is vague and I make no claims to omniscience. What is not in question is the superiority of the 8086 over the 8088. If I were to be designing an XT-class machine, I would certainly be lured toward the 8086. Wouldn't you?

From: GERRY CHING
To: HUGH MANDESON
Subj: CDROM
   Forget the request for the lastest version of the Microsoft CD-ROM extensions (MSCDEX.EXE). It is available from Microsoft on their downloading service. However, an address/phone number for the drive manufacturer might be handy in the future if I need an updated drive device driver.

From: NOAH'S ARK
To: JOHN KALSTROM
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53178 (TOSHIBA LAPTOP)
   I have a toshiba and one time that happen to me. There was a little switch on the side on my 1200 hd and I had moved it with out knowing it so I call toshiba and they told me move the stwitch back. easy fix let me know if that was it.

From: GARY ALBERS
To: NOAH'S ARK
Subj: 32-BIT OS
   There's no question that the migration to a 32-bit OS will be painful for the DOS world. Unfortunately, there is a serious tradeoff between the requirements for a true protected-mode, 32-bit operating system, and the seamless running of DOS applications. I have always liked programming under DOS, bacause it allows me to bypass anything I want and talk directly to hardware, video buffer, keyboard, etc. Such things can not be allowed if we are to also want an OS which will run multiple programs concurrently and protect each from the other.
   I've been happy with DOS, frankly. I have software that runs flawlessly and does everything I need it to do, from word-processing to CAD. In fact,I feel a little schizoid right now, because I do my applications in the DOS world, but am learning tools I'll need for the future. And part of me just doesn't see the need for much of this "progress." I think it's market-driven, for sure -- a market curiously molded by the "supply-side" players instead of the "demanding" consumer.
   Microsoft is slowly, but surely, dropping the other shoe about their forthcoming Windows NT OS. They now claim that support for DOS applications will, indeed, be limited. They are looking at the "top 100 DOS applications" and will tailor compatibility around that market. You can bet that MS WORD, EXCEL, and other MS products will be at the top of their list of applications to support. Nonetheless, over time, we will have to adopt new upgrades if we want to migrate to the 32-bit world. I'm hoping that most vendors will offer upgrades at very reasonable prices -- but it's still SOME price, isn't it?
   Some people have recognized the persistence of the DOS world, even the text-mode world. E.g., Symantec has brought out their text-based Norton Desktop for DOS. I think there will be ways to stay in the DOS world for a long time to come, and ways to make the transition to 32-bits gradually.

From: GARY ALBERS
To: HARVEY WHEELER (Rcvd)
Subj: CHEAP PC
   Yup, Harvey. That's my point. Sounds pretty good for a "kick-around" home consumer machine, doesn't it. By the way, what were the "names" of those machines again -- I don't think I'm familiar with them. . .

From: HARVEY WHEELER
To: GARY ALBERS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 53322 (CHEAP PC)
   I did not get brand names from either Gallant or ABI however I was able to help a friend buy two 386 33, (that was before the drop in price of the 40s) VGA, just under 100 mg HD and an authentic copy of DOS 5 for a little over $1000 f rom Gallant. That has been about 9 or so months and they have held up fine. The prices go up steeply if you need big memory HDs. A 386 40 with 80 meg is now about $850 and may come down a bit soon.