From: crossd@gmail.com (Dan Cross)
Subject: [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:51:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEoi9W7YwYRhqkg=0_BArsmE-w1h_uR7ca6JeHq4OJWEJ4yq0Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC20D2M=yv-TQdbsJQHcRX8NDkGD9zQX+fvv0p1UsiNsMityhw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3311 bytes --]
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Dan Cross <crossd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> why didn't they have a more capable kernel than MS-DOS?
>>
> I don't think they cared. or felt it was needed at the time (I disagreed
> then and still do).
>
Yeah...I guess you are right.
Surely a motivated team could have produced a floppy-only system capable of
>> running multiple processes, etc. It wouldn't be Unix, it wouldn't even
>> necessarily be a clone of Unix, but it could have been something better
>> than MS-DOS.
>>
> As Marc pointed out. The PC was fabulously successful for what it was
> designed to be. They wanted something the run VisiCalc and later a word
> processor for corporate America. We are programmers saw it >>could<< have
> been more capable, but they did not really care. The system way, way
> out did what it was planned. So it's hard to tell folks that did
> something bad.
>
> ...
>> I'm not sure I would assert that their success was due to good technical
>> decisions;
>>
> exactly.
>
>
>
>> ...
>> The IBM brand added de facto legitimacy to the personal computer in the
>> workplace at a critical time when it was just starting to make inroads into
>> business: surely their success had a lot more to do with that than choosing
>> to use the 8088 and DOS?
>>
> Indeed.
>
> Although I think a side story is that you did not mention is that IBM
> allowed the system to be cloned. Remember at this same time, Apple out
> Franklin computer out of business for cloning the Apple II. Because the
> PC became a standard of sort, because their were choices in getting lower
> cost systems, not just buying from IBM. That ended top cementing it,
>
That's an excellent point.
The VHS vs. Betamax argument may apply here.
>>
> Maybe - I think of it in terms of economics. PCs and DOS
> "won" because they were cheaper than any other solution to the a similar
> task and it was good enough,
>
I suspect that, at the end of the day, this is the real reason for the
success of the PC. It's easy, as an engineer, to second-guess it and ask
why it couldn't have been "more" than it was, but I suspect a business
person would look at me funny. From a business perspective, it was wildly
successful (until the clone market undercut IBM so much they got out of the
PC business altogether). In economics vs technology, economics almost
always wins.
- Dan C.
Like VHS/Betamax it was good enough for many, many people - so economics
> drove the standard. But also at the time, Apple, who had a better product
> and actually was more polished than MS-DOS was, was >>perceived<< as being
> for home use and DOS for business. IBM and MSFT and Intel did a great job
> of convincing people of that idea. Add to it that it was cheaper, it was
> a hard order to get businesses to consider Macs.
>
> Which is different from Betamax.... business (TV stations/professionals
> et al) picked the "better" system. But they did not here, they picked
> the cheap one no matter what.
>
> Clem
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160630/3ed60f2b/attachment-0001.html>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-30 19:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-29 15:17 scj
2016-06-30 5:06 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-06-30 5:08 ` John Cowan
2016-06-30 11:18 ` arnold
2016-06-30 11:45 ` arnold
2016-06-30 13:22 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 14:05 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-06-30 14:33 ` William Cheswick
2016-06-30 14:43 ` Ronald Natalie
2016-06-30 14:57 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-06-30 15:07 ` Ori Idan
2016-06-30 23:07 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-01 3:27 ` Jesus Cea
2016-06-30 15:32 ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 15:49 ` Larry McVoy
2016-06-30 16:32 ` Clem Cole
2016-07-04 5:08 ` [TUHS] OS for IBM PC (was: Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs) Greg 'groggy' Lehey
2016-06-30 17:07 ` [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs John Cowan
2016-06-30 17:57 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-06-30 18:31 ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 19:21 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 19:51 ` Dan Cross [this message]
2016-06-30 19:55 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 20:04 ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 18:26 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-06-30 19:21 ` Diomidis Spinellis
2016-06-30 19:43 ` Dan Cross
2016-06-30 19:53 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 19:47 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 20:57 ` Nemo
2016-06-30 23:11 ` Random832
2016-06-30 23:16 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-06-30 23:38 ` Random832
2016-07-01 0:38 ` Clem Cole
2016-07-01 1:21 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-07-01 1:34 ` John Cowan
2016-07-04 19:23 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-04 19:56 ` Ronald Natalie
2016-07-01 2:35 ` Nemo
2016-07-01 3:01 ` Kurt H Maier
2016-07-01 3:52 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2016-07-01 12:47 ` [TUHS] MS-DOS William Cheswick
2016-07-01 13:43 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-07-01 21:58 ` John Cowan
2016-07-01 22:27 ` Jacob Ritorto
2016-07-01 22:54 ` Jacob Goense
2016-07-01 23:44 ` John Cowan
2016-07-02 0:08 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 1:09 ` Kurt H Maier
2016-07-02 2:59 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-02 3:27 ` Greg 'groggy' Lehey
2016-07-02 23:21 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-01 23:49 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-07-02 1:12 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 4:37 ` SZIGETI Szabolcs
2016-07-02 9:53 ` Brantley Coile
2016-07-01 13:47 ` Clem Cole
2016-07-01 15:13 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 15:25 ` Ronald Natalie
2016-07-02 15:32 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-02 19:46 ` Nemo
2016-07-03 1:18 ` Steve Nickolas
2016-07-03 13:33 ` Nemo
2016-07-01 17:39 ` John Cowan
2016-07-02 15:17 ` Ronald Natalie
2016-07-03 22:07 ` Derek Fawcus
2016-07-02 23:32 ` [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs Peter Jeremy
2016-06-30 15:52 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-06-30 20:47 ` Lawrence Stewart
[not found] <mailman.19.1467287486.30583.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
2016-06-30 13:15 ` David
2016-06-30 13:18 ` William Cheswick
2016-06-30 13:39 ` Clem Cole
2016-06-30 13:44 Noel Chiappa
2016-06-30 14:28 ` William Cheswick
2016-06-30 19:23 ` John Cowan
2016-06-30 17:17 Nelson H. F. Beebe
2016-07-01 9:32 ` Brantley Coile
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAEoi9W7YwYRhqkg=0_BArsmE-w1h_uR7ca6JeHq4OJWEJ4yq0Q@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=crossd@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).