Comment About "IBM"... (Score 1) 242
The clones came because IBM designed - by choice, but not really considering the concept of a "clone" - the IBM "Personal Computer" around cheap, off-the-shelf parts. The BIOS was simple, and (relatively) easy to re-engineer. As far as the "reverse engineering" part: any decent electronics enthusiast with an oscilloscope could have done so. ("Off the shelf parts...")
They didn't create an "open" system, in terms of planning-/allowing-for compatibles. They actually only copied Apple's ][ regard to the slotted design. It was an obvious way to allow for an upgradable system, which had many perceived positive aspects for recurring business and loyalties of their purchasers.
Even so, IBM's biggest threat was not the clones per se, but rather IBM's unwillingness to be competitive. The technology changes from the PC to the XT, finally to the AT were too little, and far too long in the coming. IBM was still the 800 pound gorilla, so they led the industry in terms of the design, but not in performance.
The openness of the PC architecture wasn't the problem. The clones weren't the problem. IBM's pride, its hubris, was.
Cheers,
Larz
They didn't create an "open" system, in terms of planning-/allowing-for compatibles. They actually only copied Apple's ][ regard to the slotted design. It was an obvious way to allow for an upgradable system, which had many perceived positive aspects for recurring business and loyalties of their purchasers.
Even so, IBM's biggest threat was not the clones per se, but rather IBM's unwillingness to be competitive. The technology changes from the PC to the XT, finally to the AT were too little, and far too long in the coming. IBM was still the 800 pound gorilla, so they led the industry in terms of the design, but not in performance.
The openness of the PC architecture wasn't the problem. The clones weren't the problem. IBM's pride, its hubris, was.
Cheers,
Larz
