A Different Computer Industry TL..
- Thread starter danielb1
- Start date
Update, 1993 and at least part of 1994.
1993:
- Atari, which bought the rights to GEM in 1991 from Claris, makes the following decisions:
- phasing out the ST computers.
- continuing to sell the 68030-based Atari Falcon running MiNT, an almost-open-source OS based on the prior TOS/GEM.
- Preparing to sell the Jaguar video game system. The system has a few differences from OTL; basically the controller is half the size of OTL (the 'numeric keypad' is missing). It does capture much of the limelight of the 1993 Christmas season, despite having relatively few goodgames at the start. It, together with the new Super Nintendo CD and the Amiga 32CD (OTL CD-32), together blow the new 3DO system out of the water in terms of sales (although rumors are spreading that Sega and Turbografx aren't lying still, and that Nintendo has a secret project for a "Jaguar- killer" lurking and that Apple may be re-entering the market soon).
- Intel announces the release of the Pentium RISC processor, a replacement for their x86 series. It almost has an 80486SX built into the chip, kind of cutting down on the RISC nature but allowing partial compatability with x86 software. Sales are slow at first, more vendors are buying 486DX2 and DX4 chips, but IBM and others begin to consider using them on the chips on their next - generation computers.
- Apple announces that, after 7 years of production, the IIGS and its video-game-console version, the IIgame, will be leaving the market. This leaves the only Apple II product left being the Apple IIes, basically a cost-reduced Apple IIe around solely for the bottom level of the education market. It will be phased out in 1994, after variations of the Apple II have been on the market for 17 years (in 1997, though, Apple does build a handful of '20th Anniversary Edition' Apple II's using leftover components from Apple IIs and Apple IIe cards used in Performas).
- The formal 'divorce' of IBM and Microsoft over OS/2. In the end, Microsoft acquires the rights to manufacture and sell all members of the OS/2 and the upcoming OS/3 family of operating systems, although they do have to pay IBM a decent settlement. IBM also gets to sell all members of the OS/2 family up to the 3.x series without chargin Microsoft. This spurs Microsoft in developing OS/3. It also spurs IBM into updating and modifying AIX, their UNIX-based operating system, to run on the new Intel Pentiums.
1994:
- A minor shockwave runs through the computer world as a venerable manufacturer goes bankrupt. It's Victor, which has been making IBM PC-compatibles and semi-compatibles for more than a decade. Its assets are acquired by Dell Computer, Michael Dell's fledgling computer company.
- The 1.0 release of the Linux Kernel. As community involvement in the Linux project has grown, the amount of actual code done by Linus Torvalds is only a tiny percentage of the overall project; his main purpose is as the 'benevolent dictator' of kernel development. GNU partisans claim that, due to the large percentage of GNU software included aside from the kernel, that the system should be called 'GNU/Linux'; This is reflected in some of the early distributions, such as Debian GNU/Linux and Moonshine GNU/Linux. Others, like Slackware Linux and Serenity Linux, ignore this (Debian and Slackware are OTL distributions; Moonshine and Serenity might exist in OTL but not in the same sense). Most Linux distributions are for Intel 386 processors, although early ports include for the Pentium, Motorola 880x0 (in NeXT workstations), and 680x0 (for Atari Falcon and Commodore Amiga. (see, DoctorMO, I haven't forgotten you!)
- Commodore introduces the Amiga Advanced Architecture.
- The World Wide Web (development largely as OTL) begins to take off.
The 1993/1994 holiday season is where I came in as far as the PC world goes (I didn't get onto the Internet for a couple of months more). My first PC was a Tandy SX2500 (or maybe it was a 2500SX? I can't remember at this late date) with a 386SX/33 CPU, 2 MB RAM and a 100 MB HD and rather dinky onboard video. Needless to say, I upgraded to a 486DX2/66 as soon as I could afford it. In this TL, what choices might I have had available to me, assuming that I visited a local Radio Shack in my locality (Northern Virginia) right after Christmas of 1993? (Or Tandy's Computer City, which in OTL was doing just fine at this time; the chain didn't go out of business until 1997 or so.)
Speaking of which, do the "computer department stores" like Computer City, CompUSA and Micro Center evolve in your timeline?
-Joe-
1993-1994 holiday season? Hmm... your Tandy would still be offered in this timeline, although under the Radio Shack name instead of the Tandy name. Its basic equipment wouldn't be so different, 80386SX 33 mHz, 2 megabytes RAM 100 megabyte hard disk, dinky video (probably VGA), pretty much fits the specifications of a new bottom-barrel PC in that period (although Hyundai offers a PC with a 20 mHz 80286 with 1 megabyte RAM at the very bottom end). By that point, even most low-end computers use full 80386s or 80486SXs, and the top end use 80486DX, DX2, and the cream of the crop use the new DX4 (the last x86-based processor, the RISC Pentiums are coming, they'd already be out but the early ones have a curious problem with their floating-point math: 2.00000000 + 2.00000 = 3.9999999...). A real 'powerhouse' computer (for the really rich), would have a 100 mHz DX4 with 16 megabytes of RAM, 2x CD-ROM, and a hard drive of 500 megabytes - enough to run even OS/2 3.0 with most applications without breaking a sweat.
Unlike OTL, your machine won't be using Windows. It'll have either MS/PC-DOS, or a version of OS/2 that runs really slowly. Unless it's an Apple Performa, in which case its a version of Claris OS that runs slightly less slowly but still quite slow.
Outside the PC crowd, you have your Motorola-based machines - Atari Falcon and Commodore Amiga. The cheapest you can get is probably a Commodore Amiga 1200 - 14 mHz 68020, 2 megabytes Chip RAM, hard disk drive optional. Atari Falcons are slightly more expensive with a 68030 instead of a 68020; Commodore Amiga also offers '030 and '040-based products, with an 68060-based machine on its way (the Commodore Amiga 5000 of 1995). Atari is about to offer a 68040-based Falcon, but it isn't too enamored with further computer development, and is considering becoming solely a video game manufacturer.
You might be able to get an Acorn here, with its RISC processor, but its not very common. They sell more in Europe.
Unlike OTL, your machine won't be using Windows. It'll have either MS/PC-DOS, or a version of OS/2 that runs really slowly. Unless it's an Apple Performa, in which case its a version of Claris OS that runs slightly less slowly but still quite slow.
Outside the PC crowd, you have your Motorola-based machines - Atari Falcon and Commodore Amiga. The cheapest you can get is probably a Commodore Amiga 1200 - 14 mHz 68020, 2 megabytes Chip RAM, hard disk drive optional. Atari Falcons are slightly more expensive with a 68030 instead of a 68020; Commodore Amiga also offers '030 and '040-based products, with an 68060-based machine on its way (the Commodore Amiga 5000 of 1995). Atari is about to offer a 68040-based Falcon, but it isn't too enamored with further computer development, and is considering becoming solely a video game manufacturer.
You might be able to get an Acorn here, with its RISC processor, but its not very common. They sell more in Europe.
This is a bump because I too am working on a computer timeline (see sig) and this seems to be the boards only other major one.
I'll point out ahead of time that I do really like the timeline, but spend most of my time arguing/complaining/nitpicking about stuff. Beats saying 'good job' I feel, even though I do think it is a good job.
1) Fair enough. Note however that IOTL IBM tried to divorce themselves from the cloning market using the one proprietary thing they had left—the bus. This failed, everybody developed around the it, and IBM lost any chance for industry dominance.
2) Apple's Macintosh 128k was unsuccessful IOTL . It really only took off with desktop publishing and the Mac II and by then it was too late to establish higher market share.
3) Yep. Apple tried to get this guy for CEO, and he was great at his job. A maverick, but a company man.
4) Isn't this far too early for OS/2 and wasn't Microsoft much more concerned with copying MacOS and fighting back the desktop publishing crowd?
5) Also reasonable. Motorola really was a better chip company then IOTL, but what Intel managed to do was sell the 'complete package' of systems support, development tools, and the like. Motorola panicked, tried to compete on that front and failed utterly. If they had stuck to their kick Intel's ass at chips they would have done much better.
Without signing away 'look and feel' to Microsoft, I imagine Apple wins in court.
Hmm. I don't see Microsoft working with IBM at this point in time. It doesn't help them to dominate the universe, and IBM has already signed away their exclusivity to MS-DOS.
Can't see either replacing x86 or IBM playing nice. IBM hated playing nice, they hated the clones, and when they tried and failed to break the clones (through the bus, as above) lost their position in the market.
Nah. Apple did consider porting MacOS to Intel's x86 around this time (because Sculley wanted to, but he was ultimately talked out of it.
Either way it would have been a port of MacOS itself, as the GUI would have required just as much work to do atop DOS and would have been a far cruddier system.
At this point in time Apple is still the hot company in the valley (lower sales of the Mac or not) and retains, courtesy of the Advanced Technology Group, the closest thing we ever again saw to Xerox PARC.
Yep, it's ASB. You don't compete with Microsoft in operating systems, and you don't compete in the office suite space. They won every single time anybody tried.
They might like to buy Adobe, but Jack ain't selling so it would be a nasty fight.
Gates wants to have Windows be like MacOS, and since he can never have that (just the way Microsoft's corporate DNA is wired) he'll crush everybody else in his way.
Apple might merge with Sun (Snapple!) and they tried to get IBM & AT&T among others to buy them but this I can't see.
Anyway I really liked it, and it's a computing industry timeline which is almost unique on the board (and a welcome change from the 500th WWII timeline).
I'll point out ahead of time that I do really like the timeline, but spend most of my time arguing/complaining/nitpicking about stuff. Beats saying 'good job' I feel, even though I do think it is a good job
.danielb1 said:
1) Fair enough. Note however that IOTL IBM tried to divorce themselves from the cloning market using the one proprietary thing they had left—the bus. This failed, everybody developed around the it, and IBM lost any chance for industry dominance.
2) Apple's Macintosh 128k was unsuccessful IOTL . It really only took off with desktop publishing and the Mac II and by then it was too late to establish higher market share.
3) Yep. Apple tried to get this guy for CEO, and he was great at his job. A maverick, but a company man.
4) Isn't this far too early for OS/2 and wasn't Microsoft much more concerned with copying MacOS and fighting back the desktop publishing crowd?
5) Also reasonable. Motorola really was a better chip company then IOTL, but what Intel managed to do was sell the 'complete package' of systems support, development tools, and the like. Motorola panicked, tried to compete on that front and failed utterly. If they had stuck to their kick Intel's ass at chips they would have done much better.
danielb1 said:
Without signing away 'look and feel' to Microsoft, I imagine Apple wins in court.
Hmm. I don't see Microsoft working with IBM at this point in time. It doesn't help them to dominate the universe, and IBM has already signed away their exclusivity to MS-DOS.
danielb1 said:
Can't see either replacing x86 or IBM playing nice. IBM hated playing nice, they hated the clones, and when they tried and failed to break the clones (through the bus, as above) lost their position in the market.
danielb1 said:
Nah. Apple did consider porting MacOS to Intel's x86 around this time (because Sculley wanted to, but he was ultimately talked out of it.
Either way it would have been a port of MacOS itself, as the GUI would have required just as much work to do atop DOS and would have been a far cruddier system.
At this point in time Apple is still the hot company in the valley (lower sales of the Mac or not) and retains, courtesy of the Advanced Technology Group, the closest thing we ever again saw to Xerox PARC.
Yep, it's ASB. You don't compete with Microsoft in operating systems, and you don't compete in the office suite space. They won every single time anybody tried.
They might like to buy Adobe, but Jack ain't selling so it would be a nasty fight.
Gates wants to have Windows be like MacOS, and since he can never have that (just the way Microsoft's corporate DNA is wired) he'll crush everybody else in his way.
Apple might merge with Sun (Snapple!) and they tried to get IBM & AT&T among others to buy them but this I can't see.
Anyway I really liked it, and it's a computing industry timeline which is almost unique on the board (and a welcome change from the 500th WWII timeline).
This is a bump because I too am working on a computer timeline (see sig) and this seems to be the boards only other major one.
I'll point out ahead of time that I do really like the timeline, but spend most of my time arguing/complaining/nitpicking about stuff. Beats saying 'good job' I feel, even though I do think it is a good job
Thanks. While I'm unsure if I'll continue this on, I probably will get to working on this or another computer TL eventually (possibly a 'No IBM PC' one, or maybe something Commodore-related). I stopped because of the 'Stirling incident', when I left the board for most of the summer (I was one of Stirling's/Diamond's defenders, and came perilously close to saying something that could get me kicked or banned, and decided that leaving would be best, at least temporarily).
IBM OTL suffered "Not Invented Here" syndrome, big time. I assume Estridge and some other PC team members staying will help minimize this (he was the one who sold the idea of a commodity PC sold through consumer stores to the stuffed shirts in Armonk - otherwise the PC team might not have been able to get it through the bureaucracy).
In this TL, the 128k and 512k are even less successful, and after Jobs is kicked out, whoever replaces him (Sculley?) decides that it isn't worthwhile. Perhaps PageMaker or one of the other early Desktop Publishing programs is released for Amiga instead of Mac, as well (this was OTL 1985-6).
And just what IBM needed - someone who is loyal to the company as a whole and able to work with IBM's senior leadership, but one who isn't a 1950s company man in thinking.
In OTL, OS/2 was released December 1987. Given that it takes months/years to write and test an OS, it was around this time that OS/2 was being worked on...
This is true. The other problem, of course, was that Intel was OTL very backwards-compatible. The 8086 was almost 100% source-compatible with the 8080 (CP/M-80 programs could easily be ported to MS-DOS or CP/M-86), and all the x86s since then can at least theoretically run 8086 code... thus they seemed 'safe' for legacy hardware.
Actually, if i were to re-write this, I would say "settle" instead of "fail", especially given that I have Apple and DR have a less antagonistic relationship in this TL...
This is largely as OTL for OS/2 (see above). OS/2 1.0 was released in 1987, and it was a joint MS-IBM project until 1991.
The x86 isn't being replaced yet - just the bus. In OTL, EISA and MCA were two competing buses to replace the ISA (AT) bus. EISA won out, because only IBM used MCA. It was all replaced with PCI in the mid-90s...
It wouldn't've been that much cruder. Mac OS in 1984-5 had about as much in common with System 7 of the early 90s as System 7 does with OS X - single tasking, primitive file system (only 1 level of directories; even its contemporary MS-DOS 3 allowed multiple layers), monochrome graphics, etc. It was more primitive than its near-contemporary AmigaDOS, which could (barely) multitask and was in color.
What I describe is remarkably like Atari's TOS, which was a single-tasking Mac-like GUI bound with a version of DR DOS. The big differences are an even more Mac-like GUI and multitasking support.
MS initially fails in the office market in this TL, so they choose to focus elsewhere - and in this TL, they do dominate office software almost as much as OTL - the only big players not to use OS/3 for home and small business workstations are Apple and Commodore.
I don't know about 'just like MacOS', but in both TLs Gates wants a cool GUI OS with lots of snappy features. In this TL, he wants it so much he overshoots hardware capabilities in the late 80s/early 90s, resulting in a short-term increase in use for IBM PC DOS before PCs become fast enough to effectively use OS/2-386.
I chose it for 'practicality' reasons, not for the companies' OTL interest in each other. DR is a good fit; they make PC-compatible software, both aren't fond of MS-DOS, and Apple wants to stick it to Atari (the Atari ST, "Jackintosh", is their biggest GUI competitor on the low end in 1985-6) and in this TL see the hardware as a bigger threat than the software. The problem is that Apple and DR both have stubborn leaders who don't like each other much. I assume in this TL, Sculley or whoever else took over Apple was less 'mean'.
Thanks!
I'd certainly like to see this timeline continued, you had a lot of interesting concepts that'd be good to continue forward...
You too? I need to get cracking on actually starting my computer TL than.. (though mine'll probably be Atari rather than Commodore focused)
If I don't mention it I either don't have a problem, or I don't have enough information about it (I'm better in the late 80s onwards, not so much with the middle 80s).
The way it worked out, at least IOTL, is that the guy running Aldus saw a Mac and the guy running his computer store hand delivered one to him a month later.
He then visited Apple, they were desperate, and desktop publishing was born.
Without him the Mac gets canned, quite possibly, not just even less successful.
It was written in assembly code from the ground. With the overhead of DOS and the switch to slower Intel chips MacOS would perform horribly (as it did IOTL even on the 512k Mac). Plus at least a year to rewrite (OTL Star Trek took 6 months, 5 years later) and combined with no desktop publishing Apple is going of business, not just ending up differently.
You also have to remember that MacOS is more than just multitasking & colour, it was actually well thought user interface design which Windows never matched—and, arguably, which hasn't been matched today with OS X (despite all the prettiness).
It would seem more likely for Apple to merge/sell to one of OTL potentials like Sun, IBM, AT&T (now that would be a different computing industry), and so forth.
Oh and Sculley was CEO since 1983. It was a power struggle with Jobs, not Jobs being kicked out as CEO.
The way it worked out, at least IOTL, is that the guy running Aldus saw a Mac and the guy running his computer store hand delivered one to him a month later.
He then visited Apple, they were desperate, and desktop publishing was born.
Without him the Mac gets canned, quite possibly, not just even less successful.
It was written in assembly code from the ground. With the overhead of DOS and the switch to slower Intel chips MacOS would perform horribly (as it did IOTL even on the 512k Mac). Plus at least a year to rewrite (OTL Star Trek took 6 months, 5 years later) and combined with no desktop publishing Apple is going of business, not just ending up differently.
You also have to remember that MacOS is more than just multitasking & colour, it was actually well thought user interface design which Windows never matched—and, arguably, which hasn't been matched today with OS X (despite all the prettiness).
It would seem more likely for Apple to merge/sell to one of OTL potentials like Sun, IBM, AT&T (now that would be a different computing industry), and so forth.
Oh and Sculley was CEO since 1983. It was a power struggle with Jobs, not Jobs being kicked out as CEO.
What about a timeline where the Exxon computer becomes the mainstream one?
http://old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=617&st=1
http://old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=617&st=1
Too expensive for what it offered. If the site is correct, it was $9200 for a 64k Z80 CP/M system - horribly overpriced for the equipment even in 1982. In fact, according to the site you could get a similarly equipped Epson QX-10 for around $3000, or TeleVideo TS-802 for $3500. That's not even counting 16-bit systems like the IBM PC....if they made a similar system for a third or a fourth the price it could work...
Ironically, the late 80s is one of my relatively bad spots. This TL was inspired by a 1984 computer guide by Peter McWilliams (he was both a tech writer and a medical marijuana activist, and died after being denied marijuana to deal with the pain of a terminal illness). Many years ago, I picked up and browsed through a couple of early-90s computer books (one was an IBM book about PS/2s; some others were consumer reports guides for 1992, 1995, and 1996). Recently, I've taken to looking at old computer journals in the college library - from around 1975-1985.
That works. Possibly, about a year and a half later, the guy gets into a similar situation with an Amiga 1000.
Hmm. That does introduce some difficulty (I basically need the OS to be written up in the 1985-7 period), and the assembly-code bit makes things difficult to translate (Although I thought at least parts of MacOS UI were written in Pascal?). However, chip speed isn't that big of an issue, as Apple is skipping the 8086/8 generation for a 10-12 mHz 80286 akin to IBM's AT Turbo, which should be at least even with the 8 mHz 68000 used in the original Mac, and with a minimum of 512k RAM instead of 128k (the Performa is closer to a Mac II than an original Mac, although the 'base' model is cheaper / more sparsely equipped). And some sort of multitasking GUI is possible on anything if done right.
GEOS, a single-tasking GUI, could (barely) run on a stock Commodore 64, which has a puny 8-bit processor and 64k RAM. It was written in 6502 assembly language, though (thus the PC/GEOS has little aside from name in common with its predecessor).
I don't deny it. In fact, the "Performa OS" may actually be a cleaned-up, Mac-i-fied GEM, with about as much in common with MacOS as MacOS did to the Lisa OS. This actually connects further with DR and Apple settling their squabble - part of the deal is that Apple gets to use a heavily modified version of their OS. It takes about 1-1/2 to 2 years to make all the necessary modifications.
Probably, but I thought DR was a better fit (especially for the new Claris spin-off) from a technical perspective. Although AT&T buying Apple would have interesting effects, including perhaps a more successful A/UX (Apple's original UNIX system).
I wasn't implying that Jobs was CEO (or if I was, I was misimplying). Its just that Apple could well have changed direction after Jobs left...
You forgott a Computer system of 1980
it was first International Hardware and Software Standarts in World.
MSX stands for 'MicroSoft eXtended' ( is Japans Microsoft !)
MSX-1 8Bit
the main CPU was a 3.58 MHz Zilog Z80,
the graphics chip a Texas Instruments TMS9918 with 16 KB (KiB) of dedicated VRAM,
the sound Chip was the AY-3-8910 chip manufactured by General Instrument (GI). And
a Intel 8255 Programmable Peripheral Interface chip was used for the parallel I/O such as the keyboard
Built-in MSX-BASIC programming language, specifically adapted by Microsoft for the MSX system.
in Japan the MSX was popular far in to 1990s !
Rest of world MSX came to late for US and Europe Market thanks to C= Price war
but there was MSX-2 and MSX turbo R (japan only)
the Turbo R used the R800 a.k.a Z800 (16-bit version compatible with their existing Z80)
Zilog Bad marketing hurt the product.
Hitach later developed the HD64180, which is a less ambitious Z80 derivative that has had great success
but wat if MSX turbo R used 16-bit based HD64180 CPU ? (lets called it MSX-3)
a 16-Bit Computer on base of popular Z80 in 1985
alot of User wantet to replace there old 8-bit ZX Spectrum, TRS-80, Amstrad CPC.
The Z80 assembly language was very "Easy" to work with for Game makers.
and with a standart in Hard and Software the MSX-3 makes more easy.
more on MSX system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX
here the frist Metal gear game on MSX-2 OTL
it was first International Hardware and Software Standarts in World.
MSX stands for 'MicroSoft eXtended' ( is Japans Microsoft !)
MSX-1 8Bit
the main CPU was a 3.58 MHz Zilog Z80,
the graphics chip a Texas Instruments TMS9918 with 16 KB (KiB) of dedicated VRAM,
the sound Chip was the AY-3-8910 chip manufactured by General Instrument (GI). And
a Intel 8255 Programmable Peripheral Interface chip was used for the parallel I/O such as the keyboard
Built-in MSX-BASIC programming language, specifically adapted by Microsoft for the MSX system.
in Japan the MSX was popular far in to 1990s !
Rest of world MSX came to late for US and Europe Market thanks to C= Price war
but there was MSX-2 and MSX turbo R (japan only)
the Turbo R used the R800 a.k.a Z800 (16-bit version compatible with their existing Z80)
Zilog Bad marketing hurt the product.
Hitach later developed the HD64180, which is a less ambitious Z80 derivative that has had great success
but wat if MSX turbo R used 16-bit based HD64180 CPU ? (lets called it MSX-3)
a 16-Bit Computer on base of popular Z80 in 1985
alot of User wantet to replace there old 8-bit ZX Spectrum, TRS-80, Amstrad CPC.
The Z80 assembly language was very "Easy" to work with for Game makers.
and with a standart in Hard and Software the MSX-3 makes more easy.
more on MSX system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX
here the frist Metal gear game on MSX-2 OTL
I haven't forgotten MSX, but this TL is almost entirely US-focused, and almost no MSX systems were sold in the US either in OTL or TTL. MSX mostly sold in Japan and a couple of European countries.
In the US (and to a lesser extent Britain), by the time the MSX standard was established (1982-3), the 8-bit low-end home market had largely crystallized (and the higher end was increasingly going for 16-bit). Even before the Commodore price war, there were really only a handful of big-ticket home systems in the US: Apple II, Atari 400/800, Commodore VIC-20/64, Radio Shack TRS-80 and TRS-80 CoCo, and the TI 99/4a (which Commodore knocked out). Britain had a similar situation with Sinclair, Acorn/BBC, and the various American brands.
When Commodore went into 'price war' mode, most of the lilliputian home market computer makers went bust (at least in the US), and most later attempts to enter the market failed (like the Coleco Adam). Britain, unlike the US, did manage to have a successful 8-bit manufacturer enter late (Amstrad in 1984).
In the US (and to a lesser extent Britain), by the time the MSX standard was established (1982-3), the 8-bit low-end home market had largely crystallized (and the higher end was increasingly going for 16-bit). Even before the Commodore price war, there were really only a handful of big-ticket home systems in the US: Apple II, Atari 400/800, Commodore VIC-20/64, Radio Shack TRS-80 and TRS-80 CoCo, and the TI 99/4a (which Commodore knocked out). Britain had a similar situation with Sinclair, Acorn/BBC, and the various American brands.
When Commodore went into 'price war' mode, most of the lilliputian home market computer makers went bust (at least in the US), and most later attempts to enter the market failed (like the Coleco Adam). Britain, unlike the US, did manage to have a successful 8-bit manufacturer enter late (Amstrad in 1984).
in Other word is Jack Tramiel, Irving Gould, Mehdi Ali
gulity of Destrution of 8-Bit Computer World
and begin of IBM-Microsoft Empire ?
there one thing:
why was the Atari ST TT so popular in Europe and Not in USA ?
No, Apple's constant screw-ups combined with IBM giving away the farm, and the brilliance of Bill Gates & Andy Grove are responsible for the Microsoft-Intel-IBM Compatible dominance.
Roughly speaking, that is.
Really its both, and many other causes.
The problem with the 8-bit computer world is that technology was advancing fast enough that eventually 16-bit and 32-bit machines became affordable; by the mid-80s PCs and 68k-based systems were dominant in the business world, and by the 1990s the home market as well. Not every 8-bit manufacturer made the switch right - and a lot of the smaller ones never did.
Another problem was that IBM made the PC out of mostly 3rd-party materials on an easy-to-duplicate platform. Once the BIOS was reverse-engineered, almost 100% compatible machines could be made for relatively low cost.
MS-DOS was another problem. Since Bill Gates managed to keep control of the OS, he could sell it to other companies. Since MS-DOS already became the dominant IBM PC OS (CP/M-86 was more expensive, p-System was too slow and obscure, and very few UNIX-based systems could run well on an 8088), this meant that the whole "IBM PC package" could be offered by 3rd parties.
Intel was also smart at keeping their architecture advancing faster than Motorola, so while the 8086 was considerably inferior to the 68000, the 80486 was only slightly worse on a MHz-per-MHz basis than the 68040 (made up for by the fact that the 80486 could be clocked at higher speeds). They also had better marketing and sales.
Commodore really never fully recovered from Tramiel leaving. The Amiga was pretty much the best thing out there in the mid-late 80s, but they had poor marketing and didn't update the architecture enough. Atari had similar problems with the ST and Falcon.
Apple, Commodore, and Atari, the 3 big 680x0 machines, all kept their architecture closed up (Apple did allow Mac clones in the mid-90s, but by then the PC had dominated everyone who didn't want a Mac anyway).
Perhaps what cemented MS-DOS's dominance was AT&T requiring UNIX-based system manufacturers to pay an arm and a leg in licensing fees (the first true open-source UNIX kernels didn't come out until the early 1990s - 386-BSD, Mach, and Linux). Thus, "true" UNIXes for early PCs like XENIX and AIX were quite expensive in comparison to MS-DOS. Though there were UNIX-likes such as Coherent that weren't based on AT&T's original UNIX code base, they never caught on. Also, UNIX was kind of hefty on a base x86 system - I doubt anyone got a version of UNIX on a 128k PCjr, for example, and you really need a hard disk drive or at least a high-density floppy for a full UNIX installation.
The problem with the 8-bit computer world is that technology was advancing fast enough that eventually 16-bit and 32-bit machines became affordable; by the mid-80s PCs and 68k-based systems were dominant in the business world, and by the 1990s the home market as well. Not every 8-bit manufacturer made the switch right - and a lot of the smaller ones never did.
Another problem was that IBM made the PC out of mostly 3rd-party materials on an easy-to-duplicate platform. Once the BIOS was reverse-engineered, almost 100% compatible machines could be made for relatively low cost.
MS-DOS was another problem. Since Bill Gates managed to keep control of the OS, he could sell it to other companies. Since MS-DOS already became the dominant IBM PC OS (CP/M-86 was more expensive, p-System was too slow and obscure, and very few UNIX-based systems could run well on an 8088), this meant that the whole "IBM PC package" could be offered by 3rd parties.
Intel was also smart at keeping their architecture advancing faster than Motorola, so while the 8086 was considerably inferior to the 68000, the 80486 was only slightly worse on a MHz-per-MHz basis than the 68040 (made up for by the fact that the 80486 could be clocked at higher speeds). They also had better marketing and sales.
Commodore really never fully recovered from Tramiel leaving. The Amiga was pretty much the best thing out there in the mid-late 80s, but they had poor marketing and didn't update the architecture enough. Atari had similar problems with the ST and Falcon.
Apple, Commodore, and Atari, the 3 big 680x0 machines, all kept their architecture closed up (Apple did allow Mac clones in the mid-90s, but by then the PC had dominated everyone who didn't want a Mac anyway).
Perhaps what cemented MS-DOS's dominance was AT&T requiring UNIX-based system manufacturers to pay an arm and a leg in licensing fees (the first true open-source UNIX kernels didn't come out until the early 1990s - 386-BSD, Mach, and Linux). Thus, "true" UNIXes for early PCs like XENIX and AIX were quite expensive in comparison to MS-DOS. Though there were UNIX-likes such as Coherent that weren't based on AT&T's original UNIX code base, they never caught on. Also, UNIX was kind of hefty on a base x86 system - I doubt anyone got a version of UNIX on a 128k PCjr, for example, and you really need a hard disk drive or at least a high-density floppy for a full UNIX installation.