IBM PC made propretry only (i.e. no clones)

Before anyone accuses me of turning this into some sort of covert anti-Microsoft wank, it could be rather interesting. Basiclly the scenario is, what would it be like if IBM did not permit compatible versions of it's PC (now the industry standard which most personal computers are made under) and only procuced it's own propretry versins? What does this hold for the future of the computer industry: do other platforms which disappeared have a chance at surviving, assuming they are made? Is IBM still in the PC game in the present day, rather than concentrating on servers etc.? Does the computer market suffer due to lack of a coherent standard? What, indeed, is Microsoft doing right now?
 

hammo1j

Donor
0TL Clones were possible because Compaq got a firm to copy the BIOS chip using clean room technique whereby the input outputs from the BIOS were given to programmers who were not allow to disassemble the IBM code and thus were tasked with coming up with the same results but with a different algorithm.

I don't know if IBM had a court case on this or thought that clones would be to their benefit, but certainly a good POD could be a court case where IBM argue that the functions of their BIOS chip is their intellectual property.

As with TTL it may have been a case of the little guys ganging up around CP/M to take on the big boys (IBM then, MS now) with a standard. Microshaft would not have O/S control for personal computing and so would be much smaller than OTL - in fact without their monopoly there might be a genuine market in software!
 
Before anyone accuses me of turning this into some sort of covert anti-Microsoft wank, it could be rather interesting. Basiclly the scenario is, what would it be like if IBM did not permit compatible versions of it's PC (now the industry standard which most personal computers are made under) and only procuced it's own propretry versins? What does this hold for the future of the computer industry: do other platforms which disappeared have a chance at surviving, assuming they are made? Is IBM still in the PC game in the present day, rather than concentrating on servers etc.? Does the computer market suffer due to lack of a coherent standard? What, indeed, is Microsoft doing right now?

Outside of the BIOS, pretty much everything on the IBM PC was off-the-shelf technology. So there are only two things that can be done, reasonably. to keep :

1. Go to court with Compaq or whoever (if Compaq doesn't exist TTL) decides to go reverse engineering. Problem is, while outright copying can be blocked (some early clone manufacturers did just this), I don't think clean-room reverse engineering can. So either no one thinks of it or IP law is interpreted differently. This might lead to what you're looking for.
2. Build an all-proprietary or mostly proprietary PC using IBM-sourced parts: that basically means no OTL IBM PC. IBM could not build an IBM-sourced system in the amount of time (1 year) the PC did. It would most likely be a market failure, as well, or at least be less successful than the OTL PC, selling mostly to traditional IBM customers via traditional channels. In this TL, lots of things change quickly...
 
Actually, IBM published the full specs - partly because the company didn't think it would ever be a major seller. Previous systems, e.g. Apple, had proprietary systems - lots of people sold Apple II clones, but they had to be sold without the BIOS.

Because IBM published the full specs - including the BIOS code, IIRC, one could produce a complete set of calls and interfaces to emulate.


If IBM had gone totally proprietary, I suspect that the PC business would have taken a lot longer to really get going. It's even possible that something like a 32 bit version of the Commodore 64 might have ended up the new standard.

OTOH, a non-proprietary bus (S100?) and some CP/M variant might have been the basis for future PCs.

I think IBM would have not had anything like the current market.

Look at what happened when they introduced that new incompatible bus with PS/2s.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Texas Instruments had, at one time, the most advanced PC on the market, then they decided to go totally proprietary with their software. In less than 2 years they were out of the PC business.
 
There's no particular reason the single standard platform (facilitated by IBM being incompetent both in publishing specs and writing their contract with Microsoft) has to win.

I don't think it matters hugely before the advent of GUIs. One DOS or other text interface is as good as as the next. Businesses will probably pick a single platform (IBM/MS-DOS I imagine) and consumers won't care terribly.

The situation will be much like before the rise of IBM clones: Apple II, Commodore 64, IBM PC, and the Atari 8-bits (it's possible that the British Sinclair ZX Spectrum becomes more popular overseas as well) all using proprietary hardware and software.

To that end C-64 will likely dominate and continue to dominate the low end, IBM the business arena, and Atari and Apple fighting it over the rest.

It's possible that Compaq, Dell, and others develop or buy their own OS and set up in business for themselves as well.


What changes the market is the arrival of Graphical User Interfaces—Lisa, Mac OS, Windows, and probably more.

What happens? My best guess is a rapid proliferation of GUI operating systems still tied to single manufactors, and an attempt by others to push down, and finally a NeXT analogue attempting to make a multi-OS/CPU application framework (aka *OpenStep) which makes for somewhat easier/more common multiplatform programs.

I'd expect Microsoft Word (later Office) to be hugely important in the ATL, as it will work at least for Windows and Mac OS and probably also for Commodore Amiga (assuming in the ATL Commodore does indeed wind with Amiga for a GUI) and whatever else is out there.

One might expect to see more companies enter the business with custom operating systems. I could Sony (or another Japanese company) buying NeXT or BeOS for example or developing their own alternative.

I could also see some companies—Sun?—move their server OS downscale into the consumer market in the early '90s.


Overall post-GUI computer sales are probably a little slower, and you might see more quasi-computer alternatives like consoles/WebTV/handhelds do better earlier.
 
Top