On 4/19/2018 6:16 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
So, at the time, looking at the 5150, it was an overpriced primitive
implementation using a 1970s CPU. Many people at the time thought it
would be less popular than the 5100.
While I won't argue the technical merits of your position, I feel like
we apply revisionism at times to these things.
I would argue that some engineer in IBM ranks was passionately trying to
convince IBM brass that IBM needed to have a stake in the personal
computer space, lest other companies swallow up the market. IBM,
lumbering giant that it was, probably was reluctant to mess around with
toy computers (their opinion no doubt) at all. But, someone (or
someones) won the battle, and someone else had the inspirational idea to
use off the shelf components, as opposed to having an IBM-branded and
designed CPU, etc.
Sure, they used old stuff, but it was working stuff, and I think the
goal was to get something to market as quickly as possible. Being
overpriced was IBM Marketing's touch (you call it overpriced, as I
manufacturer, I call it capitalism at work).
Why do I even post this?
Someday, the products and software designed and built by the folks in
this list will be judged by those who follow us. Possibly the rest of
you have worked in industries where you were allowed to use new
solutions, you had ample time to design and develop, and your marketing
departments priced your solutions at a reasonable price point, but I've
not had those luxuries. Thus, I want to be fair to those before me who
created things like the IBM PC architecture, not because it is a great
architecture, but because they shipped a real product that added value
for many folks and did so while working inside a company not known for
agility. The folks who did that deserve my respect, and when I am gone
and folks look at my design choices, I hope they will respect me for
doing what I could given the constraints I faced.
Jim
