We'll, they did adopt ISA and extentions, but not MCA in the PS/2s. On Tue, Aug 15, 2023, 08:31 Crawford Robert C (Contractor) < 000004e08f385650-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> I also have to wonder if MS-DOS would've taken off at all if IBM had kept > it. In the 20th century I remember a lot of companies, Microsoft and Apple > included, styling themselves as IBM "giant killers." They were cool, > (relatively) inexpensive and bringing computing to the masses. IBM, on the > other hand, was stodgy, old fashioned and, for lack of a better term, > evil. I'm thinking of Apple's "1984" commercial. > > For those reasons, people might have rejected MS-DOS just because IBM > owned it and glommed onto something like DR-DOS. > > Robert Crawford > Abstract Evolutions LLC > (210) 913-3822 > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf > Of Bob Bridges > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 3:16 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [EXT] Re: The ultimate (another one!) definition of mainframe > > I sort of agree, but I think underneath we still disagree. I agree that > IBM didn't think the PC software was worth developing. And if they had > held onto MS-DOS and approached its development in the same way that > Microsoft did, sure, they'd probably be worth bazillions. > > (Probably. I suppose there's market perception involved here too; maybe > customers accepted software from Microsoft in numbers that they wouldn't > have from IBM. But I don't know how to evaluate that, so lets pretend it's > not an issue.) > > Where we may disagree is in your belief - what I think is your belief - > that IBM was therefore short-sighted to let it go. What I was hinting at a > week or so ago is that IBM was ~always~ going to judge that MS-DOS wasn't > worth their bother, and they were never going to develop it as Microsoft > did, and therefore (in a sense) they did the sensible thing by letting go > of it, letting someone else take it and run with it. They did themselves > no harm because they would never have done it themselves - and incidentally > in the process they did the rest of us an enormous favor. And did > themselves the same favor, because I can be certain without looking that > every employee at IBM now has a powerful PC on his desk, which would not > have happened had they kept control of DOS themselves. > > If IBM were a different company, sure, maybe that different company should > have held on to MS-DOS. But as it is ... > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* [Your patient] has not yet been anything like long enough with the > Enemy to have any real humility yet. What he says, even on his knees, > about his own sinfulness is all parrot talk. At bottom, he still believes > he has run up a very favourable credit balance in the Enemy's ledger by > allowing himself to be converted.... -advice to a tempter from The > Screwtape Letters by C S Lewis */ > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf > Of Jon Perryman > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 15:23 > > I'm saying that if IBM retained control in MS-DOS and put in the same > effort as z/OS, they could have been worth bazillions. The problem is that > IBM has always been half-assed in the PC market. Bill Gates didn't do > anything groundbreaking. MS-Windows came 6 years after Mac. The mouse & GUI > was invented by Xerox before 1973. These corporations simply considered > PC's chump change not worth the bother. IBM and Xerox failed because they > considered PC more of a nuisance than a goldmine. > > > --- On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 06:56:39 AM PDT, Bob Bridges < > robhbrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wait, MS-DOS is what you were talking about, before? You're > > suggesting that if IBM had hung on to MS-DOS at the time, they would now > be worth bazillions instead of Microsoft? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email > to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
