Oh yeah... the industry was all about open interoperability, both at the HW and SW level. Apple was taking a lot of heat at the time for NOT licensing their HW designs and OS. There was enough clout to develop alternative hardware busses and designs that were as good or better.
IBM's attempt to strangle the next generation architecture seemed like a desperate measure to close the barn doors after the horses were out... -sc -----Original Message----- From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:09 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: CompTIA certs Lotsa reasons MCA never was widely adopted ... IBM kept it mostly proprietary, and kept the cost too high as well. They used to brag about the sheer numbers and variety of microchannel adapter cards available, but 80% or more of the catalog was for AS/400 only, not for the PC ( No drivers for desktop operating systems ) Erik Goldoff IT Consultant Systems, Networks, & Security ' Security is an ongoing process, not a one time event ! ' -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:06 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: CompTIA certs I had not seenone, but had read about htem back in the day. Wikipedia seems to think so to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCA_bus#Why_MCA_was_not_widely_adopted As does this history page: http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/os210/ps2.html -sc ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
