On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:31:25PM +0100, Ian Collier wrote: > You say "open architecture", but it wasn't supposed to be open when > released. Most of the components could be easily copied, however, > and Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM BIOS to produce their own 100% > compatible machine. How would Sir Clive have fared if the QL had been a > success and other manufacturers had started putting out copies of it?
I still don't really understand what happened here... Presumably the 'PC' would not have become anything like as popular as it is today if IBM had retained full control over the platform. Surely the PC must have already experienced a certain level of success for Compaq to have considered it worth cloning. Was the original IBM PC really that popular, or did the availability of MS-DOS on other non-PC compatible hardware contribute? I would guess that the mantra that 'nobody ever got fired for buying IBM' played a part in all of this... Cheers, -- Stuart Brady
