I had one of those Tandy 1000 computers... I remember when I was working on my EE degree and had to run a PSPICE model... I needed a math coproeceesor or it would have taken days to run without it. I went to Egghead bought it, installed it on a Friday night then went out with the boys to a party had a few beers. Talked to some nice ladies. Went back to my dorm room about 5 hours later and it was conpleted. Took out the coprocessor and returned it to Egghead.
Perhaps I caused Egghead to now be called NewEgg because of all those returns! Roger --- Roger Prokic Baltimore, Maryland USA -=[ This email was sent from a Palm Treo 680 palm computer using SnapperMail Enterprise Edition v2.3.7.01 ]=- ...... Original Message ....... On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:56:29 -0500 L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Nov 28, 2007 9:48 PM, Craig Froehle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Google has said it will be free. Google doesn't intend to make money >> on the OS -- they intend to make money on services delivered via the >> OS (and maybe their own 700MHz network). A girl can dream. >> > >Google seems to be pulling a Wal-Mart by changing the rules of the game and >positioning themselves as the ultimate middleman. Not just in in this >endeavor but in all of their endeavors. I'm not saying it's sinister, I'm >just saying that their hand hasn't been fully revealed IMO. But doing so is >the only way they will weaken their opposition and subsequently position >themselves on the top of the mountain. They're capitalizing on the >frustrations people have with industry inertia and offering another path. > >> >> > But I think THEY think >> > they can't do that because it would mean absolutely NO return on their >> > investment of 5 years or so and maybe mounting debt that can't be paid >> off >> > by licensing their developed technology to anyone. >> >> Business rule #1: sunk costs are sunk costs. Palm won't be licensing >> their new OS to anyone. Heck, Access has them beat, and now Google >> has effectively demolished any possible market that might have >> existed. I mean, who would license a closed OS from Palm at a cost >> >$0 when Google will give them the entirely open Android for free? >> Nobody...at least no one sane. >> > >Then Sony is still in the running > >> >> > Perhaps they think they >> > can make the better OS and make money off it - even if it's not the >> better >> > OS for long. >> >> Then they're more delusional than even I thought possible. >> > >So was Vince McMahon with his XFL idea > >> > If anything here the money would be made by Access selling >> > that compatibility layer to Android (and iPhone and WinMo and RIM) >> customers >> > to get them to switch or licensing to the first Treo-like handset that >> runs >> > Android that comes out from HTC next year. >> >> Um, what? Access might license a Palm OS compatibility layer, but >> there wouldn't be any "switching" involved. The compat. layer would >> simply reside in ROM, sitting on top of the Linux kernel and other >> components, and handle Palm OS apps. Everything else in the phone >> would likely still be Android plus any OEM customization that happens >> (e.g., HTC offering up its own UI). >> > >stream of conscious typing. I meant that more current Palm/Treo users would >switch if there was a way to bring their apps with them and run them on the >sweet new hardware. > >> >> I really see Android as exactly what BOTH Palm and Access hoped to do, >> except it'll be available before either and will likely be better than >> both. That's the power of open source + Google at work. >> > >I really doubt that both Palm and Access had the grand plan that Google has >with Android. I think they just wanted a cheap, stable, and effective mobile >OS that could easily compete feature for feature with the other mobile OSes. > >> >> > What emerging standards was Tandy negligent in capitalizing on? >> >> Oh, little things like PS/2 keyboard connectors and serial and >> parallel ports -- Tandy relied entirely on proprietary Tandy >> connectors, so you could only buy Tandy peripherals for your Tandy >> computer. They didn't last long once the industry began the rapid >> convergence to standardized parts. >> > >I had (still have in fact) a Tandy 486 machine that is pretty standard aside >from maybe case design - but at that time most manufacturers had proprietary >case designs. I don't remember standard ATX cases until around 92 or 93 and >by then Tandy had already stopped selling PCs. > >Besides - Tandy was using Radio Shack to push their products. I would say >that perhaps their sales model was becoming outdated as the Circuit Citys >and Best Buys had become the go-to spots for buying electronics. I would >think that during the 80's it was perfectly OK to rely on proprietary (and >3rd party) equipment as Apple, Commodore, etc. did. Before the 486 I had a >Tandy 1000 that I was able to order third party parts for. > >Ahh - the Tandy 1000 running Deskmate and pfs:write - now those were the >good old days. > >-- >============================== >War Eagle > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
