Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote
Rod Speed wrote IBM was broken up tho No it wasnt. IBM chose to hive off what it decided werent profitable for them anymore. Not true at all We'll see... IBM split off 7 sectors of it's company into 7 separate operating units Because that was the fashion at that time. And it wasnt new then either, IBM was never just one massive great monolith that did everything from punched card machines, mainframes etc. and it wasn't until the 90s that they actually started selling them off. That bit is certainly correct. The thinking was if the government actually did win and they were forced to break up, they already would be broken up. Wrong. It was just the fashion of the time. Hewlett Packard did it too and so did DEC. So did Xerox and so did AT&T long before they were broken up. All massive great operations have to do that. Those sectors were totally independent of each other and actually bought and sold things between each other. Sure, but that wasnt due to the threat of being broken up by govt. And isnt why IBM chose to have a separate operation with a radically different approach to doing things for the PC either. The reality was the products were so dissimilar, developed separately and manufactured separately so there was not much in common to swap back and forth. Thats not so true of some parts of IBM like the terminals etc. In fact in the early 90s when they merged them back together, there was virtually no economy of scale since virtually none of the hardware or software were interchangeable and the training was pretty useless across those platforms too. Sure, but that was due to the radical diversity of what IBM chose to get involved in. Of course there is **** all in the way of interchange ability between punched card equipment and mainframes. And not much between mainframes and PCs or even their mid range machines like the Series/1 etc let alone the 3270 etc. They had totally different cultures. Of course they did, mainframes are nothing like punched card machines, the PC or the PS/2 either. IBM corporate was just operating as a holding company, at least in the bookkeeping. Nothing to do with any threat of breakup. That was never going to happen. |
#122
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:45:38 PM UTC-5, wrote: They gave the PC business away to establish the x86 standard and pave the way for their proprietary machine. Although most people seldom ever saw a PS/2 except on TV, it was very successful for IBM in the business world. The goal was to replace every dumb terminal with a PS/2 and that was very successful. You are operating under the delusion that big old IBM, which should be a dumb monopoly like AT&T if I follow you, somehow could see the whole future of the computer industry in 1981 when they took a flyer on a PC when no one at the time could even figure out why anyone needed one or what they would do with it. IBM was already talking about the "distributed computing" model in the mid 70s and the PC was the perfect platform for it. IBM still envisioned PCs being connected to mainframes and that is why their main thrust was at the business world. They gave away the x86 consumer business, just to establish the standard. There is no better way to flood the market than to give the technology away for free. You also got PC DOS for free with your system. (Not MS DOS, PC DOS, the one IBM owned) 51xx PCs were totally off the shelf parts and the 5150 PC-1 was shipped with full schematics and engineering documents. The 3270 coax card and 5250 twinax cards were part of the original PS/2 announcement, allowing them to immediately replace a dumb terminal. They already had 3270 versions of the PC and PC/AT with an identical keyboard so it was seamless for the operator. |
#123
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote
Rod Speed wrote wrote in message AT&T certainly had Bell Labs but they were not interested in giving the customer anything new. Thats a lie with tone dialling and dialling for yourself alone. They just wanted to make POTS as profitable as they could. Thats a lie with Bell Labs alone. Elliott Ness would recognize the phones we had in 1978 and the only thing that might surprise him is touch tone and that the Princess phone had a light in it. It took them 50 years to give us a phone that wasn't black. The only major change in all of that time was touch tone and that was for them not us. Bull**** on that last. It was really designed for inter trunk switching of long distance calls and it was just an after thought that it got into the phone itself. Again it was mostly to save them money on operators, just like the dial phone.. But the addition of tone dialling didnt. Tone dialing was originally invented to allow nation wide automatic switching of inner city trunks. Yes. By extending that to the phone they automated direct dial long distance and got rid of the long distance operator. That happened with rotary dialling on the phone. And thats still supported on the vast bulk of exchanges, long distance dialling using rotary dialling on the phone. It was the same way the rotary dial got rid of the regular operators. Quite different, actually. It was all about cutting labor cost Tone dialling wasnt. and charging you extra for it. Only AT&T did that. No one else world wide did. As an added bonus touch dialing shortened the time you were using the Originating Register in the switch so they didn't need as many of them. In fact the entire exchange technology changed, it wasnt just about the number of registers. This was about saving money, no more no less. Bull****. It was also the main driver for electronic switching. It was in fact what made that possible. When Sprint bought the Ft Myers TelCo, got rid of their #5 Crossbar switch and went to ESS they went from 6-7 guys running around across 2 floors of a big building cleaning relays and running jumper wires to 2 computer racks and 1 big wiring hub that never changes. That was due to the much better technology, not tone dialling. And its silly to claim that the breakup of AT&T was the only thing that allowed a move from crossbar exchanges. Bell Labs was in fact the first to do a proper digital exchange. So much for your silly claim that they didnt do innovation. There was one guy sitting at the console drinking coffee and a bunch of people laid off. The "Frame Hops" (switchmen) went from 15 to 4 or 5 as fast as the union would let them. Again, nothing to do with tone dialling. The 3d floor and half of the 2d floor was empty and leased out as office space. It was all about the money, Its much more complicated than that. |
#124
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote
Rod Speed wrote There are no drug company monopolys, they compete with each other very aggressively indeed. Not in drugs they have patents on Yes, with those too, because there are no drugs which are the only patented drug that can be used for a particularly medical condition. Any drug has to compete with what the competitors have for that particular medical condition. And it isnt hard to make small changes to a particular drug and have your own patented drug that competes in the market for that medical condition, so no monopoly is possible. and it is far too easy in the US to extend a patent. Still not a monopoly when that happens. |
#125
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote
rbowman wrote There must still be money in big iron which is where IBM always was most comfortable. I worked with a guy from Boulder in the early 90s and he said mainframes were going to become file servers, nothing more nothing less. That is pretty much what IBM sells now. That's not accurate. We call it the cloud these days but it is pretty much what the Boulder, Raleigh, Atlanta and the other big IBM data hubs were then. But there are far more file servers that have nothing to do with IBM. Once we had PCs on our desk I found it a lot easier to log onto VM, use SQL/DB2 to cherry pick a dataset, download it and use dBase to actually crunch my numbers. It seemed faster even on a 20m 386 and the dBase language was more powerful than SQL. Sure, but that's not how the massive transaction processing systems are done and they are what does the bulk of commercial computing now. I was running pure DOS on an OS/2 (hardware) machine so I had 12 meg of RAM to spare. I could load my whole dataset in RAM and crunch it there. That really screams. |
#126
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote
rbowman wrote wrote Yeah $100 for a widget that costs about a quarter to make injecting a drug that has been around for a half a century ... sweet A guy at work is diabetic and I was shocked at what he pays for insulin. My wife was diabetic but I don't remember what we paid. That's not a statement about my fading memory but the fact the cost was so low it's like asking me what we paid for a bottle of aspirin in 1971. That is an excellent example of a 75 (100?) year old drug that they are raping people over. Doesn't happen here or in Canada and has nothing to do with any purported monopoly. That's a byproduct of the stupid way you lot do medicine. |
#127
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:45:38 PM UTC-5, wrote: They gave the PC business away to establish the x86 standard and pave the way for their proprietary machine. Although most people seldom ever saw a PS/2 except on TV, it was very successful for IBM in the business world. The goal was to replace every dumb terminal with a PS/2 and that was very successful. You are operating under the delusion that big old IBM, which should be a dumb monopoly like AT&T if I follow you, somehow could see the whole future of the computer industry in 1981 when they took a flyer on a PC when no one at the time could even figure out why anyone needed one or what they would do with it. IBM was already talking about the "distributed computing" model in the mid 70s Yes and others were doing it too, particularly DEC. and the PC was the perfect platform for it. No it was not. It didn't have anything like the horsepower then to do much of that. Useful for word processing and spreadsheets etc but not for true distributed computing. IBM still envisioned PCs being connected to mainframes That's wrong too. Most PCs never were. They were standalone computers. and that is why their main thrust was at the business world. It never was with the PC. That came later with the PS/2 and still wasn't true with the stupid PCjr. They gave away the x86 consumer business, Bull**** they did. just to establish the standard. That didn't happen either. And while they tried to do that with the PS/2, they failed dismally because the industry ignored it. There is no better way to flood the market than to give the technology away for free. They never flooded the market. And they realised their mistake with including the circuit diagrams and bios code with the PC and XT and didn't do it with the AT You also got PC DOS for free with your system. (Not MS DOS, PC DOS, the one IBM owned) 51xx PCs were totally off the shelf parts and the 5150 PC-1 was shipped with full schematics and engineering documents. And the bios code listing too. The 3270 coax card and 5250 twinax cards were part of the original PS/2 announcement, allowing them to immediately replace a dumb terminal. They already had 3270 versions of the PC and PC/AT with an identical keyboard so it was seamless for the operator. And few bothered to buy them. |
#128
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 13:37:55 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote: There are drugs that have been out there for decades and they make some insignificant change that allows a whole new patent to be issued without giving up the right to the old one. But other drug companys are free to do that with your original drug too. I don't know about OZ but in the US, the original drug's patent gets extended, it isn't a new patent. You were there one the claimed a whole new patent. The drop dead date looks like a new patent but it is really just an extension on the old one. The original drug is still protected. |
#129
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:23:58 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote Rod Speed wrote IBM was broken up tho No it wasnt. IBM chose to hive off what it decided werent profitable for them anymore. Not true at all We'll see... IBM split off 7 sectors of it's company into 7 separate operating units Because that was the fashion at that time. And it wasnt new then either, IBM was never just one massive great monolith that did everything from punched card machines, mainframes etc. and it wasn't until the 90s that they actually started selling them off. That bit is certainly correct. The thinking was if the government actually did win and they were forced to break up, they already would be broken up. Wrong. It was just the fashion of the time. Hewlett Packard did it too and so did DEC. So did Xerox and so did AT&T long before they were broken up. All massive great operations have to do that. Those sectors were totally independent of each other and actually bought and sold things between each other. Sure, but that wasnt due to the threat of being broken up by govt. And isnt why IBM chose to have a separate operation with a radically different approach to doing things for the PC either. The reality was the products were so dissimilar, developed separately and manufactured separately so there was not much in common to swap back and forth. Thats not so true of some parts of IBM like the terminals etc. In fact in the early 90s when they merged them back together, there was virtually no economy of scale since virtually none of the hardware or software were interchangeable and the training was pretty useless across those platforms too. Sure, but that was due to the radical diversity of what IBM chose to get involved in. Of course there is **** all in the way of interchange ability between punched card equipment and mainframes. And not much between mainframes and PCs or even their mid range machines like the Series/1 etc let alone the 3270 etc. They had totally different cultures. Of course they did, mainframes are nothing like punched card machines, the PC or the PS/2 either. IBM corporate was just operating as a holding company, at least in the bookkeeping. Nothing to do with any threat of breakup. That was never going to happen. OK I guess a person living in the belly of the beast does not know as much as someone on the other side of the planet but that is what they told us at the time. I guess the IBM people you worked for in Oz had a different story. Oh wait the DoJ was not trying to Prosecute IBM, World Trade in Australia. |
#130
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote Rod Speed wrote wrote in message AT&T certainly had Bell Labs but they were not interested in giving the customer anything new. Thats a lie with tone dialling and dialling for yourself alone. They just wanted to make POTS as profitable as they could. Thats a lie with Bell Labs alone. Elliott Ness would recognize the phones we had in 1978 and the only thing that might surprise him is touch tone and that the Princess phone had a light in it. It took them 50 years to give us a phone that wasn't black. The only major change in all of that time was touch tone and that was for them not us. Bull**** on that last. It was really designed for inter trunk switching of long distance calls and it was just an after thought that it got into the phone itself. Again it was mostly to save them money on operators, just like the dial phone.. But the addition of tone dialling didnt. Tone dialing was originally invented to allow nation wide automatic switching of inner city trunks. Yes. By extending that to the phone they automated direct dial long distance and got rid of the long distance operator. That happened with rotary dialling on the phone. And thats still supported on the vast bulk of exchanges, long distance dialling using rotary dialling on the phone. It was the same way the rotary dial got rid of the regular operators. Quite different, actually. It was all about cutting labor cost Tone dialling wasnt. and charging you extra for it. Only AT&T did that. No one else world wide did. As an added bonus touch dialing shortened the time you were using the Originating Register in the switch so they didn't need as many of them. In fact the entire exchange technology changed, it wasnt just about the number of registers. This was about saving money, no more no less. Bull****. It was also the main driver for electronic switching. It was in fact what made that possible. When Sprint bought the Ft Myers TelCo, got rid of their #5 Crossbar switch and went to ESS they went from 6-7 guys running around across 2 floors of a big building cleaning relays and running jumper wires to 2 computer racks and 1 big wiring hub that never changes. That was due to the much better technology, not tone dialling. And its silly to claim that the breakup of AT&T was the only thing that allowed a move from crossbar exchanges. Bell Labs was in fact the first to do a proper digital exchange. So much for your silly claim that they didnt do innovation. There was one guy sitting at the console drinking coffee and a bunch of people laid off. The "Frame Hops" (switchmen) went from 15 to 4 or 5 as fast as the union would let them. Again, nothing to do with tone dialling. The 3d floor and half of the 2d floor was empty and leased out as office space. It was all about the money, Its much more complicated than that. You really drank the corporate Kool Ade didn't you? |
#131
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:03:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:45:38 PM UTC-5, wrote: They gave the PC business away to establish the x86 standard and pave the way for their proprietary machine. Although most people seldom ever saw a PS/2 except on TV, it was very successful for IBM in the business world. The goal was to replace every dumb terminal with a PS/2 and that was very successful. You are operating under the delusion that big old IBM, which should be a dumb monopoly like AT&T if I follow you, somehow could see the whole future of the computer industry in 1981 when they took a flyer on a PC when no one at the time could even figure out why anyone needed one or what they would do with it. IBM was already talking about the "distributed computing" model in the mid 70s Yes and others were doing it too, particularly DEC. and the PC was the perfect platform for it. No it was not. It didn't have anything like the horsepower then to do much of that. Useful for word processing and spreadsheets etc but not for true distributed computing. IBM still envisioned PCs being connected to mainframes That's wrong too. Most PCs never were. They were standalone computers. and that is why their main thrust was at the business world. It never was with the PC. That came later with the PS/2 and still wasn't true with the stupid PCjr. They gave away the x86 consumer business, Bull**** they did. just to establish the standard. That didn't happen either. And while they tried to do that with the PS/2, they failed dismally because the industry ignored it. There is no better way to flood the market than to give the technology away for free. They never flooded the market. And they realised their mistake with including the circuit diagrams and bios code with the PC and XT and didn't do it with the AT You also got PC DOS for free with your system. (Not MS DOS, PC DOS, the one IBM owned) 51xx PCs were totally off the shelf parts and the 5150 PC-1 was shipped with full schematics and engineering documents. And the bios code listing too. The 3270 coax card and 5250 twinax cards were part of the original PS/2 announcement, allowing them to immediately replace a dumb terminal. They already had 3270 versions of the PC and PC/AT with an identical keyboard so it was seamless for the operator. And few bothered to buy them. I am not sure about what happened in the upside down world south of the equator but we sold the **** out of PCs being used as smart terminals here in the US. In fact by the early 90s it was getting hard to find dumb terminals in anything but the places with the simplest applications with marginally trained workers. Places like offices, insurance companies, hospitals and such, they had gotten rid of their dumb terminals and put in PCs by the time I retired in 96. They were even using PCs in Burger King and Wendy's for the cash registers. BK used a regular PS/2 M/30 and Wendy's had them in a custom cabinet but it was still a M/30 system board, unaltered in any way. |
#132
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 13:37:55 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: There are drugs that have been out there for decades and they make some insignificant change that allows a whole new patent to be issued without giving up the right to the old one. But other drug companys are free to do that with your original drug too. I don't know about OZ but in the US, the original drug's patent gets extended, it isn't a new patent. You were there one that claimed a whole new patent. The drop dead date looks like a new patent but it is really just an extension on the old one. The original drug is still protected. But there is no whole new patent as you claimed. |
#133
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
|
#134
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:23:58 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote Rod Speed wrote IBM was broken up tho No it wasnt. IBM chose to hive off what it decided werent profitable for them anymore. Not true at all We'll see... IBM split off 7 sectors of it's company into 7 separate operating units Because that was the fashion at that time. And it wasnt new then either, IBM was never just one massive great monolith that did everything from punched card machines, mainframes etc. and it wasn't until the 90s that they actually started selling them off. That bit is certainly correct. The thinking was if the government actually did win and they were forced to break up, they already would be broken up. Wrong. It was just the fashion of the time. Hewlett Packard did it too and so did DEC. So did Xerox and so did AT&T long before they were broken up. All massive great operations have to do that. Those sectors were totally independent of each other and actually bought and sold things between each other. Sure, but that wasnt due to the threat of being broken up by govt. And isnt why IBM chose to have a separate operation with a radically different approach to doing things for the PC either. The reality was the products were so dissimilar, developed separately and manufactured separately so there was not much in common to swap back and forth. Thats not so true of some parts of IBM like the terminals etc. In fact in the early 90s when they merged them back together, there was virtually no economy of scale since virtually none of the hardware or software were interchangeable and the training was pretty useless across those platforms too. Sure, but that was due to the radical diversity of what IBM chose to get involved in. Of course there is **** all in the way of interchange ability between punched card equipment and mainframes. And not much between mainframes and PCs or even their mid range machines like the Series/1 etc let alone the 3270 etc. They had totally different cultures. Of course they did, mainframes are nothing like punched card machines, the PC or the PS/2 either. IBM corporate was just operating as a holding company, at least in the bookkeeping. Nothing to do with any threat of breakup. That was never going to happen. OK I guess a person living in the belly of the beast does not know as much as someone on the other side of the planet Got nothing to do with who lives where. but that is what they told us at the time. Those that said that to you didnt have a clue about why IBM did that. And they had always done that too, most obviously with the punched card and time machine and typewriter parts of IBM. I guess the IBM people you worked for in Oz had a different story. Has nothing to do with any story from any IBM individual, particularly with what IBM had always done since it moved on from pure hardware like punched card machines, time machines and typewriters to computers. Oh wait the DoJ was not trying to Prosecute IBM, World Trade in Australia. Irrelevant to what they actually did in the USA. They were never going to break up IBM. The most they were ever going to do was monster IBM into unbundling etc. |
#135
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote Rod Speed wrote wrote in message AT&T certainly had Bell Labs but they were not interested in giving the customer anything new. Thats a lie with tone dialling and dialling for yourself alone. They just wanted to make POTS as profitable as they could. Thats a lie with Bell Labs alone. Elliott Ness would recognize the phones we had in 1978 and the only thing that might surprise him is touch tone and that the Princess phone had a light in it. It took them 50 years to give us a phone that wasn't black. The only major change in all of that time was touch tone and that was for them not us. Bull**** on that last. It was really designed for inter trunk switching of long distance calls and it was just an after thought that it got into the phone itself. Again it was mostly to save them money on operators, just like the dial phone.. But the addition of tone dialling didnt. Tone dialing was originally invented to allow nation wide automatic switching of inner city trunks. Yes. By extending that to the phone they automated direct dial long distance and got rid of the long distance operator. That happened with rotary dialling on the phone. And thats still supported on the vast bulk of exchanges, long distance dialling using rotary dialling on the phone. It was the same way the rotary dial got rid of the regular operators. Quite different, actually. It was all about cutting labor cost Tone dialling wasnt. and charging you extra for it. Only AT&T did that. No one else world wide did. As an added bonus touch dialing shortened the time you were using the Originating Register in the switch so they didn't need as many of them. In fact the entire exchange technology changed, it wasnt just about the number of registers. This was about saving money, no more no less. Bull****. It was also the main driver for electronic switching. It was in fact what made that possible. When Sprint bought the Ft Myers TelCo, got rid of their #5 Crossbar switch and went to ESS they went from 6-7 guys running around across 2 floors of a big building cleaning relays and running jumper wires to 2 computer racks and 1 big wiring hub that never changes. That was due to the much better technology, not tone dialling. And its silly to claim that the breakup of AT&T was the only thing that allowed a move from crossbar exchanges. Bell Labs was in fact the first to do a proper digital exchange. So much for your silly claim that they didnt do innovation. There was one guy sitting at the console drinking coffee and a bunch of people laid off. The "Frame Hops" (switchmen) went from 15 to 4 or 5 as fast as the union would let them. Again, nothing to do with tone dialling. The 3d floor and half of the 2d floor was empty and leased out as office space. It was all about the money, Its much more complicated than that. You really drank the corporate Kool Ade didn't you? Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. |
#136
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:03:50 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:45:38 PM UTC-5, wrote: They gave the PC business away to establish the x86 standard and pave the way for their proprietary machine. Although most people seldom ever saw a PS/2 except on TV, it was very successful for IBM in the business world. The goal was to replace every dumb terminal with a PS/2 and that was very successful. You are operating under the delusion that big old IBM, which should be a dumb monopoly like AT&T if I follow you, somehow could see the whole future of the computer industry in 1981 when they took a flyer on a PC when no one at the time could even figure out why anyone needed one or what they would do with it. IBM was already talking about the "distributed computing" model in the mid 70s Yes and others were doing it too, particularly DEC. and the PC was the perfect platform for it. No it was not. It didn't have anything like the horsepower then to do much of that. Useful for word processing and spreadsheets etc but not for true distributed computing. IBM still envisioned PCs being connected to mainframes That's wrong too. Most PCs never were. They were standalone computers. and that is why their main thrust was at the business world. It never was with the PC. That came later with the PS/2 and still wasn't true with the stupid PCjr. You can't keep ignoring the PCjr, it's the proof that your claim about what IBM's intentions were with the PC are just plain wrong. They were clearly attempting to cover the entire market with their products and failed dismally at the low end. An expensive operation like IBM was never going to make any money on something like the PCjr and it was never about setting standards with it either. They gave away the x86 consumer business, Bull**** they did. just to establish the standard. That didn't happen either. And while they tried to do that with the PS/2, they failed dismally because the industry ignored it. There is no better way to flood the market than to give the technology away for free. They never flooded the market. And they realised their mistake with including the circuit diagrams and bios code with the PC and XT and didn't do it with the AT You also got PC DOS for free with your system. (Not MS DOS, PC DOS, the one IBM owned) 51xx PCs were totally off the shelf parts and the 5150 PC-1 was shipped with full schematics and engineering documents. And the bios code listing too. The 3270 coax card and 5250 twinax cards were part of the original PS/2 announcement, allowing them to immediately replace a dumb terminal. They already had 3270 versions of the PC and PC/AT with an identical keyboard so it was seamless for the operator. And few bothered to buy them. I am not sure about what happened in the upside down world south of the equator but we sold the **** out of PCs being used as smart terminals here in the US. **** all in fact compared with 3270s etc. The absolute vast bulk of PCs, XTs and ATs were in fact used as standalone computers used for word processing, spreadsheets and later running stuff like POS software. In fact by the time that most small businesses were computerised, **** all used any IBM PCs even in the USA. In fact by the early 90s it was getting hard to find dumb terminals in anything but the places with the simplest applications with marginally trained workers. Sure, but that's much later than the original PC. Places like offices, insurance companies, hospitals and such, they had gotten rid of their dumb terminals and put in PCs by the time I retired in 96. Yes, but they were not IBM machines. They were even using PCs in Burger King and Wendy's for the cash registers. But hardly ever with an IBM machine. BK used a regular PS/2 M/30 and Wendy's had them in a custom cabinet but it was still a M/30 system board, unaltered in any way. And far more didn't use any IBM hardware at all. |
#137
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
On 2/10/19 12:27 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT$T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. Looks to me like the only innovations at American Telegraph are their deceptive marketing lies. https://arstechnica.com/information-...-service-5g-e/ |
#138
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 10:18:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:38:45 -0700, rbowman wrote: On 02/09/2019 08:35 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote: The medical schools only let in so many people each year to be doctors and nurses. I remember when the machines to 'blast' the kindey stones first came out. They would not let the local hospital have one because it would make the treatment cost come down due to competition. It varies by the state but the nurse practitioners have been lobbying to be allowed to practice independently across the board and that's meeting resistance. I have a yearly wellness physical coming up and a NP certainly could handle that. In fact, when my doctor was on maternity leave, the NP did. Still, many states require that they are under the supervision of a doctor. I have a new "Doctor" and I have had 3 visits without ever even seeing the guy. Two techs are all I have ever seen. For all I know this is a weekend at Bernie's thing, he died a year ago and they are still cashing his checks. I have actually heard this is not unusual. The other doctor who used to at least come in and look at you for a minute is a "Concierge" now and you have to pay him to join his club. That's what our doctor did. My husband (who really likes the guy and who consumes what seems like a lot of medical services) is joining the club. I'm finding a new doctor. I can't remember the last time I had something that needed anything more than a Physician's Assistant. Cindy Hamilton |
#139
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 6:21:56 AM UTC-5, Randull L. Stephenson wrote:
On 2/10/19 12:27 AM, Rod Speed wrote: Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT$T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. Looks to me like the only innovations at American Telegraph are their deceptive marketing lies. https://arstechnica.com/information-...-service-5g-e/ Did Comcast invent the transistor? You're confusing buying and deploying equipment, being faster to deploy new gear, more willing to invest in infrastructure, with research and innovation. |
#141
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:37:44 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:03:50 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:45:38 PM UTC-5, wrote: They gave the PC business away to establish the x86 standard and pave the way for their proprietary machine. Although most people seldom ever saw a PS/2 except on TV, it was very successful for IBM in the business world. The goal was to replace every dumb terminal with a PS/2 and that was very successful. You are operating under the delusion that big old IBM, which should be a dumb monopoly like AT&T if I follow you, somehow could see the whole future of the computer industry in 1981 when they took a flyer on a PC when no one at the time could even figure out why anyone needed one or what they would do with it. IBM was already talking about the "distributed computing" model in the mid 70s Yes and others were doing it too, particularly DEC. and the PC was the perfect platform for it. No it was not. It didn't have anything like the horsepower then to do much of that. Useful for word processing and spreadsheets etc but not for true distributed computing. IBM still envisioned PCs being connected to mainframes That's wrong too. Most PCs never were. They were standalone computers. and that is why their main thrust was at the business world. It never was with the PC. That came later with the PS/2 and still wasn't true with the stupid PCjr. You can't keep ignoring the PCjr, it's the proof that your claim about what IBM's intentions were with the PC are just plain wrong. They were clearly attempting to cover the entire market with their products and failed dismally at the low end. An expensive operation like IBM was never going to make any money on something like the PCjr and it was never about setting standards with it either. The PC Jr was a joke as was the PS/1 and I doubt anyone really cared much about it. That was at a time when IBM was throwing anything they could at the wall and hoping it would stick. It was marketed by the remnants of the typewriter division who knew their ass was grass. They also tried to sell a copier and a bunch of other bull**** that never went anywhere. The whole division was sold for a pittance to Kodak. They gave away the x86 consumer business, Bull**** they did. just to establish the standard. That didn't happen either. And while they tried to do that with the PS/2, they failed dismally because the industry ignored it. There is no better way to flood the market than to give the technology away for free. They never flooded the market. And they realised their mistake with including the circuit diagrams and bios code with the PC and XT and didn't do it with the AT You also got PC DOS for free with your system. (Not MS DOS, PC DOS, the one IBM owned) 51xx PCs were totally off the shelf parts and the 5150 PC-1 was shipped with full schematics and engineering documents. And the bios code listing too. The 3270 coax card and 5250 twinax cards were part of the original PS/2 announcement, allowing them to immediately replace a dumb terminal. They already had 3270 versions of the PC and PC/AT with an identical keyboard so it was seamless for the operator. And few bothered to buy them. I am not sure about what happened in the upside down world south of the equator but we sold the **** out of PCs being used as smart terminals here in the US. **** all in fact compared with 3270s etc. The absolute vast bulk of PCs, XTs and ATs were in fact used as standalone computers used for word processing, spreadsheets and later running stuff like POS software. If they had a mainframe, the PCs were networked to it most of the time. If they didn't have a mainframe they were not big enough for IBM to give a **** about them. In fact by the time that most small businesses were computerised, **** all used any IBM PCs even in the USA. In fact by the early 90s it was getting hard to find dumb terminals in anything but the places with the simplest applications with marginally trained workers. Sure, but that's much later than the original PC. Places like offices, insurance companies, hospitals and such, they had gotten rid of their dumb terminals and put in PCs by the time I retired in 96. Yes, but they were not IBM machines. They were even using PCs in Burger King and Wendy's for the cash registers. But hardly ever with an IBM machine. BK used a regular PS/2 M/30 and Wendy's had them in a custom cabinet but it was still a M/30 system board, unaltered in any way. And far more didn't use any IBM hardware at all. It was the standard for corporate owned restaurants. Franchise owners could run what they want but they still had to talk to the same mainframes |
#142
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 05:26:49 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote: On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 6:21:56 AM UTC-5, Randull L. Stephenson wrote: On 2/10/19 12:27 AM, Rod Speed wrote: Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT$T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. Looks to me like the only innovations at American Telegraph are their deceptive marketing lies. https://arstechnica.com/information-...-service-5g-e/ Did Comcast invent the transistor? You're confusing buying and deploying equipment, being faster to deploy new gear, more willing to invest in infrastructure, with research and innovation. They didn't invent the transistor so Sony could make little radios you could hold up to your ear. They were trying to get rid of the half billion relays in their switching equipment. It was still to support the POTS business that they had no real intent on changing. With no competition, why change a very successful business model? The innovation I am talking about is what you offer the customer and from the customer standpoint, POTS was pretty much the same service for 80 years. Data was a side line that they grudgingly accepted but you still had to use their modems and they had no interest in going faster that 2400 BPS. It wasn't until they unbundled the phone lines that companies like Paradyne started trellis modulation and got the bit rate going faster than the baud rate. Then once the consumer market opened companies like Hayes started modems that didn't cost more than a car and with the lines unbundled you didn't have to rent an AT&T coupler to hook it up. |
#143
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
On 2/10/2019 8:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 6:21:56 AM UTC-5, Randull L. Stephenson wrote: On 2/10/19 12:27 AM, Rod Speed wrote: Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT$T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. Looks to me like the only innovations at American Telegraph are their deceptive marketing lies. https://arstechnica.com/information-...-service-5g-e/ Did Comcast invent the transistor? You're confusing buying and deploying equipment, being faster to deploy new gear, more willing to invest in infrastructure, with research and innovation. When are the slugs at AT$T going to roll out their ISDN Picturephone? |
#144
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 9:21:55 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 05:26:49 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 6:21:56 AM UTC-5, Randull L. Stephenson wrote: On 2/10/19 12:27 AM, Rod Speed wrote: Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT$T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. Looks to me like the only innovations at American Telegraph are their deceptive marketing lies. https://arstechnica.com/information-...-service-5g-e/ Did Comcast invent the transistor? You're confusing buying and deploying equipment, being faster to deploy new gear, more willing to invest in infrastructure, with research and innovation. They didn't invent the transistor so Sony could make little radios you could hold up to your ear. They were trying to get rid of the half billion relays in their switching equipment. Were you there? The phone system also had need for amplifiers, just like a Sony radio. AT&T invested billions in all kinds of research, without knowing what it would ultimately be used for. They won a Nobel prize for trapping atoms with a laser, for example. That's pretty far away from any immediate business need. It was still to support the POTS business that they had no real intent on changing. Yadda, yadda, yadda. I suppose money businesses give to charity is just to support the current business model, with no intent on changing. AT&T did change. They deployed electronic switches and laid fiber optic cable across the country, before there was any internet. They invented cellular and were deploying it before the break up. Would it have occured faster with competition, almost certainly yes. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they were a tech power house that won 8 Nobel prizes, including the invention of the transistor. You make it sound like they are some old coal company, that did nothing. With no competition, why change a very successful business model? Who's arguing that? The innovation I am talking about is what you offer the customer and from the customer standpoint, That's fine. It does not make it true that AT&T didn't also spend a fortune on research, some of which changed the world forever, eg the transistor. And that research into advanced areas of physics, math, chemistry, was funded by the monopoly profits. AT&T could have just handed out as a dividend to the stockholders if they were as greedy and lazy as you make them sound. POTS was pretty much the same service for 80 years. Data was a side line that they grudgingly accepted but you still had to use their modems and they had no interest in going faster that 2400 BPS. It wasn't until they unbundled the phone lines that companies like Paradyne started trellis modulation and got the bit rate going faster than the baud rate. Then once the consumer market opened companies like Hayes started modems that didn't cost more than a car and with the lines unbundled you didn't have to rent an AT&T coupler to hook it up. It wasn't just the unbundling. You ignore the other forces that made all that possible that were also occurring, principally the rapid advancement of semiconductor technology. You simply couldn't build a 56K modem in 1970 or 1980 that was economically viable at all because the semiconductor industry wasn't there yet with the process technology and manufacturing to support it. The modulation techniques required digital signal processing and those chips didn't exist yet, nor could they be fabricated, because they would have been far to complex for the process technology at the time. It would have taken enough ICs to fill a cabinet and cost $50K. All that had to advance, and it wasn't driven primarily by telecom, it was driven by all the uses of ICs, collectively, across all markets, in all the world. Once the fabs to support the required transistor density evolved, then that cabinet could fit into a small modem that cost $200. |
#145
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
Randull L. Stephenson wrote
Rod Speed wrote Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT&T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. What was being discussed was what innovation AT&T did before it was broken up in 1982 Looks to me like the only innovations at American Telegraph are their deceptive marketing lies. https://arstechnica.com/information-...-service-5g-e/ |
#146
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:37:44 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:03:50 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:45:38 PM UTC-5, wrote: They gave the PC business away to establish the x86 standard and pave the way for their proprietary machine. Although most people seldom ever saw a PS/2 except on TV, it was very successful for IBM in the business world. The goal was to replace every dumb terminal with a PS/2 and that was very successful. You are operating under the delusion that big old IBM, which should be a dumb monopoly like AT&T if I follow you, somehow could see the whole future of the computer industry in 1981 when they took a flyer on a PC when no one at the time could even figure out why anyone needed one or what they would do with it. IBM was already talking about the "distributed computing" model in the mid 70s Yes and others were doing it too, particularly DEC. and the PC was the perfect platform for it. No it was not. It didn't have anything like the horsepower then to do much of that. Useful for word processing and spreadsheets etc but not for true distributed computing. IBM still envisioned PCs being connected to mainframes That's wrong too. Most PCs never were. They were standalone computers. and that is why their main thrust was at the business world. It never was with the PC. That came later with the PS/2 and still wasn't true with the stupid PCjr. You can't keep ignoring the PCjr, it's the proof that your claim about what IBM's intentions were with the PC are just plain wrong. They were clearly attempting to cover the entire market with their products and failed dismally at the low end. An expensive operation like IBM was never going to make any money on something like the PCjr and it was never about setting standards with it either. The PC Jr was a joke as was the PS/1 and I doubt anyone really cared much about it. Sure, but it is the evidence that IBM was clearly attempting to flog PCs to much more than just business and clearly wasn't about setting standards as you claimed. That was at a time when IBM was throwing anything they could at the wall and hoping it would stick. It was marketed by the remnants of the typewriter division who knew their ass was grass. They also tried to sell a copier and a bunch of other bull**** that never went anywhere. The whole division was sold for a pittance to Kodak. They gave away the x86 consumer business, Bull**** they did. just to establish the standard. That didn't happen either. And while they tried to do that with the PS/2, they failed dismally because the industry ignored it. There is no better way to flood the market than to give the technology away for free. They never flooded the market. And they realised their mistake with including the circuit diagrams and bios code with the PC and XT and didn't do it with the AT You also got PC DOS for free with your system. (Not MS DOS, PC DOS, the one IBM owned) 51xx PCs were totally off the shelf parts and the 5150 PC-1 was shipped with full schematics and engineering documents. And the bios code listing too. The 3270 coax card and 5250 twinax cards were part of the original PS/2 announcement, allowing them to immediately replace a dumb terminal. They already had 3270 versions of the PC and PC/AT with an identical keyboard so it was seamless for the operator. And few bothered to buy them. I am not sure about what happened in the upside down world south of the equator but we sold the **** out of PCs being used as smart terminals here in the US. **** all in fact compared with 3270s etc. The absolute vast bulk of PCs, XTs and ATs were in fact used as standalone computers used for word processing, spreadsheets and later running stuff like POS software. If they had a mainframe, **** all that bought PCs, XTs and ATs did. the PCs were networked to it most of the time. Bull****. If they didn't have a mainframe they were not big enough for IBM to give a **** about them. Pity about who bought all those PCs, XTs and ATs. In fact by the time that most small businesses were computerised, **** all used any IBM PCs even in the USA. In fact by the early 90s it was getting hard to find dumb terminals in anything but the places with the simplest applications with marginally trained workers. Sure, but that's much later than the original PC. Places like offices, insurance companies, hospitals and such, they had gotten rid of their dumb terminals and put in PCs by the time I retired in 96. Yes, but they were not IBM machines. They were even using PCs in Burger King and Wendy's for the cash registers. But hardly ever with an IBM machine. BK used a regular PS/2 M/30 and Wendy's had them in a custom cabinet but it was still a M/30 system board, unaltered in any way. And far more didn't use any IBM hardware at all. It was the standard for corporate owned restaurants. Franchise owners could run what they want but they still had to talk to the same mainframes But didn't have to be PS/2s to do that. |
#147
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
On 2/10/19 11:31 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Randull L. Stephenson wrote Rod Speed wrote Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here.Â* Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT&T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse?Â* Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. What was being discussed was what innovation AT&T did before it was broken up in 1982 Well if you want to be pedantic, the topic of the thread is "Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'". |
#148
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
|
#149
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 10:36:39 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:45:38 PM UTC-5, wrote: They gave the PC business away to establish the x86 standard and pave the way for their proprietary machine. Although most people seldom ever saw a PS/2 except on TV, it was very successful for IBM in the business world. The goal was to replace every dumb terminal with a PS/2 and that was very successful. You are operating under the delusion that big old IBM, which should be a dumb monopoly like AT&T if I follow you, somehow could see the whole future of the computer industry in 1981 when they took a flyer on a PC when no one at the time could even figure out why anyone needed one or what they would do with it. IBM was already talking about the "distributed computing" model in the mid 70s and the PC was the perfect platform for it. IBM still envisioned PCs being connected to mainframes and that is why their main thrust was at the business world. Silly me, I thought all this time that IBM's main thrust was in the business world because it's International Business Machines and the business market was essentially their whole business for 100 years. They gave away the x86 consumer business, just to establish the standard. The actual history shows that IBM was as perplexed about the nascent personal computer business and there was no grand scheme. And there was no x86 business at that point, the PC was introduced not in the business market, but the personal computing, home market. There is no better way to flood the market than to give the technology away for free. Which IBM didn't do. They did encourage other companies to develop software and hardware add-ons. You also got PC DOS for free with your system. (Not MS DOS, PC DOS, the one IBM owned) Nothing unusual there, Apple and others were doing the same thing. It's not giving it away for free, it's including it in the purchase price. A PC would be fairly useless without an OS. 51xx PCs were totally off the shelf parts and the 5150 PC-1 was shipped with full schematics and engineering documents. The 3270 coax card and 5250 twinax cards were part of the original PS/2 announcement, allowing them to immediately replace a dumb terminal. They already had 3270 versions of the PC and PC/AT with an identical keyboard so it was seamless for the operator. |
#150
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 8:58:45 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:37:44 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:03:50 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 2:45:38 PM UTC-5, wrote: They gave the PC business away to establish the x86 standard and pave the way for their proprietary machine. Although most people seldom ever saw a PS/2 except on TV, it was very successful for IBM in the business world. The goal was to replace every dumb terminal with a PS/2 and that was very successful. You are operating under the delusion that big old IBM, which should be a dumb monopoly like AT&T if I follow you, somehow could see the whole future of the computer industry in 1981 when they took a flyer on a PC when no one at the time could even figure out why anyone needed one or what they would do with it. IBM was already talking about the "distributed computing" model in the mid 70s Yes and others were doing it too, particularly DEC. and the PC was the perfect platform for it. No it was not. It didn't have anything like the horsepower then to do much of that. Useful for word processing and spreadsheets etc but not for true distributed computing. IBM still envisioned PCs being connected to mainframes That's wrong too. Most PCs never were. They were standalone computers. and that is why their main thrust was at the business world. It never was with the PC. That came later with the PS/2 and still wasn't true with the stupid PCjr. You can't keep ignoring the PCjr, it's the proof that your claim about what IBM's intentions were with the PC are just plain wrong. They were clearly attempting to cover the entire market with their products and failed dismally at the low end. An expensive operation like IBM was never going to make any money on something like the PCjr and it was never about setting standards with it either. The PC Jr was a joke as was the PS/1 and I doubt anyone really cared much about it. That was at a time when IBM was throwing anything they could at the wall and hoping it would stick. It was marketed by the remnants of the typewriter division who knew their ass was grass. You want it both ways. First, you claimed that IBM had some grand plan with the PC at the time it was introduced. I said no, they were just another entrant, as perplexed as any other company at the time as to what the PC would evolve into. Now you say they were indeed throwing stuff on the wall, which was similar to what I said. They also tried to sell a copier and a bunch of other bull**** that never went anywhere. The whole division was sold for a pittance to Kodak. They gave away the x86 consumer business, Bull**** they did. just to establish the standard. That didn't happen either. And while they tried to do that with the PS/2, they failed dismally because the industry ignored it. There is no better way to flood the market than to give the technology away for free. They never flooded the market. And they realised their mistake with including the circuit diagrams and bios code with the PC and XT and didn't do it with the AT You also got PC DOS for free with your system. (Not MS DOS, PC DOS, the one IBM owned) 51xx PCs were totally off the shelf parts and the 5150 PC-1 was shipped with full schematics and engineering documents. And the bios code listing too. The 3270 coax card and 5250 twinax cards were part of the original PS/2 announcement, allowing them to immediately replace a dumb terminal. They already had 3270 versions of the PC and PC/AT with an identical keyboard so it was seamless for the operator. And few bothered to buy them. I am not sure about what happened in the upside down world south of the equator but we sold the **** out of PCs being used as smart terminals here in the US. **** all in fact compared with 3270s etc. The absolute vast bulk of PCs, XTs and ATs were in fact used as standalone computers used for word processing, spreadsheets and later running stuff like POS software. If they had a mainframe, That right there is one big IF. the PCs were networked to it most of the time. If they didn't have a mainframe they were not big enough for IBM to give a **** about them. Funny then that IBM introduced the PC in 1981 as a personal computer for home use, not as a smart terminal or "distributed computing" device for the business market. In fact by the time that most small businesses were computerised, **** all used any IBM PCs even in the USA. In fact by the early 90s it was getting hard to find dumb terminals in anything but the places with the simplest applications with marginally trained workers. Sure, but that's much later than the original PC. Places like offices, insurance companies, hospitals and such, they had gotten rid of their dumb terminals and put in PCs by the time I retired in 96. Yes, but they were not IBM machines. They were even using PCs in Burger King and Wendy's for the cash registers. But hardly ever with an IBM machine. BK used a regular PS/2 M/30 and Wendy's had them in a custom cabinet but it was still a M/30 system board, unaltered in any way. And far more didn't use any IBM hardware at all. It was the standard for corporate owned restaurants. Franchise owners could run what they want but they still had to talk to the same mainframes Sure, the PC EVOLVED into that, but there is zero evidence that I've seen that it was what IBM's grand plan was in 1981. |
#151
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
"Randull L. Stephenson" wrote in message ... On 2/10/19 11:31 AM, Rod Speed wrote: Randull L. Stephenson wrote Rod Speed wrote Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT&T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. What was being discussed was what innovation AT&T did before it was broken up in 1982 Well if you want to be pedantic, the topic of the thread is "Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'". Nope, this sub thread had moved on from that. |
#152
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 08:13:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote: On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 9:21:55 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 05:26:49 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 6:21:56 AM UTC-5, Randull L. Stephenson wrote: On 2/10/19 12:27 AM, Rod Speed wrote: Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT$T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. Looks to me like the only innovations at American Telegraph are their deceptive marketing lies. https://arstechnica.com/information-...-service-5g-e/ Did Comcast invent the transistor? You're confusing buying and deploying equipment, being faster to deploy new gear, more willing to invest in infrastructure, with research and innovation. They didn't invent the transistor so Sony could make little radios you could hold up to your ear. They were trying to get rid of the half billion relays in their switching equipment. Were you there? The phone system also had need for amplifiers, just like a Sony radio. AT&T invested billions in all kinds of research, without knowing what it would ultimately be used for. They won a Nobel prize for trapping atoms with a laser, for example. That's pretty far away from any immediate business need. We were talking about innovation that made it's way to the customer. |
#153
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
On 2/10/19 1:13 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
"Randull L. Stephenson" wrote in message ... On 2/10/19 11:31 AM, Rod Speed wrote: Randull L. Stephenson wrote Rod Speed wrote Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here.Â* Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT&T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse?Â* Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. What was being discussed was what innovation AT&T did before it was broken up in 1982 Well if you want to be pedantic, the topic of the thread is "Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'". Nope, this sub thread had moved on from that. That's fine but as a courtesy to others, you need to change the Subject line. |
#154
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
On 2/10/2019 12:43 PM, trader_4 wrote:
The actual history shows that IBM was as perplexed about the nascent personal computer business and there was no grand scheme. And there was no x86 business at that point, the PC was introduced not in the business market, but the personal computing, home market. Ken Olson, founder and CEO of DEC could not understand why anyone would want a computer on their desk. The PC made no sense to him. Hopefully, he tucked away enough money to live on or he'd be waiting tables now. DEC had facilities all over MA in their prime days. |
#155
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
"Roger Wilco" wrote in message ... On 2/10/19 1:13 PM, Rod Speed wrote: "Randull L. Stephenson" wrote in message ... On 2/10/19 11:31 AM, Rod Speed wrote: Randull L. Stephenson wrote Rod Speed wrote Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT&T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof. What was being discussed was what innovation AT&T did before it was broken up in 1982 Well if you want to be pedantic, the topic of the thread is "Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'". Nope, this sub thread had moved on from that. That's fine but as a courtesy to others, you need to change the Subject line. I dont agree that thats a good approach because with most usenet clients, that doesnt allow readers to see thats happened. And most agree with me, few do change the subject line for sub threads. |
#156
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
On 02/10/2019 07:21 AM, wrote:
They didn't invent the transistor so Sony could make little radios you could hold up to your ear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_TR-1 I can picture a couple of nerds at TI asking themselves what they could do with those transistor things and one said let's build a little radio. The major players in the radio business weren't interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Christensen It may be urban legend but the story was Christensen tried to interest his bosses at IBM in personal computers. Eventually a letter trickled down from the Gods that said it was nice he had a hobby but PCs were a fad that wasn't going anywhere. He framed the letter and hung it on his office wall. IBM has spawned a lot of things like DRAM, magnetic stripes, and SQL as well as developing ideas like the ATM and bar codes that have become universal. I don't know how much they profited from them or if they even tried. Sometimes they tried and eventually gave it away. Their VisualAge IDE was written in SmallTalk and they even bought the company that provided the SmallTalk compiler. I never used it and it wasn't very popular because of the way the workspace was structured. It deviated too far from what programmers were used to. Then they slowly drifted into Java, with VisualAge morphing into Eclipse. They then handed Eclipse to the Eclipse Foundation, which is supported by a consortium. I grew up in upstate NY and IBM Poughkeepsie spun off a lot of small businesses. It might have been part of the anti-trust paranoia but they often would set up a supplier and hand the business off. In the mid-90s IBM laid a lot of people off in the area and that had a ripple effect. They're still dropping jobs. They're supposed to be starting a quantum computing center but that's not going to bring back the good times. |
#157
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
On 02/10/2019 10:18 AM, Randull L. Stephenson wrote:
Well if you want to be pedantic, the topic of the thread is "Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'". Pedants tend to be very frustrated on Usenet. If you want curated discussions try Twitter or Facebook. |
#158
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 08:13:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 9:21:55 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 05:26:49 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 6:21:56 AM UTC-5, Randull L. Stephenson wrote: On 2/10/19 12:27 AM, Rod Speed wrote: Nothing to do with corporate Kool Ade that AT&T did an immense amount of innovation long before they were broken up. You dont get Nobel Prizes for reducing the cost of running exchanges. If you are using innovation as your metric, Comcast basically decimated AT&T here. Comcast offers gigabit fiber but AT$T only offers 6Mbps Slowverse. Want TV from Slowverse? Here, nail this fugly dish up on your roof.. Looks to me like the only innovations at American Telegraph are their deceptive marketing lies. https://arstechnica.com/information-...-service-5g-e/ Did Comcast invent the transistor? You're confusing buying and deploying equipment, being faster to deploy new gear, more willing to invest in infrastructure, with research and innovation. They didn't invent the transistor so Sony could make little radios you could hold up to your ear. They were trying to get rid of the half billion relays in their switching equipment. Were you there? The phone system also had need for amplifiers, just like a Sony radio. AT&T invested billions in all kinds of research, without knowing what it would ultimately be used for. They won a Nobel prize for trapping atoms with a laser, for example. That's pretty far away from any immediate business need. We were talking about innovation that made it's way to the customer. No, I said that despite being a monopoly, AT&T spent a fortune on research that advanced science and technology, including the invention of the transistor, which speaks for itself. It changed the world. And that most certainly also reached customers, not only at AT&T but everywhere around the world. You can find a transistor today in even the poorest, most backwoods places on the planet. You denied that AT&T's research amounted to anything, that they had any interest in innovation at all. |
#159
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'
|
#160
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/10/2019 12:43 PM, trader_4 wrote: The actual history shows that IBM was as perplexed about the nascent personal computer business and there was no grand scheme. And there was no x86 business at that point, the PC was introduced not in the business market, but the personal computing, home market. Ken Olson, founder and CEO of DEC could not understand why anyone would want a computer on their desk. The PC made no sense to him. Hopefully, he tucked away enough money to live on or he'd be waiting tables now. DEC had facilities all over MA in their prime days. Ken Olsen and DEC are indeed an interesting case study. Olsen was working at the labs at MIT and realized the need for smaller computers that could be utilized in places like labs and factories, instead of mainframes. He created the minicomputer business, which IBM, DG, Burroughs, etc ignored. He got inside their time and product cycles, out maneuvered them, and built DEC into a Fortune 500 company. That was the 60s and 70s. DEC ruled the roost and appeared invincible. Then the PC came along and the same thing happened to DEC and Ken Olsen that he had done to the mainframe companies. DEC missed the PC, blew it, and it tore into their business. Compaq wound up buying them when they had already fallen badly and couldn't get back up. That was a mistake. But despite the humiliation, I'm sure Olsen had plenty of money and didn't suffer. He was one of those guys who wore off the rack suits, worked 80 hours a week, rarely took vacation, drove an ordinary car. Similar to guys like Andy Grove, Gordon Moore, Bob Noyce, and Warren Buffet. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Dream: Tenth Mark of the Beast Dream | Electronics | |||
GREEN.... MORE GREEN..... ALL GREEN ! | Home Repair |