God help me, but now I want to jump in:
 
> > Amiga and Mac didn't sell as big because to buy into them meant being trapped.
> > They
> > were one pony shows.  Intel, Microsoft, and IBM opened up the PC and now you
> > have the perfect
> > example of OPEN COMPUTING.
>
> Huh?  IBM didn't "open up" the PC more than Apple (with Apple II or Mac),
> or Comodore with the Amiga.  I *know* that Commodore encouraged outside
> vendors to make boards for the Amiga, and I'm fairly sure that Apple did the
> same, and IBM as well.  I'd rate them about the same in this area.
>
> Perhaps you mean: make the BIOS available so that other people could make
> compatible computers?  NO! IBM didn't did that ... clones had to wait until
> reverse engineered BIOSs was available.   In *just the same manner*, Apple
 
Yes and no on several points.  I remember when the first IBM clone hit the
market (I think it was Compaq, but I don't recall).  There was great
speculation about IBMs lawyers and just how much blood they would suck
from this upstart clone company.  IBM did the opposite and announced that
they would take no action.  This prompted every hardware hacker in the
land to start designing their own clone, staring a price spiral the likes
of which I have never seen since.
 
Part of the reason was that the clone had not copied the IBM BIOS, and IBM
was uncertain is they could sue.  One of the reasons the clone BIOS worked
was because IBM did publish thier BIOS listsings (I still have my copy
in a binder, in one of those damn boxes in the basement).  The BIOS code
was documented, and anyone with too much time on their hands could have
clone it from both the specs and examples.
 
> Actually, another type of "Open" definition occurs to me: the ability to
> chose between multiple vendors for software products.  By that definition,
 
Though I have a different set of definitions for open, I think you have
touched on the source of the PC success.  It wasn't the IBM PC design
(I prefer my old Apple ][ in some ways, and the dusty IM8080 with it's S100
bus had great potential) but the availability of software.  Enough people
bet on IBM being the "standard" that the software writers followed.
 
The real swing came when Mister Kahn (sp?) brought Turbo Paslcal to the
market for $49.  Before that it would cost you a couple of thousand
dollars and royalty fees to write software (unless you wrote in IBM BASIC,
which is as pleasent as dismemberment).  Now every two bit hacker (myself
included) was writing software for the PC.  Most of the software written
(mine included) was pure crap, but there was enough inovation (thatnks in
part to published BIOS code which showed how to flip the chips) to take
the market place foward.
 
        Guttenburg made everyone a reader, Xerox made eveyone a publisher,
        and Khan made everyone a programmer (C).
 
> Tools are neither inherently good, nor inherently bad.
 
An argument I make during gun control debates, but that's a different
news group.
 
 =======================================================================
Guy Smith                                Voice:  804-527-4000 ext 6664
Circuit City Stores, Inc.                  FAX:  804-527-4008
9950 Mayland Drive                      E-Mail:  [log in to unmask]
Richmond, VA 23233-1464         Private E-Mail:  [log in to unmask]
 
The thoughts expressed herein are mine and do not reflect those of my
employer, or anyone with common sense.