From: aml@world.std.com (Andrew M Langmead)
Subject: Re: History was made today...
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:32:19 GMT

jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

>In article <BzGoBt.Guw@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcho000@ccu.umanitoba.ca  
>(Connie Cho) writes:
>> This leads to a question which I have had since I heard about IBM's
>> proposed cutbacks: just what are Gateway, Dell, etc. without a  
>strong,
>> at least somewhat innovative IBM? I was under the impression that
>> most PC R&D is done by IBM. Just how viable is the clone industry  
>now
>> that IBM is in trouble? Come to that, just HOW much trouble is IBM
>> in? Surely it isn't in as bad shape as Wang ended up in !?
>> 

>I don't think IBM has been the leader in innovation for years.
>Most of the newest technology, high-end VGA, graphics accelerator
>cards, multi-media enhancements, local bus, etc. have NOT
>come from IBM but from clone manufacturers or board 
>manufacturers.   The clone industry will stay very viable
>with IBM in trouble.  Most people in buying a PC don't even
>think of IBM, they just think PC.

One thing that is lucky for the IBM compatible marketplace is that programs
aren't directly concerned about Bus designs. There has been a lot of
incompatible bus designs in MS-DOS machines (Tandy, laptops, etc.) that
switching to Local-Bus doesn't have any impact on software, only future
hardware expansion. (And since local bus standards are coming quickly
and many vendors are making local bus boards, local bus may be an
advantage in the long run.)

Video standards are one good example of where IBM did some of its last
innovation, and where the multi-vendor MS-DOS/IBM-Compatible solution
falls apart. When IBM released machines with the VGA video standard, 
VGA support was soon added to most programs and many ISA based third
party cards were developed. When video above VGA's 320x200x256 (or
640x480x16) were needed each company went its own way. The result?
Few developers program anything above standard VGA modes, and standards
organizations like VESA trying to create a standard interface that still
supports the lowest common denominator. (One example of a "super-VGA" game
is Links-386 which includes VESA VGA drivers for many VGA chipsets with
the hope that one of them will match the users VGA card.)

The one thing that might save the MS-DOS market from lack of innovation
winds up being Windows. If the nifty new video accelerator has a Windows
driver (and if the video manufacturer is going to make one driver, it would
be for Windows (if making two, the next might be AutoCAD)) and the user
is doing all of their work in Windows. The user may buy the accelerator.
Unfortunately, so far, this has required more support for the hardware
manufacturers than has been required when making IBM-Compatible (instead of
Window compliant) parts. Drivers so far have needed to be updated between
Windows releases, and the hardware developers then have to play catch up with
their software.

ObMac statement:
This winds up being similar to the Mac video setup, except the drivers
are in ROM on the board. It is also why I feel that Mac vs. Windows arguments
can be valid. (Although when finding myself in a discussion like this, I
find the other person switching between Windows ("Ease of Use", "Hardware
Independence") and MS-DOS ("Software Available", "Machines Sold")) 

Apple doesn't have these problems, theirs are more in software compatability.
(Microsoft has managed to convince many developers to completely re-vamp
and create Windows products, Apple has done more for kludging to help
most programs stay compatible in most cases based on 1985-1986 vintage
documentation (Inside Macintosh) Has anybody but me ever noticed the
similarity between TopView/DESQview/Windows .PIF files and the Mac SIZE
resource? I guess our change to start fresh will be with Pink. (But
what happens if Apple/IBM through the Pink party and nobody comes?)

>--
>Jim Mann            
>Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

-- 
----