What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

From: Fred Cisin <cisin_at_xenosoft.com>
Date: Fri Apr 9 15:31:08 1999

In other words, if RS were to have released their Model FOUR at about the
time that they came out with their model ONE, then they might have had
more of a competitive advantage. Hmmm.

The RCA TV set design that RS used for a monitor for the model 1 was NOT
really adequate for 80x24 display. (YES, I've done it.)
Double density was NOT readily achievable in 1978. And the poor quality
double density of the model 3 was comparable to the rest of the industry.
And RADIO SHACK was NOT capable of being THAT much of a technology leader!


OTOH, when RS came out with the model 3 a few years later, that WOULD have
been an appropriate time to make ALL of the model 4 changes, including
revising the memory map (to permit CP/M), 80x24 display, Ctrl key, etc.


Now, if intel were to have come out with the 233 Pentium in the 80s...
If Apple were to have come out with the Mac in the 70s...
If IBM were to have come out with the PC in the 60s,...
If Windoze were reliable,...


On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:

> In the late '70's, I think the microcomputer market was highly simplistic
> with respect to what it is today. Take a look at the comments I've imbedded
> in your text below.
>
> >> The TRS-80 could have been put out with (1) an 80x24 display rather than
> the
>
> <snip>
>
> >> If Tandy had gone with the better design, which was on the
> >> table, there probably would be no IBM PC today.
>
> Yes, that's true, but, the 4MHz+ (4.9152 MHz, actually) Z-80B with 64K of
> RAM, a 24x80-charcter display, double-density diskette interface that
> actually worked, built-in capability to install a hard disk, AND the ability
> to run CP/M right out of the box, in 1978-1979 e.g. at the fall '78 COMDEX,
> which was BEFORE there were "Over 10,000 programs written for the Apple"
> would have been hard to beat . . . particularly under the aegis of a
> nation-wide company with these facilities under one management already in
> place. Remember APPLE had to rely on small-time stores like Computerland
> for distribution, and their service, mostly indirect, was slow and costly.
>
> The things which seemed to make the Apple fit the business model the best
> (before Visicalc) was the 24x80-character display and the 8" diskette drives
> sitting next to it. With the aid of the Videx video display adapter and the
> Sorrento Valley Associates' 8" disk drive interface, the machine suddenly
> began to look like what people had come to expect when they learned about
> computers and how to use them.
I wasn't aware that the SVA drive ever had significant market share;
certainly not enough for IT to have been what made the ][ popular.

> It's true that "He with the biggest dick didn't always go home with the
> babe" but you mustn't forget that in this case, the dick was overtly
> measured and advertised. Whereas the above described TRS80-III wouldn't
> have been the fastest on the market, it had the packaging and the ability to
> turn into much more computer for much less money than the Apple, though with
> the gradually and later not so gradual increase in Apple's market share,
> they were able to become somewhat more competitive in spite of the high cost
> of distribution and service. The way it turned out, Tandy Corp ended up
> with precisely the smallest, didn't it? A barely-over 2MHz processor which
> stroked memory more at about 1.5 microsecond per memory cycle??? It was
> obvious to everyone who used the Radio Shack model III that their computer
> was SLOW. The Z-80-card in the Apple was significantly (and noticeably)
> faster. The two machines otherwise occupied about the same desk space, and,
> aside from the stupid, Stupid, STUPID choice to leave the Tandy machine's
> display at 16 lines of 64 characters (about half of what was on a 24x80, and
> about what was on an Apple with the standard display), they were quite
> similar. Of course the Radio Shack machine was SLOW . . .
Received on Fri Apr 09 1999 - 15:31:08 BST