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

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sat Apr 10 02:40:45 1999

In late 1979-and much of 1980, I worked for a consultant here in the
Colorado front-range, who happened to have a contract with Tandy, as did
several others, to produce a prototype of the next generation personal
computer for Radio Shack. There were sobstantial guidelines and some
direction, e.g. the packaging was more or less determined already, and the
noise and power supply characteristics were handed to us, but we had quite
liberal discretion as to what would go into our prototype. I was tasked
with the memory subsystems, including rotating memories, as I had
specifically applicable skills which they desired. ( I had built several
really solid all-digital clock recovery circuits which worked with both FM
and MFM, among other modulation schemes, and made them work with the then
new winchester disks in 5.25" form factor. I also had extensive experience
with DRAMs. )

We ended up with the creature I described a couple of posts ago. Tandy
happily paid us but later told us that the $5 or so which it cost over and
above the cheapest prototype presented them by one of the other firms
similar to ours, and since they anticipated sales of about 1M units, they
wanted the 5 million for themselves. That's why I put forth the detailed
lamentation.

It's true, they eventually came around, but not until after it was too late.

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin_at_xenosoft.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 2:54 PM
Subject: What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism


>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 Sat Apr 10 1999 - 02:40:45 BST