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

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sun Apr 11 13:36:55 1999

I didn't hate the glyptol on the screws nearly so much as I hated the
bayonet interlocks, which often broke when you opened a RS box

Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin_at_xenosoft.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism


>On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote to Allison:
>> The principal complaint I heard about the M1 was the principal complaint
>> about the M3. It was a paper tiger until you opened the box and added a
>> bunch of stuff/mods.
>
>While I agree, I kinda doubt that Allison has EVER plugged in ANYTHING
>before she "opened the box and added a bunch of stuff/mods". So, she
>might not see that as quite the negative that you do :-)
>
>> The same, to lesser extent, perhaps, could be said for
>> the Apple. The Apple was made easy-to-open. The RS boxes were not.
>
>While velcro is certainly extraordinarily convenient, particularly to
>those bothered by screwdrivers. But, as an occasional professional auto
>mechanic, I hardly felt that half a dozen screws made something hard to
>open. But it is true that RS had a very bad attitude about it. They
>actually had anti-tamper paint on one of the screws! One of the local RS
>technicians had an interesting slant on that: Since RS's policies
>apparently didn't explicitly mention modifications, only that the tamper
>seal must be intact, he would happily do the various warranty mods (there
>were SEVERAL for the early EI), IFF you provided him circuit sketches for
>all mods, and put a dab of the anti-tamper paint (he would provide it) on
>the screw after you made the mods. He said that if the store manager
>balked at seeing additional stuff through the slots of the "unopened"
>case, just start talking about "building boats in bottles". Apple's
>attitude of "go on in!" was much more refreshing.
>
>
>> When I saw my first PC in a commercial environment, it was running
CP/M-86
>> because that had the software the business owner was using previously on
his
>> Z-80. I often wondered what motivated him to switch. I also saw a
couple
>> of people's Apple-II running CP/M-86, and was awed by the fact they'd run
an
>> OS that was slower than the previous and better-endowed (with software)
>> CP/M-80 in the same basic environment.
>
>Interesting. What after-market system were they running to do CP/M-86 on
>the Apple?
>
>> IBM really performed only one major service to the microcomputer world:
>> They lent it its own trade name, which was its legitimacy.
>"PC" was in moderately common usage around here before IBM's entry.
>IBM always considered "PC" to be a shortened description, NOT a trade
>name! They did NOT trademark "PC". They never even trademarked
>"PC-DOS"!! OTOH, "MS-DOS" IS a registered trademark.
>
>> Having done
>> that, the behemoth was overrun by smaller, more adept innovators.
>
>Like a handful of fleas on an elephant.
>
>One fellow referred to Compaq's "challenge" of IBM as "a mouse running up
>the elephant's leg with intent to rape".
>
>
Received on Sun Apr 11 1999 - 13:36:55 BST