Measekite logic debunked - Meaning of compatible

Measekite would have us believe that "compatible" is a meaningless
term. He sites the early days of IBM and IBM compatibles as an
example.

Compaq was the first to offer a "compatible".
http://oldcomputers.net/compaqi.html

This was done by reverse engineering the roms in a clean environment,
mainly one group writing out the specifications, and the other group
who had no prior exposure to the roms cashing out something that would
act the same. The result was actually something 1/2 the size of IBM's
roms. To assure as close to 100% compatibility, compaq licensed basic
from Microsoft.

Phoenix did the same thing, and hired people who had NO exposure to
the 8086/8088 processors intel offered. This and a huge insurance
policy discouraged IBM from suing them to oblivion. Phoenix didn't
sell PCs, they sold ROMs to PC manufacturers, and thus put them in a
position to be the defacto PC standard.

Now the meaning of IBM compatible was not something clear cut as there
were various levels of compatibility. At the very least, you could
expect an IBM compatible to run MS-Dos. To assure something was
compatible with your application before 1988, you had to depend on
reviewers. The main benchmark was whether it ran Lotus 1-2-3, an
application developed in assembly, and MS Flight simulator.

Measekite would have us believe that because clones didn't offer IBM
basic roms and supported the IBM terminal network standard of the
time, they were not trully "compatible".

BASICA - It's true that there were "some" applications that were keyed
to the IBM roms and designed not to run on clones. I don't know This
approach was pretty much abandoned in 1987, though the last system
shipped with basic roms was 1990. However as this was Microsoft's
basic, they released GW Basic for MS-dos, so clones could run anything
written for BASICA on an IBM.

3270/5250 terminals - The IBM PC didn't ship with 3270 support except
for the 3270 PC, which was just a regular XT with 4 cards to support
the terminal network. As it turns out, you could take those cards and
put them into a clone at least according to one source. IBM terminal
emulation was supported by a number of companies.

If you bought a PC in 1987, and you were trying to decide between a
clone and an IBM, the big question you need ask was whether the clone
ran the software you wanted. You had to depend on the reviewers to do
this. After 1987, it was a moot point. Your average clone had either
a BIOS from Phoenix or AMI (Unsure when Award was formed) and was
compatible with the old IBM save ROM Basic which was abandoned by this
point. It was these machines that had the least issues running off
the shelf software. It was in fact IBMs that had more issues with off
the shelf software as

1) The PS/2 wasn't compatible with the hardware
2) The BIOS wasn't compatible

So what does this mean? IBM Compatible had a meaning. For the most
part, it meant it could run MS Dos. Software compatibility wasn't
always 100%, and there were a number of big company clones that
weren't. Before 1987 you had to depend on reviews to determine how
compatible an IBM Compatible was. After 1987, the clones set the
standard.

[Why Measekite is full of ****]

He thought that he could throw out 3270 terminal support as a defining
factor of IBM compatibility. The sad truth of the matter is the IBM
PC/XT/AT were not compatible AT ALL with 3270 terminals. The keyboard
was totally different, screen support was different. I don't know
what sort of CPU was used for 3270 terminals, but that too was
different. First generation XTs had 4 full length ISA cards to handle
3270 support. This was later cut down to 1 card.

But Measekite as always depends upon someone having no clue what he's
talking about and as such is able to prove his point. I freely admit
I know very little about 3270/5250 terminal networks. The main thing
I do know about them is if you need it, you talk to Attachmate for a
PCI card, adapt your mini/mainframe to support ethernet, or build a
controller that will take 3270/5250 telnet sessions and pipe that data
to and from the mini/mainframe.

But Measekite's point is if you needed to hookup to an IBM mini/
mainframe, you needed an IBM. That is bullshit. The service contract
might demand it, but there was a ton of 3rd party support. But this
hardly qualifies as a defining factor of compatibility because a true
blue IBM PC didn't support 3270. Whether you had a real IBM or a
clone, you had to get cards and software to emulate 3270/5250.

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoc...etwork_261.html
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache...clnk&cd=6&gl=us

[What does this mean as far as ink goes]

Compatible ink means exactly as it states, ink that works with a given
printer. As with 1980's PCs, you do have to depend on reviewers to
determine how compatible an ink is with your printer. However, just
like the PC era, it's possible to make a superior product to OEM.
However the main point to bulk ink is the lower price, and as such
they tend to not be as light/gasfast as OEM.

There is also generic ink that is ink designed to work with a wide
range of printers. Often this stuff "works" but may not be color
matched to your model, or might not operate properly.

On Nov 13, 7:50 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:

> Large corporations do not want to save their pennies and loose 100% IBM
> functionality. That is why many stayed with the micro channel
> architecture and many paid more for IBM branded memory. That is why many
> used certain software that even they deemed was not as good because the
> training costs and unknown factors may have put them at a competitive
> disadvantage.

Generalization. "many" stayed with micro channelarchitecture? How
many is many?

Dude, large businesses didn't buy computers, they bought information
systems. As in, they had a need, and talked it over with a systems
analyst. If they talked to someone from IBM, they either recommended
IBM, or they entered into a service contract with IBM.
Take 3270 terminals for example. You could buy IBM's terminal, or you
could use a generic VT100 with a host adapter.

You sort of presume that IBM was a market leader with information
systems. You have Wang, Dec, NEC, AST, TI, HP, Sun, SGI, just to name
a few. I know some large companies did depend on IBM for their
solutions, companies like Sears, Safeco, and Otis elevator. Sears and
Safeco for example did go ps/2 with 3270/5250 terminal adapters. Otis
AFAIK stuck with 3270 terminals as they worked, well into 2000. Last
I heard they were migrating away. IBM actually had good public
relations in the 1980s. You could walk into an IBM shop and chat with
a sales agent whether you were dressed in a suit, or in painter's
gear.

But this 100% IBM functionality was a myth perpetrated by IBM. MOST
software offered by IBM would run on a clone. The ONLY issue was
software that depended on IBM basic, which was not an issue come
1987.

If you had an IBM, one that took SIPPS/SIMMS/DIMMS, odds are rather
high you bought IBM memory. PS/2s for example used parity and by the
386/486 era, non-parity was the norm. And the 386/486 PS/2s were very
fussy about their memory. They were pretty damn useless on anything
but a PS/2. But the most important part was that the PS/2 was wildly
unpopular.

And what's this speech about micro channel architecture. That too was
wildly unpopular. AFAIK it was all but abandoned by the end of the
486 era. EISA was what was supported by the gang of 9.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...s_/ai_n17450518
By the mid to late 1990s, IBM abandoned desktop MCA support. The 24/7
free support line was disconnected, and they didn't bother making any
hardware for them. For example, they released a PC-dos based web
browser. For about $80 you got a modem and a dos based web browser.
They didn't offer a MCA or external modem for their own PS/2s, and
they didn't even support 8bit video for their MCA graphics cards.

The ONLY reason I know of to keep an MCA PS/2 is if it had a 3270/5250
terminal adapter onboard. It would cost $500-$1000 to get a PCI one
from Attachmate.

But you know what the "big boys" buy now? They buy Dells or
Gateways. They buy off the shelf hardware that everyone knows, which
are CLONES.

> It did not make much difference to them what was better. IBM was good
> enough and supported them making a profit and being competitive in their
> business.

But that's the thing. IBM WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. That was the ****ing
problem. When you secretary's home computer was more powerful than
the IBM PCs, there was a ****ing problem, a huge ****ing problem
considering these machines were bought for $1000-$4000 a piece. The
PS/2 was esp. problematic since they thought it was a good idea to
release a 486slc based machine. Sure it was cheaper for IBM to
retrofit their boards to take a slc chip, and sure they got a good
price on it, but this was right at the very edge of web, and have you
ever tried to surf using something without a mathco? What about
business applications like excel or lotus 1-2-3? The big boys who
once bought IBM were ****ed off, and threw these things out the
window, which in all fairness they were built rather well and didn't
break. (I'm not kidding).

The IBM problem was the fact that they offered an inferior product at
superior prices, easy observed by looking at your cheap Gateway, Dell,
or other no name clone vs an IBM office computer.

Oh, in case you didn't observe it, IBM lost it's standing on the
market place.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:36:02 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

> On Nov 13, 7:50 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> Large corporations do not want to save their pennies and loose 100% IBM
>> functionality. That is why many stayed with the micro channel
>> architecture and many paid more for IBM branded memory. That is why many
>> used certain software that even they deemed was not as good because the
>> training costs and unknown factors may have put them at a competitive
>> disadvantage.



You ARE NUTS. I bought 4,000 COMPUTERS. In the beginning only IBM.
After they became a commodity I bought Dell but not when they were PC
Limited. They were not compatible.
>
> Generalization. "many" stayed with micro channelarchitecture? How many
> is many?
>
> Dude, large businesses didn't buy computers, they bought information
> systems. As in, they had a need, and talked it over with a systems
> analyst. If they talked to someone from IBM, they either recommended
> IBM, or they entered into a service contract with IBM. Take 3270
> terminals for example. You could buy IBM's terminal, or you could use a
> generic VT100 with a host adapter.
>
> You sort of presume that IBM was a market leader with information
> systems. You have Wang, Dec, NEC, AST, TI, HP, Sun, SGI, just to name a
> few. I know some large companies did depend on IBM for their solutions,
> companies like Sears, Safeco, and Otis elevator. Sears and Safeco for
> example did go ps/2 with 3270/5250 terminal adapters. Otis AFAIK stuck
> with 3270 terminals as they worked, well into 2000. Last I heard they
> were migrating away. IBM actually had good public relations in the
> 1980s. You could walk into an IBM shop and chat with a sales agent
> whether you were dressed in a suit, or in painter's gear.
>
> But this 100% IBM functionality was a myth perpetrated by IBM. MOST
> software offered by IBM would run on a clone. The ONLY issue was
> software that depended on IBM basic, which was not an issue come 1987.
>
> If you had an IBM, one that took SIPPS/SIMMS/DIMMS, odds are rather high
> you bought IBM memory. PS/2s for example used parity and by the 386/486
> era, non-parity was the norm. And the 386/486 PS/2s were very fussy
> about their memory. They were pretty damn useless on anything but a
> PS/2. But the most important part was that the PS/2 was wildly
> unpopular.
>
> And what's this speech about micro channel architecture. That too was
> wildly unpopular. AFAIK it was all but abandoned by the end of the 486
> era. EISA was what was supported by the gang of 9.
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...s_/ai_n17450518 By the mid
> to late 1990s, IBM abandoned desktop MCA support. The 24/7 free support
> line was disconnected, and they didn't bother making any hardware for
> them. For example, they released a PC-dos based web browser. For about
> $80 you got a modem and a dos based web browser. They didn't offer a MCA
> or external modem for their own PS/2s, and they didn't even support 8bit
> video for their MCA graphics cards.
>
> The ONLY reason I know of to keep an MCA PS/2 is if it had a 3270/5250
> terminal adapter onboard. It would cost $500-$1000 to get a PCI one
> from Attachmate.
>
> But you know what the "big boys" buy now? They buy Dells or Gateways.
> They buy off the shelf hardware that everyone knows, which are CLONES.
>
>> It did not make much difference to them what was better. IBM was good
>> enough and supported them making a profit and being competitive in
>> their business.
>
> But that's the thing. IBM WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. That was the ****ing
> problem. When you secretary's home computer was more powerful than the
> IBM PCs, there was a ****ing problem, a huge ****ing problem considering
> these machines were bought for $1000-$4000 a piece. The PS/2 was esp.
> problematic since they thought it was a good idea to release a 486slc
> based machine. Sure it was cheaper for IBM to retrofit their boards to
> take a slc chip, and sure they got a good price on it, but this was
> right at the very edge of web, and have you ever tried to surf using
> something without a mathco? What about business applications like excel
> or lotus 1-2-3? The big boys who once bought IBM were ****ed off, and
> threw these things out the window, which in all fairness they were built
> rather well and didn't break. (I'm not kidding).
>
> The IBM problem was the fact that they offered an inferior product at
> superior prices, easy observed by looking at your cheap Gateway, Dell,
> or other no name clone vs an IBM office computer.
>
> Oh, in case you didn't observe it, IBM lost it's standing on the market
> place.


It is nice to get you to waste a lot of your time doing the research and
typing your little fingers away. I give you a few crumbs and you then
bake a loaf of bread.

On Nov 13, 8:39 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:36:02 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 7:50 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
> >> Large corporations do not want to save their pennies and loose 100% IBM
> >> functionality. That is why many stayed with the micro channel
> >> architecture and many paid more for IBM branded memory. That is why many
> >> used certain software that even they deemed was not as good because the
> >> training costs and unknown factors may have put them at a competitive
> >> disadvantage.
>
> You ARE NUTS. I bought 4,000 COMPUTERS. In the beginning only IBM.
> After they became a commodity I bought Dell but not when they were PC
> Limited. They were not compatible.


Odds are you didn't buy them. Odds are someone else bought them.

And dude, you're debunking your self.

And they are not compatible? What specifically wasn't compatible?

Dude, take a copy of MS Dos 1.1, and plop it on a PC. Does it run?
Yes? That's IBM compatibility. There are some querks now you can no
longer buy ISA based motherboards. The last ISA motherboards I'm
aware of are ones for the 500-1.7ghz AMD chipset.

I "never" needed dos 1.1, in fact I only ran it for laughs. I only
got into the PC when dos 4.x was new and dos 5 was released in stores,
which was nice since you couldn't really buy dos 4 in stores. I still
have a couple of applications that work as well on an IBM XT as a
modern machine. Vernon Buerg's LIST is one thing I still use.

Can you run an old version of MS Flight Simulator and Lotus 1-2-3 on a
modern PC running an old version of dos 2/3/4? Well, then you have
reasonable assurance that it's IBM compatible.

There are a few software compatibility issues such as programs that
took their timing from the XT. But this isn't really an IBM thing.


> It is nice to get you to waste a lot of your time doing the research and
> typing your little fingers away. I give you a few crumbs and you then
> bake a loaf of bread.

This is because you sir are incorrect on many levels. Perhaps I just
know more than you.

It might be you got your company to buy 4000 PCs. You might have
bought IBM. There was little reason to buy IBM after Compaq cloned
the PC, and after Phoenix released their bios. In fact, there were
many reasons to NOT buy IBM. Compaq released a 386 before IBM did.
Asus was the first to develop a working 486 motherboard before intel
built a reference board. If you wanted the best in technology and off
the shelf software support, by 1987/1988 you DIDN'T BUY IBM. IBM sold
technically weird machines (386slc/486slc) that they them selves
didn't support all that well. It wasn't until the Value Line that
they offered a reasonably compatible machine, and by that point, it
was just another ****ing clone.

Why Measekite is full of ****

1) IBM compatibles did everything an IBM could do but better.
2) Microsoft released their own basic which could run IBM basic, as
they wrote both.
3) You didn't need an IBM to hook into an IBM 3270/5250 network
4) Future compatibility was with the clones, not IBM
* 5) Measekite brings up buying Dell when the PC became commodity
hardware. The PC was always commodity hardware.

(4) It's true that IBM pioneered the PC, but they did so based on open
specifications. The only thing IBM about the IBM was their bios.
Anyone and their cousin could duplicate the IBM since IBM didn't
actually design it. The bios was another matter. Once cloned in a
clean room environment, once Phoenix released their own BIOS with a
large insurance policy from Lloyd's of London, and was willing to sell
their BIOS to others, well, this opened the door to cheap clones.

IBM tried very hard to actually develop a system that wasn't based on
commodity hardware. Enter the PS/2 with MCA rather than an ISA bus.
IBM had a good idea. It was a good deal faster than ISA, and it had
provisions for identifying what it was through the use ID codes. It
was very early plug and play. In theory, you could license MCA from
IBM, and IBM would keep a copy of your driver on hand. This service
cost a pretty penny, but it actually was a very good idea? What
happened? Well the PS/2 wasn't very compatible with prior generation
IBMs or the clones that were on the market. For business
applications, the lack of EGA support was problematic. They retrofit
older boards with 386slc and 486slc chips, which had their own
compatibility issues.

Why buy a PS2? Well just as IBM released a PC that jacked into their
oddball terminal network, they did have a nitch market with the PS/2
doing the same thing. They were not that much more expensive than
3270/5250 terminals and could do a good deal more, like run Microsoft
Windows 3.1/NT/workgroups. However the PS2 was a bit of a curse. You
were pretty much stuck with it, well, unless you were able to find 3rd
party IBM terminal network support.

[pre IBM PC]

IBM never planned of having anything resembling system integration.
They didn't want a little mainframe, otherwise they would use their
own IBM 801 processor. They in fact contacted Atari first about
licensing their computer. The Atari 8-bit was actually not a bad
little machine. From what I'm told they shoved the negotiating team
in boxes and rolled them around the Atari plant, and for some reason
IBM didn't think they were very professional.

Actually an Atari 8bit was far more capable machine than the IBM XT,
as was the Commodore 64, hell even the TI-99/4a. The Coleco vision
Adam too as also a more capable machine based on the z-80 with the
option for CP/M. These things did in 64k what the PC required 640k
to do.

Why go x86? Well IBM were cheap bastards at the time. They had a ton
of support chips for the i8085 and it wasn't a big deal to use them
for an 8086/8088. They "could" have gone z-80 with CP/M but CP/M
wasn't "that" cheap. A later version from Digital Research CP/M86
cost $240 where PC-dos cost IBM only $40/copy. The 68000 (Break away
from the past) was a legit option too. There was CP/M, there was
Unix. There were others I can't remember the names of.

[What does this have to do with compatibility]
Industry standards and compatibility was not the goal with the IBM
PC. The goal was something they could build cheaply. They didn't
want cross platform support, portability, or anything useful. Hell,
it wasn't even compatible with their own keyboards they made at the
time.

But ultimately since IBM went with open architecture, using a ton of
old crap they had laying around, and thus making the first IBM PC,
which was then cloned by Compaq but more importantly the BIOS by
Phoenix which became the defacto standard for the home PC.

[how was this possible]
IBM used commodity hardware.

[Why buy an IBM?]

Good question. IBM did have good marketing and good sales people.
Their product, well, the clones were faster and more capable by far.
After Pheonix offered their own bios to anyone, there was
standardization among clones, later Award and AMI bios were released.
IBM tried to innovate with the PS/2 but this was incompatible with
prior generations even though they added legacy code to their new PS/2
bios.

The only thing IBM had on anyone else was their name. They had basic
in their BIOS, which wasn't actually all that useful since MS released
their basic on disk.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:20:17 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

> On Nov 13, 8:39 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:36:02 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
>> > On Nov 13, 7:50 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Large corporations do not want to save their pennies and loose 100% IBM
>> >> functionality. That is why many stayed with the micro channel
>> >> architecture and many paid more for IBM branded memory. That is why many
>> >> used certain software that even they deemed was not as good because the
>> >> training costs and unknown factors may have put them at a competitive
>> >> disadvantage.
>>
>> You ARE NUTS. I bought 4,000 COMPUTERS. In the beginning only IBM.
>> After they became a commodity I bought Dell but not when they were PC
>> Limited. They were not compatible.
>
>
> Odds are you didn't buy them. Odds are someone else bought them.
>
> And dude, you're debunking your self.
>
> And they are not compatible? What specifically wasn't compatible?
>
> Dude, take a copy of MS Dos 1.1, and plop it on a PC. Does it run?
> Yes? That's IBM compatibility. There are some querks now you can no
> longer buy ISA based motherboards. The last ISA motherboards I'm
> aware of are ones for the 500-1.7ghz AMD chipset.
>
> I "never" needed dos 1.1, in fact I only ran it for laughs. I only
> got into the PC when dos 4.x was new and dos 5 was released in stores,
> which was nice since you couldn't really buy dos 4 in stores. I still
> have a couple of applications that work as well on an IBM XT as a
> modern machine. Vernon Buerg's LIST is one thing I still use.
>
> Can you run an old version of MS Flight Simulator and Lotus 1-2-3 on a
> modern PC running an old version of dos 2/3/4? Well, then you have
> reasonable assurance that it's IBM compatible.
>
> There are a few software compatibility issues such as programs that
> took their timing from the XT. But this isn't really an IBM thing.
>
>
>> It is nice to get you to waste a lot of your time doing the research and
>> typing your little fingers away. I give you a few crumbs and you then
>> bake a loaf of bread.
>
> This is because you sir are incorrect on many levels. Perhaps I just
> know more than you.
>
> It might be you got your company to buy 4000 PCs. You might have
> bought IBM. There was little reason to buy IBM after Compaq cloned
> the PC, and after Phoenix released their bios. In fact, there were
> many reasons to NOT buy IBM. Compaq released a 386 before IBM did.
> Asus was the first to develop a working 486 motherboard before intel
> built a reference board. If you wanted the best in technology and off
> the shelf software support, by 1987/1988 you DIDN'T BUY IBM. IBM sold
> technically weird machines (386slc/486slc) that they them selves
> didn't support all that well. It wasn't until the Value Line that
> they offered a reasonably compatible machine, and by that point, it
> was just another ****ing clone.

Why don't you have the intelligence to understand big business. Lets talk
Dell and compatibility. Dell tells big business that in order to get 100%
compatibility between all of their product and to be able to support them
properly buy the Lattitudes or the Optiplex. The other consumer line is
best for the individual or small business. The reason is that the Opiplex
line does not use the latest and greatest and does not change frequently
so the ones you buy a couple of years later are the same as the ones
bought today. The dimension line changes frequently and may not be the
same a few months from now.

With the optiplex you have consistency and with the dimension you do not.
Now most all of the mainstream software runs fine on both.

On Nov 14, 9:55 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:

> Why don't you have the intelligence to understand big business. Lets talk
> Dell and compatibility. Dell tells big business that in order to get 100%
> compatibility between all of their product and to be able to support them
> properly buy the Lattitudes or the Optiplex. The other consumer line is
> best for the individual or small business. The reason is that the Opiplex
> line does not use the latest and greatest and does not change frequently
> so the ones you buy a couple of years later are the same as the ones
> bought today. The dimension line changes frequently and may not be the
> same a few months from now.
>
> With the optiplex you have consistency and with the dimension you do not.
> Now most all of the mainstream software runs fine on both.

Gawd, I remember the Optiplex. I remember a pentium II Optiplex that
was shipped per request with win95, even though win98 was new and
spiffy. Most notable was the lack of either EPP or ECP printer
support. Those suckers wouldn't ****ing drive an HP printer, one that
would only work with EPP mode IIRC. Standard unidirectional wouldn't
****ing work.

But with the Optiplex, current generation, you can get the quadcore
CPU. (755). You can also get that on their gamer line. So Measekite
once again is making up ****.

I mean, you have a point, the Optiplex line gets the more spiffy
standard motherboard where the value line gets the cheap lesser
chipset motherboard.

A premium IBM PS2 solution was a 486slc limited to 16 megs of ram.
This was after the Pentium 120 was released, and IBM was offering a
chip without an onboard mathco on a 16 bit bus. This wasn't offered
for compatibility, they retrofit 386sx motherboards as their premium
solution. This was a bigger downgrade than a 486sx, which at least
was on a 32bit bus.

Same deal with their XT/AT line. They were will offering a 286 at
8mhz when everyone else was offering 386s and 486s. I bought my 386sx
16 in 1988, what was it, somewhere between $500-$600 without vid card,
monitor, or HD.

It wasn't a case of IBM not offering the latest and greatest for
compatibility purposes. IBM was offering the slowest machines
possible at premium prices. And you know what happened? The big boys
for the most par stopped buying IBMs when they discovered how much
faster their home system was. They bought things like Compaq, Dell,
Gateway, companies that could handle 1000+ units and charged a
fraction of the price, like 50% to 75% less than a true blue IBM or a
PS/2. And that Dell, that cheap Dell, was far more compatible with
software for the IBM XT than the IBM PS/2, and far more compatible
with off the shelf software.

FYI... the Optiplex is more than compatibility. At least in the past
they were better built in terms of cases, as in rated for 200+
pounds. Not that I actually found them to be more "compatible", in
fact my experience has taught me they had some unusual quarks to
them.

1987-1991 software was designed on the cheap clones out of Taiwan, and
as such they were more compatible with off the shelf software than
IBM. They were more compatible with windows 3.1 in standard mode
since you needed at least a 386 to do that.

There was a good reason why the PS/2 was called "Piece of ****/2".
Because it was! The ONLY business application I can think of for
those things was if you needed 3270/5250 terminal support, as they
were cheaper than the terminals. But 3rd party support for IBM
terminal networks was better and cheaper, as in only $500-$1000 above
and beyond the cost of a PC.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:44:09 -0800, IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:

> On Nov 14, 9:55 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you have the intelligence to understand big business. Lets talk
>> Dell and compatibility. Dell tells big business that in order to get 100%
>> compatibility between all of their product and to be able to support them
>> properly buy the Lattitudes or the Optiplex. The other consumer line is
>> best for the individual or small business. The reason is that the Opiplex
>> line does not use the latest and greatest and does not change frequently
>> so the ones you buy a couple of years later are the same as the ones
>> bought today. The dimension line changes frequently and may not be the
>> same a few months from now.
>>
>> With the optiplex you have consistency and with the dimension you do not.
>> Now most all of the mainstream software runs fine on both.
>
> Gawd, I remember the Optiplex. I remember a pentium II Optiplex that
> was shipped per request with win95, even though win98 was new and
> spiffy. Most notable was the lack of either EPP or ECP printer
> support. Those suckers wouldn't ****ing drive an HP printer, one that
> would only work with EPP mode IIRC. Standard unidirectional wouldn't
> ****ing work.
>
> But with the Optiplex, current generation, you can get the quadcore
> CPU. (755). You can also get that on their gamer line. So Measekite
> once again is making up ****.
>
> I mean, you have a point, the Optiplex line gets the more spiffy
> standard motherboard where the value line gets the cheap lesser
> chipset motherboard.
>
> A premium IBM PS2 solution was a 486slc limited to 16 megs of ram.
> This was after the Pentium 120 was released, and IBM was offering a
> chip without an onboard mathco on a 16 bit bus. This wasn't offered
> for compatibility, they retrofit 386sx motherboards as their premium
> solution. This was a bigger downgrade than a 486sx, which at least
> was on a 32bit bus.
>
> Same deal with their XT/AT line. They were will offering a 286 at
> 8mhz when everyone else was offering 386s and 486s. I bought my 386sx
> 16 in 1988, what was it, somewhere between $500-$600 without vid card,
> monitor, or HD.
>
> It wasn't a case of IBM not offering the latest and greatest for
> compatibility purposes. IBM was offering the slowest machines
> possible at premium prices. And you know what happened? The big boys
> for the most par stopped buying IBMs when they discovered how much
> faster their home system was. They bought things like Compaq, Dell,
> Gateway, companies that could handle 1000+ units and charged a
> fraction of the price, like 50% to 75% less than a true blue IBM or a
> PS/2. And that Dell, that cheap Dell, was far more compatible with
> software for the IBM XT than the IBM PS/2, and far more compatible
> with off the shelf software.
>
> FYI... the Optiplex is more than compatibility. At least in the past
> they were better built in terms of cases, as in rated for 200+
> pounds. Not that I actually found them to be more "compatible", in
> fact my experience has taught me they had some unusual quarks to
> them.
>
> 1987-1991 software was designed on the cheap clones out of Taiwan, and
> as such they were more compatible with off the shelf software than
> IBM. They were more compatible with windows 3.1 in standard mode
> since you needed at least a 386 to do that.
>
> There was a good reason why the PS/2 was called "Piece of ****/2".
> Because it was! The ONLY business application I can think of for
> those things was if you needed 3270/5250 terminal support, as they
> were cheaper than the terminals. But 3rd party support for IBM
> terminal networks was better and cheaper, as in only $500-$1000 above
> and beyond the cost of a PC.

If you typed all this I hope you enjoyed it.

On Nov 14, 9:17 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:

> If you typed all this I hope you enjoyed it.

Well, I'm just glad you can admit when you're wrong.

Great history! If I could horn in on this even though I'm nowhere near the
level of this discussion:

Owned a manufacturing company, 65 employees, and was looking in 1987 or so
to upgrade our in-house computer system. I looked very hard at MAPICS, IBM's
Manufacturing and Production Information Control System. Spent a week in San
Jose at their MAPICS training class. This was a system that started with
order entry, inventory control, invoicing, and bill-of-material functions.
Their price for the whole package: $110,000 (approx) including hardware.
UNISYS came in with their MAPPER database language and wrote the entire
system described above from scratch for us in a mode that would allow us to
query data and generate any report or info we needed. IBM was pretty much
limited to their pre-defined reports. UNISYS cost for the entire system:
$38,000. We used networked PC workstations and a 486 as our server. Hardware
cost was nominal.

BTW, after I attended the IBM seminar and before I had made any commitment
of any kind to IBM, MAPICS and hardware manuals began to arrive unordered.
The material filled a small 36x36 pallet. Fun reading but useless. Of
course, we never placed the order with IBM, went with UNISYS, got great
support and I still remember their staff with great fondness.

"IntergalacticExpandingPanda" <intergalacticexpandingpanda@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:01506ee7-efd1-4382-bb6a-1a470498d71d@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 9:17 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> If you typed all this I hope you enjoyed it.
>
> Well, I'm just glad you can admit when you're wrong.
>