Forgot your password?
Cyhist Jun 07 1997 A
Document Actions
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 11:22:52 -0400
Reply-To: Erwin Rennert <rennert@ibm.net>
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Erwin Rennert <rennert@IBM.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
The following discussion is going on in usenet (comp.os.os2.beta), and I wonder if somebody could shed a little light on the subject?
quote=================
C.H. Woodard wrote:
>
>Peter Pollack wrote:
>>
>>david raoul derbes wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>And if you want an example of Torvald's Law: look at the PC
architecture
>>>vs Apple. Had Apple freed up its proprietary grasp of the hardware, well, things might have been very different. But IBM published freely the spec's, and here we are today.
>>
>>Actually, to be fair, I don't think the open PC design that we have today was IBM's idea. As I recall, in order to bring a desktop computer to market quickly, IBM resorted to designing mostly with off-the-shelf parts. This allowed companies such as Compaq to reverse-engineer PC clones while avoiding legal conflicts with IBM. IBM has repeatedly (the PS/2 being the most obvious example) tried to take control of the market again with proprietary architectures.
>>
>>-Pete
>
>The MCA was not proprietary, and it was not free either. The AT bus was mostly specified, except the buss timing specs ie IO Channel READY timing. There was much of the MCA spec that was disclosed. MCA was an attempt to standardize the PC in a similar way as the MAC machine, this way Adapters and software would work in a appliance manner on the PC. MCA was hardware PnP for PC's at the time. Now the infamous gang of nine led by Compaq created the EISA spec that was partly derived from the MCA spec. This turned out to be truely a proprietary spec, with custom memory boards and such. The problem with MCA is IBM's attempt to hurt other players in the industry with outrageous fees to use the full MCA spec, although IBM gave the spec to a few companies (Tandy and Dell).
>
>ChuckIs
Is the story that follows true?
IBM was mad that they designed the AT but were not getting royalties so came up MCA to be in royalty game again. In doing so they were to have a 'Fee" for the use of MCA but if a company had sold AT designed machines previously then they were to be charged more for use of the previous technology. Is this why NEC were selling MCA because they had not manufactured or sold any AT previously?
end quote===============
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Erwin Rennert
A-1060, Schadekgasse 4/2
Tel. 43-1-586 74 33; Fax 43-1-581 34 75
e-mail: rennert@ibm.net
Computer-Notruf "Dr.Comp." 0663-81 44 22
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: Erwin Rennert <rennert@ibm.net>
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Erwin Rennert <rennert@IBM.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
The following discussion is going on in usenet (comp.os.os2.beta), and I wonder if somebody could shed a little light on the subject?
quote=================
C.H. Woodard wrote:
>
>Peter Pollack wrote:
>>
>>david raoul derbes wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>And if you want an example of Torvald's Law: look at the PC
architecture
>>>vs Apple. Had Apple freed up its proprietary grasp of the hardware, well, things might have been very different. But IBM published freely the spec's, and here we are today.
>>
>>Actually, to be fair, I don't think the open PC design that we have today was IBM's idea. As I recall, in order to bring a desktop computer to market quickly, IBM resorted to designing mostly with off-the-shelf parts. This allowed companies such as Compaq to reverse-engineer PC clones while avoiding legal conflicts with IBM. IBM has repeatedly (the PS/2 being the most obvious example) tried to take control of the market again with proprietary architectures.
>>
>>-Pete
>
>The MCA was not proprietary, and it was not free either. The AT bus was mostly specified, except the buss timing specs ie IO Channel READY timing. There was much of the MCA spec that was disclosed. MCA was an attempt to standardize the PC in a similar way as the MAC machine, this way Adapters and software would work in a appliance manner on the PC. MCA was hardware PnP for PC's at the time. Now the infamous gang of nine led by Compaq created the EISA spec that was partly derived from the MCA spec. This turned out to be truely a proprietary spec, with custom memory boards and such. The problem with MCA is IBM's attempt to hurt other players in the industry with outrageous fees to use the full MCA spec, although IBM gave the spec to a few companies (Tandy and Dell).
>
>ChuckIs
Is the story that follows true?
IBM was mad that they designed the AT but were not getting royalties so came up MCA to be in royalty game again. In doing so they were to have a 'Fee" for the use of MCA but if a company had sold AT designed machines previously then they were to be charged more for use of the previous technology. Is this why NEC were selling MCA because they had not manufactured or sold any AT previously?
end quote===============
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Erwin Rennert
A-1060, Schadekgasse 4/2
Tel. 43-1-586 74 33; Fax 43-1-581 34 75
e-mail: rennert@ibm.net
Computer-Notruf "Dr.Comp." 0663-81 44 22
______________________________________________________________________
