Jinx wrote:

> And I suppose you could compare IBM clones and Macs in that
> way. The IBM platform was made available to any manufacturer.

Well, no more than the Apple ][ was.  Which is to say, schematics and BIOS
listings were freely available, and cloners could and did clone function for
function.  In those days nearly EVERY computer came with complete
schematics; the first one I remember NOT having this was an Apple product in
fact.  Even IBM Mainframes of that era came complete with full
documentation, a rack of diagrams and even microcode listings, all of which
were actually useful right up through the 303X line.

> The result was a large base of users and s/w, even though Apple
> h/w was often superior (at a price). Then Windows and it's many
> squillions of users came along and Apple took another beating

Apple had a running start and thousands upon thousands of users and an
immense base of software.  What I recall being so attractive about the IBM
was that the platform had room for growth with software compatability (48K
on a good day with Apple, 128K and up on IBM), good docs, the IBM name and
more importantly legions of IBM salesdroids pushing business applications.
To my knowledge no one ever built a 3270 of 5250 adapter for any Apple
product (I could well be wrong).  Point is, in the business world "computer"
and "IBM" were pretty much synonymous, and most businesses did not consider
small computers a viable tool for anything until IBM introduced something
they could get that warm fuzzy feeling about.

The larger capacity of the IBM also made it better able to handle massive
spreadsheets, which made it actually useful in a business setting.  I
remember this particular period well, and was a true Apple fan at the time.
I did all of my programming on borrowed Apples (I was far too poor to afford
one myself as a junior NCO with kids).  The IBM was pricey, but so was an
Apple ][+ or ][e.  Apple's attempts to gain market share with business
systems were, to be kind, non-starters (Apple /// and Lisa).  By the time
the Mac was introduced the battle was pretty much over.

As for Apple hardware being superior...  well, I don't remember any that
was.  Floppy drives were glitchy, about the only thing going for it was a
color display that the IBM lacked at first.

Dale

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu