The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler on 20 Mar 2007 11:33 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > That difficulty is still something I need to learn about. I > don't seem to be able to leap to the appropriate conclusions > when cost structures and R&D spending is mentioned. In my > day of working, that was what managers were supposed to deal > with. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#28 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? easy ... it frequently could take 7-10 years to come out with new item (research, development, testing, etc) ... and the clone makers could create a knock-off within six months. misc. posts about getting part of the blame for clone controllers, having helped build one as an undergraduate in the 60s http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#28 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? slight drift, recent post mentioning trade-secret case ... where clone maker had gotten internal specs. before announce. the case was for billions ... the amount extra that a clone maker could make by having a clone ready to ship the same day as the original ... rather than six months later (cut the lead time having to obtain a model, reverse engineer it and come out with clone) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#9 The Geneology of the IBM PC it is somewhat the analogy with some of the patented "drugs" and generics/knock-off drugs.
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler on 20 Mar 2007 12:03 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn(a)garlic.com> writes: > easy ... it frequently could take 7-10 years to come out with new item > (research, development, testing, etc) ... and the clone makers could > create a knock-off within six months. misc. posts about getting part > of the blame for clone controllers, having helped build one as an > undergraduate in the 60s > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#28 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? > > slight drift, recent post mentioning trade-secret case ... where clone > maker had gotten internal specs. before announce. the case was for > billions ... the amount extra that a clone maker could make by having > a clone ready to ship the same day as the original ... rather than six > months later (cut the lead time having to obtain a model, reverse > engineer it and come out with clone) > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm (correction) > > it is somewhat the analogy with some of the patented "drugs" and > generics/knock-off drugs. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#45 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? also thrown into that 7-10 yrs ... all the stuff that didn't pan out and/or had to be discarded for one reason or another. another recently mentioned simple example was all the air-bearing simulation work that went into the design of thin-film floating heads http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#43 FBA rant http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#44 Is computer history taught now? which also required a lot of prototypes being built and tested. the clone makers frequently had little or none of that expense (not having to start from scratch ... but could start from a working example).
From: Charlie Gibbs on 20 Mar 2007 20:15 In article <1174253082.775074.160140(a)y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, l_cole(a)juno.com (l_cole) writes: > If I happened to have some old software which > relied on 386 DOS 5.0 software, there's nothing > preventing me from continuing to run it without > paying any bucks on my old copy of 386 DOS 5.0 > software. > Microsoft doesn't charge me for continuing to > use its old unsupported software. Not yet. But one of their dreams is that someday they will be able to charge you. In criminal court. Keep an eye on upcoming EULAs. -- /~\ cgibbs(a)kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Mar 2007 08:48 In article <m3odmn7vhe.fsf(a)garlic.com>, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn(a)garlic.com> wrote: > >Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn(a)garlic.com> writes: >> easy ... it frequently could take 7-10 years to come out with new item >> (research, development, testing, etc) ... and the clone makers could >> create a knock-off within six months. misc. posts about getting part >> of the blame for clone controllers, having helped build one as an >> undergraduate in the 60s >> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#28 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? >> >> slight drift, recent post mentioning trade-secret case ... where clone >> maker had gotten internal specs. before announce. the case was for >> billions ... the amount extra that a clone maker could make by having >> a clone ready to ship the same day as the original ... rather than six >> months later (cut the lead time having to obtain a model, reverse >> engineer it and come out with clone) >> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm (correction) >> >> it is somewhat the analogy with some of the patented "drugs" and >> generics/knock-off drugs. > >re: >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#45 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits? > >also thrown into that 7-10 yrs ... all the stuff that didn't pan out and/or >had to be discarded for one reason or another. Yes. And never documented. This is the difference between the sciece world and the computer world. Scientists are also rewarded for documenting their errors. The computer biz gets punished for documenting anything. > >another recently mentioned simple example was all the air-bearing simulation >work that went into the design of thin-film floating heads >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#43 FBA rant >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#44 Is computer history taught now? > >which also required a lot of prototypes being built and tested. > >the clone makers frequently had little or none of that expense (not >having to start from scratch ... but could start from a working >example). It's even worse with software which is an "unseen" product. /BAH
From: l_cole on 21 Mar 2007 20:10
Rich Alderson wrote: <snip> > Extended addressing on the KL10 and later processors is not *precisely* a > segmented memory architecture in the sense of the early x86's, but it shares > enough commonality of problems that it can be lumped in with them, even if we > call them "sections" instead of "segments". What you've described certainly sounds very 8086/8088-like. But someone (perhaps you) made an earlier reference to PDP-10 segments as being very 80286-like. Is there another later variation you haven't described, and if so, would you mind waving your arms about it? <snip> |