I looked last 2 pages of this thread (what I did not follow), and I need to say some things:
Calimero is typical one, who sees things one-sided, who will fight for his right with lot of arguments. Actually, that would be not rare case of person, I would say that majority is such. The difference is only in level of biasment, how much (time) someone will to spend in useless (99% of is it) debates ...
And all it is because he does not like PC, does not like Micro$oft . And because mentioned 2 dominate computer market since about 1990 until now, that must be because they were unfair, used some bad things in war called competition on market. I don't like MS, I'm pretty much neutral about IBM - actually, I know so little about IBM that I simply can not have some opinion about that company overall. I know only things related with so called "PC" , Fact is that PC is early computer design from about 1980 . Was it named PC right then ? I'm not sure - and saying it just because in begin it was mostly bought by firms, for work. It was just too expensive for average home user.
Additionally, it was text only graphic, with optional real graphic card, what was another expensive part. While on market real home computers (basically means 100% same as PC) appeared, with very fast progress considering speed, graphics, user interface etc. IBM was slow, and still way too expensive.
So, the question is: why the Hell IBM's conceptual design prevailed and took over domination some 10 years after it's launch ?
I would say that main reason was that IBM did not manufacture it This may sound as sarcasm, and we know that actually IBM manufactured some smaller quantity, or at least it was sold with name of ... It stopped totally some years ago, as was later with IBM hard drives, notebooks .
On the other side, what other microcomputer (let's use this term) manufacturers did, including 'so great' Apple - they made non-compatible new models one after other. Why ? One of the reasons is that it is cheaper to do so. Other would be that they did not plan ahead enough.
And that leads us to very important factor: SW compatibility. It influenced even CPU designs, before 1980. Vectors are there because SW compatibility. Jumptables in ROM are because of that. Atari was aware about it, so ST was designed to be upgradeable, and old SW still work on it - well partially only. This is very complex thing, so not going in details.
No GUI with PC ? That's what Calimero says - and I must say he has no clue DR launched GUI OS for Atari and for PC in approx. same time .You can see how TOS is similar to (DR) DOS in many things.
In that time, there was lot of expansions for PC, manufactured by whoever wanted it. And more important, you could make PC clone too legally. Only thing you needed to make, buy self was BIOS.
The goal was to make compatible machine, where SW will work. I say it 'boldly' because I'm sure that it was the key in success. Probably nobody planned it, it just happened so. 100 manufacturers of same architecture, and same SW is good for any of it ? That's just sound so good for people disappointed with fact that their beloved Apple again launched non-compatible machine.
Of course, companies learned. Apple made Macintosh with compatibility in mind - as did Atari, Commodore, etc. And PC clone manufacturers learned too: they started with custom chips, chipsets - ant that won the war eventually.
May be to be continued
Edited by ParanoidLittleMan, Tue Dec 5, 2017 2:17 AM.