The Rise and Fall of the IBM PC

[Rspaight]

With IBM's sale of its PC division, I've been thinking about the decisions IBM made in that arena, and how those decisions have shaped the PC universe. I've been there from day one -- my dad worked for IBM and my first PC in 1982 was a first-gen IBM (64K RAM! Cassette port! RF adapter! 160K floppy drive!).

The original PC project was *not* a high-profile effort within IBM. The budget was low, as was the interest from the higher-ups. PCs were still viewed as toys, but IBM figured they ought to have an offering in the market, rather than handing sales to Apple, Radio Shack and Commodore. The team was free to do pretty much what they wanted, and what they did was *very* un-IBM -- they basically grabbed a bunch of off-the-shelf parts and published the specs.

IBM's dominance in the "big iron" mainframe and midrange markets was based on control of the standards. It was not trivial to make an "IBM-compatible" mainframe, though it was attempted, because the hardware and software was highly proprietary.

However, the 5150 (the first PC) was very different.

There was no budget to build a processor in-house, so the PC team went to Intel, a big player in the then-dominant (at least for business) CP/M market. They were just about to release the 8086, one of the first 16-bit processors. it was a no-brainer to base the 5150 on a 16-bit CPU, as there was no point in expending effort on a soon-to-be-obsolete 8-bit platform. But, all the parts out there were 8-bit. Developing all-new components to mate with the new 16-bit CPU would have been prohibitively expensive and price the 5150 out of the market.

The solution was the 8088. This was a 16-bit chip internally, but unlike the fully 16-bit 8086, the external interface of the 8088 was 8-bit, allowing the team to use all the readily available 8-bit components out there. This was a genius move, since it undercut the price of the "true" 16-bit systems while delivering most of their advantages. The 5150 was released with an 8088 chip running at 4.77MHz. (This was somewhat conservative -- the 8086 commonly was used at 6 and even 8 MHz. But IBM didn't release any faster systems until the 286-based AT in 1984.)

The other genius move was the open architecture, which would never have happened if the PC project was seen as at all important by the IBM brass. But since this was a below-the-radar project, a little something got released called the IBM PC Technical Manual. I had one a long time ago, it was a dark blue hardbound three-ring binder in a slipcase. Inside was all the information a competent engineer needed to build hardware compatible with the 5150, with the exception of the proprietary BIOS. This became known as the Industry Standard Architecture, or ISA.

The effect of this was to usher in a flood of third-party expansion products for the 5150, which debuted at the same time as the system itself. Memory expansion cards, all kinds of interface cards, joystick adapters, specialized graphics boards, anything you could imagine (and most importantly, things IBM didn't imagine). This huge base of third-party support is what sealed the deal for the dominance of the IBM PC platform -- exactly the opposite strategy from what had worked for IBM in big iron.

The same strategy was used for the OS. Rather than cooking up a closed system in-house, the 5150 team went shopping. They famously first stopped off at Digital Research, which made CP/M. The expected move would be to release the 5150 with a 16-bit version of CP/M (CP/M-86), since that was the closest thing to an accepted standard in the business world. However, DR balked at IBM's non-disclosure agreement. Instead of waiting around, IBM put out feelers with other companies. They had already contracted with a little company called Microsoft to provide some language compilers for the new 16-bit architecture.

Bill Gates got wind of IBM's OS woes. He knew of a company called Seattle Computer Products that had hacked up a port of CP/M to the 8086 chip over a weekend so they could play with it (referred to internally as QDOS for Quick and Dirty Operating System). So he bought QDOS from them for what SCP must have thought was an amazing amount of money (a couple hundred thousand, I think), did some quick polishing and made it less like a CP/M clone, and presented it to a delighted IBM.

The 5150 debuted with a choice of operating systems -- you could buy CP/M-86 for $250 or IBM PC-DOS for $40. Bill Gates had made the move of several lifetimes. DR was reduced to selling enhancements for DOS, and eventually created a DOS clone called DR-DOS before throwing in the towel and selling out to Novell.

Of course, after the 5150 (and the 5160 "XT", which introduced official IBM hard disks to the line, and the 5170 "AT" 286, which was the first true 16-bit IBM PC) was a huge, market-dominating hit, IBM reverted to form. They watched as the BIOS was quickly reverse engineered and a wave of clones hit the market, offering lower prices, different form factors and higher CPU speeds. (None of these original clone companies still exist, now that Compaq has been consumed by HP.) They saw Microsoft become enormous by selling what it called "MS-DOS" to all these clone makers.

IBM saw this as a bad thing -- their big iron experience told them that they had to own the standards. As it was, anyone could make compatible hardware and IBM didn't get a dime directly.

So, in 1987, IBM attempted to take over. It introduced the two-fisted attack of the PS/2 and OS/2. The PS/2 was based on a new hardware standard called the Micro Channel Architecture, which replaced the ISA on high-end (286 and 386) PS/2s. It was an undeniable upgrade from the ISA, with a catch -- if you wanted to make cards or systems based on it, you had to pay IBM a royalty. Similarly, OS/2 was IBM's baby (though it was largely developed under contract by Microsoft).

This was a resounding flop. The aftermarket largely ignored MCA and carried on with ISA-based 386 systems. The MCA-based PS/2s started strong but soon were selling only to die-hard IBM shops. IBM was forced to rush-introduce several ISA-based models to keep sales alive. The emergence of Windows (and eventually Windows 386 and 3.0) crushed OS/2 by providing many of the same benefits without the high cost and incompatibility. OS/2 2.0 was much improved, but by then it was much too late. By the 90s, IBM had completely lost their leadership position in the PC market in both hardware and software. The PS/2 contributed exactly two lasting hardware standards -- VGA and the "PS/2-style" mouse and keyboard connectors. MCA was forgotten. IBM never introduced another market-standard hardware or software innovation.

The IBM PC changed the rules in many ways -- it killed the dominant MIS (what they called IT in the old days) big-iron dumb-terminal paradigm and fast-forwarded the home-computer market. But it also killed the model of closed standards. Apple still holds a minority of the market with its closed Mac line, but even they are now running an OS based on Unix. And, most interestingly, IBM is rumored to be thinking about spending some of the dough it got for its PC business on an investment in Apple.

Stay tuned...

Ryan

[lukpac]

Interesting.

Having grown up Mac, my history of the PC is somewhat spotty.

[dcooper]

I've always seen IBM's open architecture as the reason it has flourished while Apple has struggled (relatively speaking). I initially was a Mac guy (when they were first dumped on colleges in the early 80s), but once I realized how inflexible they were in the early days compared to the IBMs, I became a PC guy. And now, 20 years later, despite my constant cursing of Microsoft, I'm happily a PC guy.

That was a great history lesson, Ryan. Thanks.

Dan

[krabapple]

When I was a kid, in the 60's and 70s, IBM was basically *synonymous* with the word: computers. it boggles my mind to see how far they've fallen away from that.

[RDK]

I've always seen IBM's open architecture as the reason it has flourished while Apple has struggled (relatively speaking). I initially was a Mac guy (when they were first dumped on colleges in the early 80s), but once I realized how inflexible they were in the early days compared to the IBMs, I became a PC guy. And now, 20 years later, despite my constant cursing of Microsoft, I'm happily a PC guy.

Mirrors my experiences exactly. In high school, in the late 70's, I was actually quite good at BASIC and all the old-school mainframe shit they had back then, but I missed out on the early years of the PC revolution and didn't get my first "home computer" until around 1988 or so. That I built it myself really hamered home how innovative the whole thing was...

Great history lesson Ryan!

[lukpac]

I've always seen IBM's open architecture as the reason it has flourished while Apple has struggled (relatively speaking). I initially was a Mac guy (when they were first dumped on colleges in the early 80s), but once I realized how inflexible they were in the early days compared to the IBMs, I became a PC guy. And now, 20 years later, despite my constant cursing of Microsoft, I'm happily a PC guy.

Funny, my feelings are just the opposite.

One thing I forget today (using 2000/XP/etc) is how bad early DOS/Windows systems were. The Mac snob culture existed for a reason. On the Mac, hardware and software installation was pretty damn straightforward. 32 character file names! No extensions at the end of every file! No IRQ conflicts! Even a lot of the "power user" stuff on the PC could be handled with HyperCard and/or AppleScript.

These days, it's more of a draw. The underpinnings of Windows are still a mess, IMO, the the layers on top of them work a lot better. And with OS X, the underpinnings of the MacOS got a lot more confusing.

All of that said, my main machine at home is a Mac (with OS 9), I use Win2000 machines at work, we've got a handful of XP machines for "stuff" at home, and I've got multiple Linux boxes for servers and/or fun.

[Patrick M]

One thing I forget today (using 2000/XP/etc) is how bad early DOS/Windows systems were. The Mac snob culture existed for a reason. On the Mac, hardware and software installation was pretty damn straightforward. 32 character file names! No extensions at the end of every file! No IRQ conflicts! Even a lot of the "power user" stuff on the PC could be handled with HyperCard and/or AppleScript.

These days, it's more of a draw. The underpinnings of Windows are still a mess, IMO, the the layers on top of them work a lot better. And with OS X, the underpinnings of the MacOS got a lot more confusing.

Pretty much how I feel.

I've had several Macs (Plus, IIsi, 7200, G4, G5), but for the last few years I've done most of my work and play on PCs. I've never been fond of the OS X interface, while XP is pretty good, and PC-compatible hardware is more abundant. Plus, several apps I use regularly are PC only.

[Rspaight]

The underpinnings of Windows are still a mess, IMO, the the layers on top of them work a lot better.

I dunno, I think the foundation of XP is pretty solid. Some of the default security settings are stupid, but they fixed a lot of that in SP2. The NT foundation has always been stable for me, as opposed to the 95/98/Me kludges.

But man, you haven't lived until you've had to use DEBUG to execute a low-level format utility from the ROM on your MFM HD controller to set up your Seagate ST-225. Don't forget to manually type in the bad-sector list from the sticker on the drive! These kids today don't know how good they've got it etc., etc., blah blah.

I've got nothing against Macs, I've just never been in the position where I used them much. Bringing an Apple into our house would have never happened, and by the time I could afford to buy my own PCs, there was nothing compelling enough on the Mac platform to entice me to switch, though I've often strongly considered getting one just to play with. If they were cheaper I would have one by now.

Ryan

[lukpac]

I don't mean unstable. I mean files everywhere, crazy stuff in the registry, etc. Uninstalling a program is OS 9 usually means removing the program folder, maybe an extension, and a preferences file (which won't hurt anything if it stays anyway). Windows - and now to some extent OS X - has a lot more crap in a lot more places.