XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: Peter@Iron-Spring.com   
      
   On 8/5/25 17:59, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 21:01:20 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:   
   >   
   >> So... a strategy could have been to establish the concept with   
   >> minicomputers, to make money (the VAX sold big) and then move   
   >> aggressively towards microprocessors, trying the disruptive move towards   
   >> workstations within the same company (which would be HARD).   
   >   
   > None of the companies which tried to move in that direction were   
   > successful. The mass micro market had much higher volumes and lower   
   > margins, and those accustomed to lower-volume, higher-margin operation   
   > simply couldn’t adapt.   
      
   The support issues alone were killers. Think about the   
   Orange/Grey/(Blue?) Wall of VAX documentation, and then look at the   
   five-page flimsy you got with a micro. The customers were willing to   
   accept cr*p from a small startup, but wouldn't put up with it from IBM   
   or DEC.   
      
   >   
   >> As for the PC - a scaled-down, cheap, compatible, multi-cycle per   
   >> instruction microprocessor could have worked for that market,   
   >> but it is entirely unclear to me what this would / could have done to   
   >> the PC market, if IBM could have been prevented from gaining such market   
   >> dominance.   
   >   
   > IBM had massive marketing clout in the mainframe market. I think that was   
   > the basis on which customers gravitated to their products. And remember,   
   > the IBM PC was essentially a skunkworks project that totally went against   
   > the entire IBM ethos. Internally, it was seen as a one-off mistake that   
   > they determined never to repeat. Hence the PS/2 range.   
   >   
   > DEC was bigger in the minicomputer market. If DEC could have offered an   
   > open-standard machine, that could have offered serious competition to IBM.   
   > But what OS would they have used? They were still dominated by Unix-haters   
   > then.   
      
   VMS was a heckuva good OS.   
      
   >   
   >> A bit like the /360 strategy, offering a wide range of machines (or CPUs   
   >> and systems) with different performance.   
   >   
   > That strategy was radical in 1964, less so by the 1970s and 1980s. DEC,   
   > for example, offered entire ranges of machines in each of its various   
   > minicomputer families.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)