How the IBM PC Changed the World

Sabah Arif writes "On August 12, 1981, IBM released the IBM PC 5150. In less than two years, IBM had created a computer that would not only change IBM, but the entire world, mostly because it did not follow IBM tradition. It used an outside microprocessor (instead of the nascent IBM 801), operating system and software. Low End Mac recounts the birth of the IBM PC 5150."

Comments

Re:the x86

[evilviper]

This prevents one manufacturer from imposing their wishes on us. If Microsoft had control of their personal computer platform the way apple does, we surely would have lost the battle to DRM already.

If the PC was as tightly controlled as Apple's platform was... You probably would not ever have heard of Microsoft.

Microsoft didn't make the PC, IBM did. They were just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, to ride the wave of "openness", which depended on their closed software for interoperability.

Re:the x86

[linguae]

There are just a few problems:

The x86 has managed to kill off every other competing processor in the desktop space and relegate them to embedded computing or history books. First Alpha, then MIPS, and finally the PowerPC. (I'm typing this on an Intel Mac). We are now back to one architecture again, which is good for compatibility, but sucks for platform diversity. Not that I'm complaining about my computer (or the latest x86 offerings in general); you can't go wrong with the 1.83GHz Core Duo. The new Xeon chips make a dream machine. Intel did a very good job with the internals of the processor, by making it RISC-like (while still maintaining the x86 instruction set) and making it perform fast and relatively cool at the same time. I also like AMD's offerings; the Athlon 64 makes 64-bit computing very affordable (with great performance). But what about 10-20 years from now? Where will the new computer architecture ideas (or, more specifically, microprocessor ideas) come from? Will we finally get beyond the x86 instruction set? (Anybody who can point me to some recent academic/industrial research in this area will make me happy).

Secondly, guess who is in the Trusted Computing Group? Intel and AMD. My Intel Mac has a TPM chip used to make sure I don't do something like purchasing a $299 Dell special desktop and installing OS X on it. Most new Core Duo laptops sold have some sort of TPM chip on them, although as of yet they have no use (unless you have a Mac). Imagine what happens when the law/**AA/Microsoft/whatever demands hardware-enforced DRM. Well, we already have the hardware on the Intel machines. AMD probably doesn't want to lose a few sales and doesn't want to look out of date, so they'll implement a TPM chip, too. Since there are no other architectures to choose from, you're stuck.

Now, hopefully this doesn't happen. I am optimistic that this won't happen. There is quite a bit of backlash of DRM (even with normal consumers; look at the Sony rootkit fiasco, for example). However, it can happen, and the architecture for hardware-enforced DRM is falling into place. It's just the software that's falling behind, as usual.

Re:The article misses important details. . .

[$RANDOMLUSER]

While it's true that Microsoft Flight Simulator (NOT Sublogic) was the compatability standard mentioned in every review, the thing that sold all those PCs and all those copies of PC/MS-DOS was Lotus 123. 123 made the PC the way VisiCalc made the Apple II. Because Lotus wrote directly to the video memory, "sorta" clones (DEC Rainbow anyone?) that had BIOS, but not physical compatability, had no chance.