I can't disagree that the micro-channel was better that the original 16
bit PC architecture. But whether it was better than the PCI
architecture is a subject of much debate.
Just like the way Microsoft gradually enhanced the Windows software to
drag along users rather than having everybody buy all new programs, the
Clone makers used the PCI architecture to do the same thing with option
cards.
There is little doubt that anyone would have been much better off (at
least in performance) buying a totally new architecture, new cards
supporting that architecture, a new OS, and all new programs that took
advantage of the benefits of that architecture. But that was a costly
proposition to be sure. That probably was the one reason that OS2 did
not take off like IBM thought it would. Somewhere between the release
of the original IBM PC and the departure of Microsoft from the exclusive
IBM contract, the value of the magic three letters in the "Big Blue"
trade mark lost a lot of its value and appeal to PC users. They have
been trying to recover it ever since.
Cheers,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Malling [mailto:dmallin@attglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:33 AM
To: Joe Curry
Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Off topic....for sure!
Yes you are right I missed it.
The point is that mico-channel was a better architecture. OS/2 probably
did run faster on it than it
did on the PC architecture. Anything would. But it still ran faster than
the M$ crap on the PC
architecture. Ran way faster than NT. W95 isn't even an OS. Some piece
of junk with a pretty face.
Made people who didn't know any better think it was an Operating System.
As the guy said... quality
is determined by what sells. Pornography sells and Triumphs didn't.
Don Malling
|