What if IBM never creates the PC? The PC was a radical project for IBM that went through a different process without many of the company's restrictions, so it doesn't seem too much of an issue simply to have someone up in the company say "No."... what does this mean for the future of the computer industry? Will someone else just come up with a similar product? Or will computers remain more proprietary devices?
WI: No IBM PC?
- Thread starter Nicole
- Start date
There were already standards in the computer industry, its just the big players didn't follow them. Almost all the small-time computer manufacturers, for ex mple, used Zilog Z-80 processors on machines with an S-100 bus and used CP/M as an operating system (this is no guarantee of compatibility, though. Even many "IBM compatibles" in the early days weren't, really).
However, in the US at least, the 'big-time' players, Apple, Atari, Commodore, and Radio Shack, did not follow this.
Also there's no telling what happens when 8-bit machines are eventually replaced with 16/32-bit machines. Without IBM, there's a good chance the Motorola 680x0 becomes the dominant architecture, rather than the Intel 80x86. OTL the 680x0 was used in the Apple Lisa/Macintosh, the Commodore Amiga, the Atari ST, several Cromemco models, and Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 16.
MS-DOS is probably DOA - without IBM, I doubt Microsoft buys out QDOS, which will remain a small-time CP/M work-alike for the 8086. This doesn't mean Microsoft is out of the game; by 1981 they were already selling XENIX, and in OTL 1982-3 they started selling a 680x0 version (this doesn't even mention MSX, Microsoft's standard 8-bit architecture, almost unheard of in the US OTL but big in Japan). UNIX and Unix-like OSes may be more popular in general, especially if AT&T can get its thumb out of its ass and license it at a reasonable price (or sell it themselves at a reasonable price). OTOH, CP/M-86 or CP/M-68k might be the dominant 16-bit OS...
IBM might build another computer instead of the PC. There was some consideration for them buying and rebranding Atari 800s; there were other projects as well, ranging from using an Intel 8085 to an in-house IBM 801 RISC processor. The IBM DisplayWriter word processor is basically a computer, using UCSD p-System as an OS (an option for the PC), 8" floppy disks, and the Intel 8086. Something like it may have been a less successful but stil present "IBM PC".
As for other brands, Radio Shack will likely be the biggest general-purpose computer manufacturer for some time, with Apple and Commodore as their major competitors. Home-market will also see computers like Atari and Sinclair, while the businesses may buy Cromemcos, Kaypros, and other smaller brands instead of a big player.
However, in the US at least, the 'big-time' players, Apple, Atari, Commodore, and Radio Shack, did not follow this.
Also there's no telling what happens when 8-bit machines are eventually replaced with 16/32-bit machines. Without IBM, there's a good chance the Motorola 680x0 becomes the dominant architecture, rather than the Intel 80x86. OTL the 680x0 was used in the Apple Lisa/Macintosh, the Commodore Amiga, the Atari ST, several Cromemco models, and Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 16.
MS-DOS is probably DOA - without IBM, I doubt Microsoft buys out QDOS, which will remain a small-time CP/M work-alike for the 8086. This doesn't mean Microsoft is out of the game; by 1981 they were already selling XENIX, and in OTL 1982-3 they started selling a 680x0 version (this doesn't even mention MSX, Microsoft's standard 8-bit architecture, almost unheard of in the US OTL but big in Japan). UNIX and Unix-like OSes may be more popular in general, especially if AT&T can get its thumb out of its ass and license it at a reasonable price (or sell it themselves at a reasonable price). OTOH, CP/M-86 or CP/M-68k might be the dominant 16-bit OS...
IBM might build another computer instead of the PC. There was some consideration for them buying and rebranding Atari 800s; there were other projects as well, ranging from using an Intel 8085 to an in-house IBM 801 RISC processor. The IBM DisplayWriter word processor is basically a computer, using UCSD p-System as an OS (an option for the PC), 8" floppy disks, and the Intel 8086. Something like it may have been a less successful but stil present "IBM PC".
As for other brands, Radio Shack will likely be the biggest general-purpose computer manufacturer for some time, with Apple and Commodore as their major competitors. Home-market will also see computers like Atari and Sinclair, while the businesses may buy Cromemcos, Kaypros, and other smaller brands instead of a big player.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
I remember reading a book I bought on library sale in the 1990s. It had been published in the mid 70's and was called the Compulator. The theme of the book was the rather radical notion that you could string together some calculator chips to make....your very own COMPUTER.
So it seems the idea was 'in the air' at the time.
Now if IBM had been able to patent the IDEA of software (which I don't think you can do actually, but maybe there's some enabling device or suchlike) and had kept that proprietary, that might really have bollixed up everything
So it seems the idea was 'in the air' at the time.
Now if IBM had been able to patent the IDEA of software (which I don't think you can do actually, but maybe there's some enabling device or suchlike) and had kept that proprietary, that might really have bollixed up everything
Really? This sounds rather interesting, and I wouldn't have expected it... know anywhere where I could learn more about this idea?
You realize that over a million micro-computers (what PCs were called before the PC) had been sold before 1981, right?
The MITS Altair was a micro-computer kit available in 1975 (it wasn't the first, but it was the first relatively big seller - 'big' being tens of thousands
of orders). It was the Altair that gave Bill Gates & Paul Allen's tiny "Micro-Soft" their first big break - the Altair BASIC interpreter.
Cromemco and IMSAI started selling in 1976. Radio Shack, Commodore, and Apple, the first really big brands, all started selling in 1977. Atari entered the fray in 1979; Sinclair and Osborne in 1980. There were probably more micro-computer manufacturers in 1981 than today, of course most were very small.
By 1979, even software was starting to be sold by third parties - the WordStar word processor, VisiCalc spreadsheet, dBase database, CP/M operating system, BASIC, Pascal, and Fortran programming software...no way to patent the idea - for a long time, software was a service provided by big computer manufacturers to customers. IBM wouldn't care that DEC sold software as DEC sold software for DEC machines, and IBM for IBM machines, Sperry-Rand for Sperry-Rands, etc. Early micro-computers also generally came with an interpreter or compiler so that the owner could write their own programs (given that, before 1979 or so, there wasn't much in the way of third-party software for micros).
I haven't even touched on any non-US manufacturers except Sinclair (British)...
Its very briefly mentioned here.
I've heard somewhere about a (possibly apocryphal) story that IBM decided against buying Atari computers after a group of stuffy IBM executives were given a tour of Atari's production line by a couple of stoned employees....
EDIT: actually some things I've seen (including the article) say that IBM was going to buy Atari, not just the Atari 800...
There are good computing what-ifs, we need more of them.
What if Commodore buys Apple Computers ? They were planning to buy it, as Commodore was the company that made 6502 chips used in the Apple II line. Assuming they keep apple employees and they eventually made an early GUI system (like Macintosh) before virtually anybody, it'd be interesting to see how low commodore would have reduced its prices in accordance to its aggressive price war policy. What if Commodore buys Apple AND IBM buys Atari, now that'd be interesting...
What if Sinclair stops pursuing vehicles, televisions, etc and concentrates on computers, and somehow ends up non-bankrupt? maybe even prosperous? A new computer that does everything that the QL didn't?
What If IBM decides to put a 5100 in time capsule, so people in the 2030s don't have to invest in a Time Machine to survive the UNIX timeout? Just Kidding
=====
Back to the original question.
It'd be interesting to see what kind of a machine would eventually be called IBM 5150 if the IBM PC isn't made. If they decide not to do anything different, I'd bet they'd make something like a cheaper 5100/5110 to further penetrate the business market. IMO, it was the respectability associated with the name that made the IBM PC successful, and not it's features. A cheaper 5100/5110 would have sold well and it's compactness and lack of "unprofessional features" would have made it more desirable than Apples in the workplace as a sleek, no-frills productivity device.
It is interesting to see that Apple, after conquering the home market tried to conquer the office (Apple III) but failed utterly, and IBM after conquering the office tried to conquer the home market (PCjr). Apple III failed because it wasn't reliable, but the PCjr failed because it was too limited, and the home user wanted something equal to an office machine, and the relative versatility of the original IBM PC made it a good home machine as well, and PC-compatibles slowly pushed Apple and smaller companies out of the home market. In TTL, the 5150 would, pretty much be an office appliance and undesirable for home computing.
A possible outcome may be a greater a gulf between home and office computing-- A "speciation" of sorts when it comes to computers. IBM would be more likely to buy an experienced competitor in the home market (Atari) that Apple mostly dominates. And Apple would likely create an IBM clone, to gain a foothold in the business market.
What if Commodore buys Apple Computers ? They were planning to buy it, as Commodore was the company that made 6502 chips used in the Apple II line. Assuming they keep apple employees and they eventually made an early GUI system (like Macintosh) before virtually anybody, it'd be interesting to see how low commodore would have reduced its prices in accordance to its aggressive price war policy. What if Commodore buys Apple AND IBM buys Atari, now that'd be interesting...
What if Sinclair stops pursuing vehicles, televisions, etc and concentrates on computers, and somehow ends up non-bankrupt? maybe even prosperous? A new computer that does everything that the QL didn't?
What If IBM decides to put a 5100 in time capsule, so people in the 2030s don't have to invest in a Time Machine to survive the UNIX timeout? Just Kidding
=====
Back to the original question.
It'd be interesting to see what kind of a machine would eventually be called IBM 5150 if the IBM PC isn't made. If they decide not to do anything different, I'd bet they'd make something like a cheaper 5100/5110 to further penetrate the business market. IMO, it was the respectability associated with the name that made the IBM PC successful, and not it's features. A cheaper 5100/5110 would have sold well and it's compactness and lack of "unprofessional features" would have made it more desirable than Apples in the workplace as a sleek, no-frills productivity device.
It is interesting to see that Apple, after conquering the home market tried to conquer the office (Apple III) but failed utterly, and IBM after conquering the office tried to conquer the home market (PCjr). Apple III failed because it wasn't reliable, but the PCjr failed because it was too limited, and the home user wanted something equal to an office machine, and the relative versatility of the original IBM PC made it a good home machine as well, and PC-compatibles slowly pushed Apple and smaller companies out of the home market. In TTL, the 5150 would, pretty much be an office appliance and undesirable for home computing.
A possible outcome may be a greater a gulf between home and office computing-- A "speciation" of sorts when it comes to computers. IBM would be more likely to buy an experienced competitor in the home market (Atari) that Apple mostly dominates. And Apple would likely create an IBM clone, to gain a foothold in the business market.
Maybe. However Andy Grove, Intel CEO, was pretty much the semiconductor industry version of Bill Gates.
IOTL the 68k chips were better than x86 (since Motorola was a better design shop than Intel, and had had some time to study Intel's mistakes with x86) so Intel simply marketed a 'systems' approach where they sold the entire package of support & development tools and the like.
Motorola panicked, copied Intel (badly), and never again had a chance to vie with Intel for control.
ITTL I imagine Intel probably out markets Motorola anyway, and as soon as the computer industry starts growing they're marketing to executives, not geeks, who don't actually care that the 68k chips are marginally better.
------
The easiest way to get no IBM PC is to have the corporate immune system kill it, or kill Don Estridge, the project lead, as he was a brilliant executive.
No idea about the outcome though, I'm weak before the late 80s.
Last edited:
Hm... if IBM purchases Atari from Warner, the most likely time would I suppose be 1983, when Jack Tramiel in OTL purchased the company- one wonders what he would do in TTL, perhaps Tramel (not a typo) Technologies, Ltd remains a separate company... From what I can gather, what became the ST already was being planned by the company, and Tramiel just purchased Atari for the Atari brand name and it's manufacturing arm (which is what necessitated the purchase of the video game division of Atari in addition to the computer arm), and fired the bulk of Atari's staff. So possibly we have a "Tramel ST" computer in TTL?
Or another idea. What if IBM (along with the Bell System in general) likes the idea of the Minitel? If so, there could be a whole range of possibilities for this one. Maybe even get a PC working out of the Minitel. IOTL, there was a service called Alex operated by Bell Canada that was pretty much a bilingual version of Minitel (even though most of the good stuff was in French only); the only difference between the Minitel terminals and the Alex terminals were that the Alex terminals were modified to use the standard telephone jack found in the US and Canada. The terminals could even be given away for free in exchange for not getting the White Pages anymore (the very same tactic used by France Télécom).
The problem for a Minitel-like device at IBM is actually the same one that could have killed the PC: IBM suffered a serious case of "not invented here" syndrome until well into the 1980s. Some other company (Bell Labs/AT&T is a strong possibility) may like the Minitel though.
I'm thinking the best case for an "IBM PC" that isn't anything like a PC is a variant of the DisplayWriter word processor. I also had an idea kicking around in my head of a similar machine using IBM's in-house 801 RISC processor. While more advanced than even a 68000 or 80286*, it would be rather expensive and out of reach to the home market.
The problem with that is government regulation- AT&T and Western Electric were forbidden from the computer industry or from other "enhanced services" in 1979 by FCC Computer Decree I and II, except through special subsidiaries, such as American Bell, which were confounded by red tape and forced separation from the rest of AT&T- such joint selling as I would think is required for Minitel-type services would probably be forbidden by the FCC... and of course, the monolithic AT&T is gone by 1984...
I had an Atari 800 as a kid. It was good enough. Then I got an Atari 1040ST when I was in Jr. High. I loved it!
Well, here's a solution. Have France Télécom, AT&T/Bell Labs, and IBM work on a Minitel-like device BEFORE 1979. This would also predate Minitel's OTL introduction in 1983. Now, around this era, the BBC was working on Ceefax (in 1972; the predecessor to today's teletext), ITV had ORACLE, and the GPO had Viewdata/Prestel. If AT&T/Bell Labs, in conjunction with France Télécom (then the PTT) and IBM, began working on Minitel around this time, then things could get pretty interesting.
There were already quite a few PC's (called microcomputers) around, but having IBM market one might have made them more acceptable for mainstream business use. IBM was such a big name with such an established reputation as a maker of mainframe computers and other electronic and electric office equipment that having a PC made by IBM may have made these new devices seem more acceptable to officials and managers who did not know much about computers. I've heard that there was a saying in that era that "nobody ever got fired for recommending that their company buy IBM machines." Without that big name assurance, PCs as standard office equipment might have taken longer to catch on. Then again, the delay in PC use without IBM might not have been that long.
That's my point exactly. IBM's name brand recognition sold the PCs, even if they make something radically different than the PC, they'd still be able to sell it, provided that it was affordable.
These sleek machines were what IBM were pushing on the business market in the mid-late 70s. Not bad, except for the $10,000+ price tag.
Maybe a cheaper version of it that used simpler microprocessor-based architecture instead of the 16-bit board level processor could have been in order by 1982 or 83 if IBM decided to still pursue its old model of making everything itself, instead of going with the PC idea.
These sleek machines were what IBM were pushing on the business market in the mid-late 70s. Not bad, except for the $10,000+ price tag.
Maybe a cheaper version of it that used simpler microprocessor-based architecture instead of the 16-bit board level processor could have been in order by 1982 or 83 if IBM decided to still pursue its old model of making everything itself, instead of going with the PC idea.
Bump...
The Microsoft-created MSX standard was mentioned in another thread, and I wonder if there's any way we could get that into the US market... I don't know if any of the big name US companies of the era would be interested, but perhaps the Japanese MSX companies could be more likely to try to sell their computers in the US in TTL?
The Microsoft-created MSX standard was mentioned in another thread, and I wonder if there's any way we could get that into the US market... I don't know if any of the big name US companies of the era would be interested, but perhaps the Japanese MSX companies could be more likely to try to sell their computers in the US in TTL?
Question is with no IBM PC = No Microsoft = No MSX standard !
we talking over 1981 TL were Microsoft never get DOS or Windows on market
Left over Big one are Apple, Atari and Commodore and alot Z80 Cpu computer with CP/M
and is problem of the Price War by Commodore later
after IBM 1981 abandon the PC Idea would Commodore follow and adandon C=64?
or Push the C=64 to there version of PC ?
more likely Apple take the place of PC with Apple ][ & Apple /// and there is Macintosh in 1984
(the low cost version of Jef Raskin) I like that idea
only trobble ist the Sculley era at Apple!
by the way
I use Apple computer and i happy with it
we talking over 1981 TL were Microsoft never get DOS or Windows on market
Left over Big one are Apple, Atari and Commodore and alot Z80 Cpu computer with CP/M
and is problem of the Price War by Commodore later
after IBM 1981 abandon the PC Idea would Commodore follow and adandon C=64?
or Push the C=64 to there version of PC ?
more likely Apple take the place of PC with Apple ][ & Apple /// and there is Macintosh in 1984
(the low cost version of Jef Raskin) I like that idea
only trobble ist the Sculley era at Apple!
by the way
I use Apple computer and i happy with it