> lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: > >>> but by 1990 with microchannel &c. things were much more closed off. > >> i thought only one company ever really made microchannel, > >> and even they weren't terribly in earnest in the end, > >> except on non-PC things like RS6000. > > > > IBM tried to recover control over the PC market by introducing MCA, > > bargaining that public sentiment would swing in their favour. > > They might have had that in mind as a secondary reason - but I doubt even > that. >
wikipedia agrees with lucio on this point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_architecture#Marketshare_issues > The majority within IBM never wanted into that part of the market in the > first > place, as it was seen as cannibalizing not only 3XXX terminal sales, but the > entire, highly profitable, big-iron+interface+network+services infrastructure > behind said terminals. do you have a reference for this? i worked at a company around 1990 that was heavily into ibm mainframes. (so much so, that they sold PROFS to ibm.) we all had 3270 terminals, and if you were lucky, you had a pc. email, calandaring, all that great stuff was done centrally 1500 miles away on ibm mainframes. the pc could do none of the criticial functions that the mainframe system could perform. we didn't have networking for the pc. heck, there was only one machine fat enough to run windows 3.1, which didn't even do networking. so even 3 years after the release of microchannel, we would never have considered pcs as 3270 replacements. i don't remember any machines that could have even run 3270 emulators, if they existed. perhaps we were the wiredest ibm site ever, but i think not. and judging from what i saw, the mca guys would have wasted time thinking about 3270 emulators. ah, the summer of broken arrows. good times. - erik
