Re: Micro Men
> The problem is that the unions had decided that, even though the economic > realities, and not the companies themselves, were dictating the required > action, they were not prepared to accept it. That, to me, is moronic. The > most obvious example is Scargill, who would not accept that cheap foreign > coal was making many UK pits, with difficult and relatively expensive > extraction, unviable. Yep, it's disgusting that some people think that the unstoppable force of globalisation should be slowed when it means that those in hitherto well-supported industries will lose their jobs, livelyhoods and the prospect of supporting themselves. I'm not disagreeing that economic conditions make it difficult, but you do have to call in to question the sense in importing coal across oceans when it is dormant in pits here. It makes no environmental sense, and as has been witnessed, it destroys whole communities and even, in the mining case, regions of the country. I sense in your arguments that you forget we had a socialist government up until the mid 70's (at which time we just had an impotent government), not a pure brand of Thatcherite capitalism. People expected to be cared for, whereas nowadays they're quite certain they're not going to be. Lovely world. Oh, and cheese and chive - you know it's all prawn cocktail on WOS.
Re: Re: Micro Men
so none of the spectrum software was compatible with the z80 tube processor fro the beeb? the arc 64 mhz arm processor fro the beeb tube devlopment kit was simply the processor - not the same as an archimedes - without the grpahic capability? the co processors on the beeb were running at the same time as the 6502 1mhz in the beeb - whereas the commodore 128 8502 and z80 had to run one at a time - otherwise it would have been more powerful than the amiga what with agnes taking her time to get on and off the bus with all that shopping? 2009/10/15 Geoff Winkless : > > I finally watched the show last night; I'm fairly disappointed because it > was neither one thing nor the other - it wasn't really very funny (Hauser > seemed to get the best lines, while the Sinclair-based humour mainly > seemed > to be based around laughing at his borderline-autistic outlook on life) > but > it wasn't particularly accurate either. > > They put in a few well-known anecdotal bits but played around with the > timeline horribly - the QL and the C5 were out at around the same time, > IIRC, their collective failure ultimately working together to bring > Sinclair Research to its knees. > > They also seemed to conveniently forget that the Newbury Newbrain was > actually developed by what was Sinclair Radionics, which suggests > Sinclair's involvement in computer development had started well before > 1980; they also missed out large chunks of the Sinclair development story > in favour of some padding (including a fairly bizarre scene at the Mensa > conference), so we're left with this idea that Acorn were working hard at > development while Sinclair just plugged stuff together that already worked > (we know that's not the case). > > They also messed horribly with the Acorn story - the Electron was out well > before the timeline would suggest it but they couldn't produce enough for > demand, then production finally got sorted and the demand had gone; > finally > although the majority of the shares were bought by Olivetti they still > continued as a separate entity (unlike Sinclair Research who were to all > intents and purposes absorbed into Amstrad) - indeed the Master was more > of > a success than the Model B, IIRC, I guess that didn't quite fit the > overnight-success:failure story they wanted to portray. > > For me though the biggest shame was that they mentioned the major success > story as an afterthought, as if it had happened later; AIUI the ARM chip > was in development well beyond the whiteboard stage by the time 1984 > clicked around. > > The hollywood-romantic in me would like to believe that Curry and Sinclair > finally made it up though. Anyone know if that's true? > > G >
Fwd: Re: Micro Men
I finally watched the show last night; I'm fairly disappointed because it was neither one thing nor the other - it wasn't really very funny (Hauser seemed to get the best lines, while the Sinclair-based humour mainly seemed to be based around laughing at his borderline-autistic outlook on life) but it wasn't particularly accurate either. They put in a few well-known anecdotal bits but played around with the timeline horribly - the QL and the C5 were out at around the same time, IIRC, their collective failure ultimately working together to bring Sinclair Research to its knees. They also seemed to conveniently forget that the Newbury Newbrain was actually developed by what was Sinclair Radionics, which suggests Sinclair's involvement in computer development had started well before 1980; they also missed out large chunks of the Sinclair development story in favour of some padding (including a fairly bizarre scene at the Mensa conference), so we're left with this idea that Acorn were working hard at development while Sinclair just plugged stuff together that already worked (we know that's not the case). They also messed horribly with the Acorn story - the Electron was out well before the timeline would suggest it but they couldn't produce enough for demand, then production finally got sorted and the demand had gone; finally although the majority of the shares were bought by Olivetti they still continued as a separate entity (unlike Sinclair Research who were to all intents and purposes absorbed into Amstrad) - indeed the Master was more of a success than the Model B, IIRC, I guess that didn't quite fit the overnight-success:failure story they wanted to portray. For me though the biggest shame was that they mentioned the major success story as an afterthought, as if it had happened later; AIUI the ARM chip was in development well beyond the whiteboard stage by the time 1984 clicked around. The hollywood-romantic in me would like to believe that Curry and Sinclair finally made it up though. Anyone know if that's true? G
Re: Micro Men
hi things i didnt understand they said acorn sold 1.5million machines they said there were around 250,000 unsold acorn electrons didnt sincalir sell 3million speccy your argument about unions? we dont want to subsidise coal production despite in the 80's having 300 years supply then why are we subsidising farmers in Europe to produce food more expensively than can be bought on the world market - we then need to pay higher taxes in order to pay the farmers - and the food mountains end up being destroyed in order to protect the subsidised higher prices - anyone for sacking 300,000 farmers like the mining communities suffered? what a pity that the mere threat of reducing the CAP has left Europe in the same shape as the 40's with ten years of civil war and further conflicts still having to be dealt with thanks to an evident undermining of an impossible to agree/implement foreign policy what a pity the pc platform has just like the microcomputers before it tried to cheat the customers pci interfaces are not compatible with agp or pci-e software drviers and hardware are incompatible windows doesnt even install the right drviers for vga cards the chipset - nvidia ati manufacturers drviers also failed to include actual manufacturers specification drivers - including things like tv output support - although the very opertaing system practically prevents you from ussing a tv as teh screen resolution needs to be set so low in order to read the text that the very dialogue box to selct it has the apply box off the bottom of the screen when you choose 640x480 resolution then there are the tv input ecnoders anyone managed to get one working at teh 1024x768 reslution msi claims their vga cards support when the bundled application for encoding wont even encode with the advertised 600mhz processor - it needs a 1.8ghz p4 - not written anywhere on the box nor the fact that it still wont work without a further pci tv tuner - though if you do happen to have an msi digital tv tuner then the digital tv tuner is perfectly at liberty to ignore the encoder on the vga and still claim you need a 2.4ghz processor for encoding every time i have installed a driver from a website my machine has crashed i cannot remove the driver without reinstalling windows the drivers are so massive that they take all night to trasnfer 100mb of code using a fone modem after i have spent four nights trasnferring the 450mb of microsoft updates which are moving at the incredible 3-4kb a second despite the msi site stuffing a driver along at 10-14kb a second - i though mnp5 itu t v42 wqas for text only i have an itu t v44 pci modem but still havent figured out how come the serial interface on a dual core motherboard is 115kbps the same as the sam and spectrum - though bruce told me in swansea the comms interface was 32kb - if he was talking bits per second then ?! and even at 32kb it is still too slow for the advertised 320kbps of the itu t v44 speed though this is ofcourse too fast for the onbaord serial interface so i have a pci hi speed 920kbps serial interface - which is naturally incompatible with the driver for the modem which insists on displaying two totally different maximum serial interface speeds on eat the internal serial interface max of 115kbps and the other the hi speed 920 kbps maximum pc land is great! - not that there is a single isp in the uk that actually would allow me to use itu t v44 to connect as any 56k modem i have insists on connecting at 40kbps while the same netowrk providers fone line is connecting at 115kbps using and external v32 modem - this is rediculous the people who allow you to connect to the network are going to allow you to use a fone modem at its maximum capacity - why when they are trying to sell you a faster more expensive connection which they dont even need to advertise the embarrassingly poor upload speed of usually 256kbps - which is less than the itu t v44 320kbps unless she isnt an upload speed? mind you if im right about this even the sam cant shift a 24kb screen from external ram into internal video ram witha 4¾mhz processor it would have needed 7½mhz even if you use pop and push to do it - which i still havent figured out how to do fancy having a block trasnfer instruction that is slower than pop and push seems daft no? 2009/10/15 nev young : > Stuart Brady wrote: > >> Surely the PC must have already experienced a certain level of success >> for Compaq to have considered it worth cloning. Was the original IBM PC >> really that popular, or did the availability of MS-DOS on other non-PC >> compatible hardware contribute? I would guess that the mantra that >> 'nobody ever got fired for buying IBM' played a part in all of this... >> > I think the cloning started as the XTbus was intended to be "open"(ish) so > 3rd party companies could and would make new and interesting hardware. > However, it would have to be licensed/approved by IBM. The 3rd party > companies decided it was simpler to just clone the w
Re: Micro Men
Stuart Brady wrote: Surely the PC must have already experienced a certain level of success for Compaq to have considered it worth cloning. Was the original IBM PC really that popular, or did the availability of MS-DOS on other non-PC compatible hardware contribute? I would guess that the mantra that 'nobody ever got fired for buying IBM' played a part in all of this... I think the cloning started as the XTbus was intended to be "open"(ish) so 3rd party companies could and would make new and interesting hardware. However, it would have to be licensed/approved by IBM. The 3rd party companies decided it was simpler to just clone the whole machine and the now well known phrase "IBM Compatible" was created. Of course, I may remember it wrong. As a point of (little) interest, I do have an original working** IBM PS1 here. IMHO This is the most interesting thread we've had here for a long time. Nev ** well it was last time it was tried.
Re: Micro Men
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 07:07:21AM +0100, nev young wrote: > I was thinking more along the lines of the UK having a manufacturing > base. [...] I appreciate that there was a problem there, although I do wonder how long British manufacturing would have remained competitive, in view of some our past difficulties in manufacturing -- as you say, "by how much and for how long is any body's guess". I was largely thinking of the software industry, but there are bigger things to worry about! I'm also curious as to what constitutes 'success'. I suppose Sinclair (and Acorn) did succeed in pushing boundaries (and therefore met their own criteria for success), giving the UK a head start, but this work was not properly followed up. I would certainly argue that the £12 million that was invested in the C5 could have been better spent elsewhere. Perhaps revolutionising transport sounded like a good idea at the time! It's easy to pick on the C5, though. Whether wafer scale integration is/was worth pursuing is a more difficult question to answer... Cheers, -- Stuart Brady
Re: Micro Men
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:39:54AM +0100, Geoff Winkless wrote: [snip] > The actions of the unions > _in the 70s and 80s_ was utterly unreasonable. The idea of a union is that > a fair settlement can be reached by having a negotiator who can speak and > act on behalf of a large number of people [...] I really do wonder whether 'corrections' of the type that occured during the 1970s are just an intrinsic part of globalisation... I certainly do hope that the world economy becomes more stable over time, if we're not gone and fried the planet in the next hundred years or so... > Now we're getting seriously off-topic... erm, favourite crisp flavour > anyone? :) Perrrlease, this isn't CSS! :-p -- Stuart Brady
Re: Micro Men
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:31:25PM +0100, Ian Collier wrote: > You say "open architecture", but it wasn't supposed to be open when > released. Most of the components could be easily copied, however, > and Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM BIOS to produce their own 100% > compatible machine. How would Sir Clive have fared if the QL had been a > success and other manufacturers had started putting out copies of it? I still don't really understand what happened here... Presumably the 'PC' would not have become anything like as popular as it is today if IBM had retained full control over the platform. Surely the PC must have already experienced a certain level of success for Compaq to have considered it worth cloning. Was the original IBM PC really that popular, or did the availability of MS-DOS on other non-PC compatible hardware contribute? I would guess that the mantra that 'nobody ever got fired for buying IBM' played a part in all of this... Cheers, -- Stuart Brady
Re: Micro Men
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:13:24PM +0100, Thomas Harte wrote: > Oh, I don't know. Surely Sinclair's model works only if you can > establish yourself as the supplier of a proprietary computer aimed at > the price conscious end of the market? I don't see how that could > compete once a growing body of manufacturers were transferring to a > PC-style open architecture. You say "open architecture", but it wasn't supposed to be open when released. Most of the components could be easily copied, however, and Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM BIOS to produce their own 100% compatible machine. How would Sir Clive have fared if the QL had been a success and other manufacturers had started putting out copies of it? imc
Re: Micro Men
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:45:36 +0200, David Sanders wrote: > That's a bit strong. I think foreign investors were already put off by > our far higher rates of pay in relation to newer manufacturing > opportunities in the far east. To call the workers of the 70s and 80s > "workshy" is to simplify a very big social problem into a Daily > Mail-style "solution" (IE - it's all those horrible worker's fault). > > I can't believe you think all industrial action is "moron"ic, Aha! A straw man! I don't and never said I did. The actions of the unions _in the 70s and 80s_ was utterly unreasonable. The idea of a union is that a fair settlement can be reached by having a negotiator who can speak and act on behalf of a large number of people, and that if one member is victimised by his employer that union can act in solidarity and protect its member. I am 100% behind that. The problem is that the unions had decided that, even though the economic realities, and not the companies themselves, were dictating the required action, they were not prepared to accept it. That, to me, is moronic. The most obvious example is Scargill, who would not accept that cheap foreign coal was making many UK pits, with difficult and relatively expensive extraction, unviable. And I said that the foreign investors were scared of a workshy british workforce, which is definitely how they were perceived in the early 80s, that perception caused by the action of the unions and the constant reporting of it in the media. Now we're getting seriously off-topic... erm, favourite crisp flavour anyone? :) G
Re: Micro Men
> It seems to me that successive governments since Thatcher have deliberately > tried to remove any manufacturing capability from the UK. My belief is the > action in the 70s and early 80s by the unions sealed the death knell of > British industry; foreign investors were terrified of getting involved with > a workshy, bolshy and self-serving union-driven workforce and the government > was tired of sitting in the middle policing the morons at their picket > lines. > That's a bit strong. I think foreign investors were already put off by our far higher rates of pay in relation to newer manufacturing opportunities in the far east. To call the workers of the 70s and 80s "workshy" is to simplify a very big social problem into a Daily Mail-style "solution" (IE - it's all those horrible worker's fault). I can't believe you think all industrial action is "moron"ic, or perhaps you do, and are glad to be living in a country where the poor are pushed around at the whim of large corporations? To the topic, I caught a bit of Micro Men, and the sight of that red tracksuit sent me into peals of laughter. Really though, the UK computer industry had no chance of competing with machines in which USA-sized deals had been struck with Intel on chip manufacturing (by far the most expensive bit). Nobody's fault IMO, but the inevitable effects of a globalised market.
Re: Micro Men
nev young wrote: Stuart Brady wrote: It seems to me that Sir Clive would never have been hugely worried about maintaining a strong position within the market in the long term... of course, that's not to say that he wouldn't have appreciated having a 'cash cow' to fund his other project... Then he should have put a 68020 and a proper floppy disk in the QL :-) I was thinking more along the lines of the UK having a manufacturing base. If, instead of many small fragmented companies all setting up their own manufacturing plant, there had been larger companies who could have outsourced the build to UK manufactures then it is just possible that the UK would have become what Taiwan is now. Even Bruce and Alan had to set up their own plant to build Sam using venture capital. How would things have panned out if they could have just had the build done by an existing UK company, who was already tooled up to build computers. They wouldn't have needed as much capital and it might not have been clawed back quite so quickly. Even Amstrad might have built their machines here rather than in Japan. It seems to me that successive governments since Thatcher have deliberately tried to remove any manufacturing capability from the UK. My belief is the action in the 70s and early 80s by the unions sealed the death knell of British industry; foreign investors were terrified of getting involved with a workshy, bolshy and self-serving union-driven workforce and the government was tired of sitting in the middle policing the morons at their picket lines. Now of course we have the CWU, the largest union (of course, since all the manufacturing unions are effectively extinct) holding the whole country to ransom, but that's a different story. To get back to the subject, I don't think the Sinclair:Acorn thing was what caused the PC to win; the 16-bits carried on the line for the home computers but by the early 90s everyone knew the PC was going to be a juggernaut; certainly once Windows started selling with PCs that could run it well (ie decent speed 386s) the micro was dead. Geoff
Re: Micro Men
Stuart Brady wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:13:24PM +0100, Thomas Harte wrote: Oh, I don't know. Surely Sinclair's model works only if you can establish yourself as the supplier of a proprietary computer aimed at the price conscious end of the market? I don't see how that could compete once a growing body of manufacturers were transferring to a PC-style open architecture. At some point economies of scale amongst the open people outweigh whatever economies you can achieve with a custom design and there's no way back from there. I'm slightly younger than the Spectrum -- I'm aware of some of the history, but never saw any of this first hand... It seems to me that Sir Clive would never have been hugely worried about maintaining a strong position within the market in the long term... of course, that's not to say that he wouldn't have appreciated having a 'cash cow' to fund his other project... I was thinking more along the lines of the UK having a manufacturing base. If, instead of many small fragmented companies all setting up their own manufacturing plant, there had been larger companies who could have outsourced the build to UK manufactures then it is just possible that the UK would have become what Taiwan is now. Even Bruce and Alan had to set up their own plant to build Sam using venture capital. How would things have panned out if they could have just had the build done by an existing UK company, who was already tooled up to build computers. They wouldn't have needed as much capital and it might not have been clawed back quite so quickly. Even Amstrad might have built their machines here rather than in Japan. Of course, the past is passed and we can only hypothesise on how things might have been. It was a fun ride while it lasted. Nev
Re: Micro Men
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:13:24PM +0100, Thomas Harte wrote: > Oh, I don't know. Surely Sinclair's model works only if you can > establish yourself as the supplier of a proprietary computer aimed at > the price conscious end of the market? I don't see how that could > compete once a growing body of manufacturers were transferring to a > PC-style open architecture. At some point economies of scale amongst > the open people outweigh whatever economies you can achieve with a > custom design and there's no way back from there. I'm slightly younger than the Spectrum -- I'm aware of some of the history, but never saw any of this first hand... It seems to me that Sir Clive would never have been hugely worried about maintaining a strong position within the market in the long term... of course, that's not to say that he wouldn't have appreciated having a 'cash cow' to fund his other project... I suppose the ZX8[01] and Speccy really did make computing accessible to a large number of people who would simply not have been otherwise able to afford a computer. On those terms, surely the Spectrum was a success, despite not being quite the success that it could have been, particularly in the education market? Cheers, -- Stuart Brady
Re: Micro Men
Oh, I don't know. Surely Sinclair's model works only if you can establish yourself as the supplier of a proprietary computer aimed at the price conscious end of the market? I don't see how that could compete once a growing body of manufacturers were transferring to a PC-style open architecture. At some point economies of scale amongst the open people outweigh whatever economies you can achieve with a custom design and there's no way back from there. And ARM Holdings are still in Cambridge. On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 8:27 PM, nev young wrote: > Thomas Harte wrote: >> >> Almost the entire first half hour was set before I was born! I enjoyed >> it though, even with the slightly weird ending — we're meant to >> believe that Microsoft, Compaq and HP got a major leg up just because >> Sir Clive and Chris Curry fell out? And was Sir Clive really that >> mean? > > If CS and CC hadn't "broken" the UK computing industry I do believe that > things would have been different. By how much and for how long is any body's > guess. From what I remember the underhandedness of the BBC tendering was > far worse than in the TV show. > > From what I hear, from within mensa, CS was (is) rather a control freak and > _must_ have things his own way. That doesn't in any way diminish his > visions and what he did. > > -- > Nev >
Re: Micro Men
Thomas Harte wrote: Almost the entire first half hour was set before I was born! I enjoyed it though, even with the slightly weird ending — we're meant to believe that Microsoft, Compaq and HP got a major leg up just because Sir Clive and Chris Curry fell out? And was Sir Clive really that mean? If CS and CC hadn't "broken" the UK computing industry I do believe that things would have been different. By how much and for how long is any body's guess. From what I remember the underhandedness of the BBC tendering was far worse than in the TV show. From what I hear, from within mensa, CS was (is) rather a control freak and _must_ have things his own way. That doesn't in any way diminish his visions and what he did. -- Nev
Re: Micro Men
Almost the entire first half hour was set before I was born! I enjoyed it though, even with the slightly weird ending — we're meant to believe that Microsoft, Compaq and HP got a major leg up just because Sir Clive and Chris Curry fell out? And was Sir Clive really that mean? On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 12:31 AM, nev young wrote: > Dan Dooré wrote: >> >> Stefan Drissen wrote: >>> >>> Excellent, that was most enjoyable – thanks for the heads up! The old >>> days eh… J >> >> Just watched it off the DVR - it was great to relive the whole >> Sinclair-Acorn thing whilst not being an excited 12 year old :-) >> > I watched it last night. it was great to relive the whole Sinclair-Acorn > thing whilst not having to take the kids to school and pay the mortgage. > > :-) > > -- > Nev (feeling far too old) >
Re: Micro Men
Dan Dooré wrote: Stefan Drissen wrote: Excellent, that was most enjoyable – thanks for the heads up! The old days eh… J Just watched it off the DVR - it was great to relive the whole Sinclair-Acorn thing whilst not being an excited 12 year old :-) I watched it last night. it was great to relive the whole Sinclair-Acorn thing whilst not having to take the kids to school and pay the mortgage. :-) -- Nev (feeling far too old)
Re: Micro Men
Stefan Drissen wrote: Excellent, that was most enjoyable – thanks for the heads up! The old days eh… J Just watched it off the DVR - it was great to relive the whole Sinclair-Acorn thing whilst not being an excited 12 year old :-) Dan.
RE: Micro Men
Excellent, that was most enjoyable - thanks for the heads up! The old days eh... :-) Regards, Stefan From: owner-sam-us...@nvg.ntnu.no [mailto:owner-sam-us...@nvg.ntnu.no] On Behalf Of Dicky Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 19:05 To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Micro Men Hello all Have you seen that a BBC drama about 80's computing is on tonight? A bit before Sam's time but only just. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n5b92 Thanks Dicky
