| istory of microcomputers does not compare with the | | | | that used the MS-DOS (Microsoft DOS) operating |
| history of ancient Mesopotamia (Iraq). Microcomputers | | | | system .In the beginning, they were similar to PC-DOS |
| (now commonly held as PCs) have been around for | | | | machines, but were not fully compatible – |
| only 25 – 30 years. | | | | software for PC-OS would seldom run on an |
| It is good to have some knowledge of this history both | | | | MS-DOS machine and vice –versa. Somewhere |
| to give some perspective of where we are today and | | | | along the way however the 2 merged so that in the |
| to know where a number of our basic computer | | | | end there was little distinction between the two |
| standards that we take for granted – as if they | | | | operating systems – IBM PC-DOS and Microsoft |
| came from heaven, originated. | | | | MS-DOS. Hence both the IBM compatible computes |
| The very first microcomputer machines were as | | | | (clones) and genuine IBM computers would both run |
| exciting as a do-it yourself set – a thrill if you | | | | the same software properly. |
| were the type who forever liked to tinker with things | | | | IBM kept the pressure on with its next system release, |
| to make them work.. | | | | the 6 MHz PC/AT, the first machine to use |
| Early personal computers (or micococomputers as | | | | Intel’s next generation chip the 80286 CPU.. |
| they were first called lacked a clear standard. The | | | | However, these first generation ATs were plagued by |
| computer chip makers – Intel, Motorola and Zilog | | | | frequent hard disk failures. Without any warning, a |
| - all competed in the microprocessor (CPU) in a rash | | | | user’s disk would fail and important and |
| of different computers from different manufactures. | | | | essential data would be lost. The problem was so |
| None were compatible with any others. | | | | widespread that IBM clones manufacturers started to |
| IBM’s introduction of the real IBM PC in August | | | | erode IBM’s market dominance. |
| 1981 opened the eyes of many. IBM had scores of | | | | This went on as the clone competition continually |
| sales representatives with credibility who were well | | | | improved their products. As well PC clones were |
| entrenched in corporations and businesses around the | | | | substantially cheaper than IBM’s machines, with |
| world. | | | | larger hard disks (from 40 megabytes to even the |
| The IBM sales staff – used to selling big ticker | | | | unbelievable 100). Greater memory became standard, |
| items and invoicing hundreds of thousands of dollars | | | | and options such as built in serial and parallel ports |
| – well dressed in “IBM Blue “ | | | | were added to system boards. As well clones often |
| three piece suits , were well accustomed to corporate | | | | included displays, display adapters and software in |
| life and power structures with the “movers and | | | | attractively priced bundles. |
| shakers” who counted . | | | | The PC/AT continued to sell well, but IBM’s |
| IBM opened their own stores selling all IBM hardware | | | | market share began to erode, even though it was |
| as well as their own brand of software. The software | | | | selling more machines than ever before. Other clone |
| had been written by third parties and adapted for the | | | | manufacturers (Compaq and Advanced Logic |
| PC- DOS (IBM‘s proprietary version of the | | | | Research for example) moved quickly on Intel’s |
| Microsoft Operating System DOS sold under license). | | | | next big microprocessor introductions. |
| IBM insisted that all the software be packaged in the | | | | The die was set. The IBM PC set the standards but |
| very same standard plain white boxes with identical | | | | the clone manufacturers forever dominated the |
| blue labeling. | | | | market which IBM had developed and lost. |
| A number of companies began to produce machines | | | | |