Replies

Their target customers were IBM mainframe shops. The users were using 3270 terminals, and the PC was it's replacement. The 8088 was evolved from the 8008, which was designed to do programmable terminal emulation. That it was purpose-built for business application was not imaginary.

This is my understanding as well. Back in those days, IBM people wore business suits, and everything they did was intended to project Business competence. Particularly relating to finances and record keeping.

In 1980, they were chasing a very different market than was Apple. Of course the two markets eventually combined/overlapped, and the rest is history.

This is my understanding as well. Back in those days, IBM people wore business suits, and everything they did was intended to project Business competence. Particularly relating to finances and record keeping.

The design considerations of the PC weren't just to "project an image". This was a case of form following function, not style over substance.

"Their target customers were IBM mainframe shops. The users were using 3270 terminals, and the PC was it's replacement. The 8088 was evolved from the 8008, which was designed to do programmable terminal emulation. That it was purpose-built for business application was not imaginary."

This is my understanding as well. Back in those days, IBM people wore business suits, and everything they did was intended to project Business competence. Particularly relating to finances and record keeping.

No, the target market for the IBM-PC was the office desk top. . . the IBM mainframe shops were companies who leased their products and the leasing agents were not at all interested in selling stand-alone micro-computers. In fact, the PC came out of the TYPEWRITER division, not the computer division and the computer division was singularly NOT HAPPY.

They looked on it as a competitor to their bailiwick and their terminal business, which were LEASE ONLY! They lobbied top management strongly to KILL the PC for a couple of reasons. . . primarily the OS was "not-IBM sourced" and the processors were also not IBM sourced. . . and, they claimed, it was redundant to their terminal business, which was quite profitable. "Besides," they claimed, "it would cannibalize the typewriter business."