Re: self-extracting diskette image to hard disk? (or, IBM keeping inexpensive supercomputers away from the consumer).

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:39:19 UTC, "Doug Bissett"
<doug.bissett!SPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:56:04 UTC, "Kevin K" <kevink4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:27:23 UTC, "Doug Bissett"
> > <doug.bissett!SPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:40:03 UTC, "Kevin K" <kevink4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Part of what you have said indicated that they could have done all
> > > > this, with existing technology, for $3000 5 years ago. So your
> > > > argument that it was too expensive does not make any sense. If they
> > > > could have made a computer like that and sold it for $3000, there
> > > > would not been any risks. Just think of the server market. There are
> > > > a LOT of people nowadays who would pay $4000 for that kind of power
> > > > nowadays. $5000. So no risk.
> > >
> > > It does make sense, because it would have taken about 4 years to
> > > recoup the initial investment. I doubt if any publicly owned company,
> > > on earth, thinks that far ahead, any more. The upper management just
> > > wouldn't dare to propose such a thing, and, at the time, IBM was
> > > sinking like a rock anyway. It could (should) have been done, but it
> > > wasn't, and that goes back to the way that business operates in
> > > today's world. Unfortunately, nobody wins, when they play that game,
> > > they just haven't figured that out, yet.
> > >
> >
> > Intel thought YEARS in advance with their Itanium, which seems to have
> > been a failure compared to expectations.
>
> Intel doesn't have the resources, that IBM had.
>
> > Microsoft plans years in advance with their next OS.
>
> Microsoft never plans anything, except to figure out how to make the
> most money, with a sloppy product.
>
> > Both publicly traded.
> >
> > And you've never given references to where 30GHz was commercially
> > feasible with technology from 5 years ago for the prices you've
> > quoted.
>
> How can you give references, when nobody did it? You are simply
> arguing for arguments sake.
>
> It is known, that much faster electronics are entirely possible, using
> technology, older than the PowerPC. In fact faster electronics were
> possible, using technology from prior to the original PC (1981), but
> the costs would have been prohibitive. IBM's mainframes, from that
> time frame, were using faster electronics, than PCs, from 5 years ago,
> use.
>
> IBM could (should) have done far more in the PC field, than the upper
> management ever had the imagination to try, but they didn't. Now,
> their stock is in the toilet, and they are relying on passing fads
> (and their past record of being number one in the computer industry,
> which many people are starting to realise is exactly that - past), to
> maintain their place in the computer world. If IBM didn't own as many
> patents as they do, they would be in even worse shape than they are
> now. IBM has a past record of doing the "impossible", and they did
> have the people who were capable of producing what I said, at the time
> that they were designing the PowerPC, but it just wasn't done.
>


--

Since you are the one who has claimed that all this could be done
economically with "existing" technology 5 or 10 years ago, I think it
is up to you to show references that this technology was really
available 5 years ago, just absent a will by IBM to make huge amounts
of money, or at least license this technology to others, which would
also have brought in huge amounts of money, and with even less risk.

Also, remember that you mentioned that the hard drives back then could
have been 1000GB back then. Years of hard drive expansion growth
since then still have not brought it up to that (though hard drive
capacity has grown faster than clock speed).

And what about your claim that, 5-10 years ago, you could also have
had 16 gig of RAM also included within this $3000 computer? Your
claiming not only that memory would be many times larger than existing
memory at this time frame than was currently available, but that it
would me many multiples faster, to keep up with the 30GHz CPU.

Since companies, including IBM, have shown themselves willing to
invest billions of dollars in fabrication plants for CPUs, etc, your
argument that they just didn't want to spend the money on technology
that would have killed all their competition means that the technology
must have been VERY expensive. Just how expensive? 100s of
Billions? With that kind of money, they could not have made money
selling these super computers for $3000.

In 20+ years of following the computer industry, this is the first
time I've ever heard claims that computers so far past the state of
the art are not only possible (at any price), but at a very
inexpensive price.

The ball is still in your court.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: self-extracting diskette image to hard disk? (or, IBM keeping inexpensive supercomputers awa
    ... > of money, or at least license this technology to others, which would ... > also have brought in huge amounts of money, ... I know what IBM was doing, ... > claiming not only that memory would be many times larger than existing ...
    (comp.os.os2.misc)
  • Re: self-extracting diskette image to hard disk?
    ... that IBM had. ... It is known, that much faster electronics are entirely possible, using ... technology, older than the PowerPC. ... IBM has a past record of doing the "impossible", ...
    (comp.os.os2.misc)
  • Re: A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations
    ... received considerable money. ...  The time that IBM bought AMD ... too beautifully well for IBM. ... 2002, when AMD was having trouble with silicon-on-insulator technology, ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Re: A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations
    ... received considerable money. ... The time that IBM bought AMD ... 2002, when AMD was having trouble with silicon-on-insulator technology, ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Re: Why would a Home User buy more than Vista Basic?
    ... What happened to IBM was micro computer systems, client servers, and personal computers. ... There was a technology change that took IBM down. ... What you will find is middle tier technology that sits between the client side technology and the mainframe side technology with solutions such as a MS Biztalk sever, relegating the mainframe to a back-end transaction processor. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
Loading