There were other OSes out there trying to compete but MS was very savvy in business (if not in coding) and they had IBM?s long history to back them up. While there are many reasons, one of the main reasons Apple was able to exist today through all those different PC HW and PS OS companies battling it out is because of the business model, not in spite of it.
If it helps any, IBM originally wanted the PC to run 16-bit CP/M, but the only version available at the time (from Digital Research) was 8-bit. IBM turned to Microsoft who purchased a 16-bit clone of CP/M from Seattle Computing and adapted it to the PC. To make a long story short, Digital Research later released their version, called DR-DOS, which was quite popular in Europe. Microsoft worked very hard and in some extremely devious ways to compel the OEMs to sell MS-DOS exclusively. In fairly short order DR was erased as a threat on the PC platform, and we ended up with the peculiar world where although IBM-PCs were made by hundreds if not thousands companies, nearly all of them ran the same OS.
That BTW is where you get potential antitrust issues -- it wasn't entirely because Microsoft developed a 95% market share, but because this market share was used to prevent others from becoming competitors on the PC hardware platform, which (and this is critical) was not manufactured by Microsoft.
Could Apple have duplicated this feat? In a word, no. The first ingredient in this formula was IBM inventing and then losing control of the PC platform, which they certainly did not anticipate, and at the same time, having no control over the operating system. So IBM ended up with the worst of both worlds -- hardware which could be sold as "IBM-PC compatible," for which they received zero dollars, and Microsoft raking in the bucks for the OS, over which they had exclusive control. IBM tried to recover some degree of control over their hardware platform with OS/2 (and Microchannel) but we know how that worked out. (Part of the reason for the failure of OS/2 is that IBM trusted Microsoft as a partner, and Microsoft screwed them royally.)
The damage to IBM from this course of events was incalculable. Actually it is somewhat calculable -- during the early '90s IBM posted the largest dollar loss by any company in the world to that date.
I don't see how anyone, knowing the history of how Microsoft came to dominate the industry, could see a way for Apple to chart the same course and succeed. And this is even before we talk about Apple's disastrous experiment with clone licensing.
Difference in just the processor costs in batches of 1000 is… $714
You are wrong as to the kind of processor that the entry level Mac Pro 2.66 Quad comes with.
It is NOT the higher end Intel X5550 2.66GHz Quad core that is the DP Xeon Nehalem variant - only available in as a BTO option in the higher end 8-core Mac Pro's which would cost nearly $4700 from Apple. The actual processor that comes with the 'entry-level' $2499 Quad-core Mac Pro (used by Nano_tubes for his price comparisons) is the very same 'lowest-end' W3520 Xeon Nehalem variant used in the Pystar "Open 7". So the $$$$ difference is in fact over $700 - as Nano_tubes correctly itemized.
Next time, before you post technical specifications of Apple's computers to be used in rebutting what turned out to be factually correct technical information, I suggest that you take the time to find out what those specifications actually are.
You are wrong as to the kind of processor that the entry level Mac Pro 2.66 Quad comes with.
It is NOT the higher end Intel X5550 2.66GHz Quad core that is the DP Xeon Nehalem variant - only available in as a BTO option in the higher end 8-core Mac Pro's which would cost nearly $4700 from Apple. The actual processor that comes with the 'entry-level' $2499 Quad-core Mac Pro (used by Nano_tubes for his price comparisons) is the very same 'lowest-end' W3520 Xeon Nehalem variant used in the Pystar "Open 7". So the $$$$ difference is in fact over $700 - as Nano_tubes correctly itemized.
Next time, before you post technical specifications of Apple's computers to be used in rebutting what turned out to be factually correct technical information, I suggest that you take the time to find out what those specifications actually are.
Just for giggles, I have to look back at this post. Is regarding the fact that Dell and Sony make AOI computers too. If I recall correctly, again just for giggles, the TRS-80 Model III was the first all in one, back in the summer of 1980. Then came Apple with the first Macintosh. TRS-80 included keyboard, no mouse. What's a mouse?
Just for giggles, I have to look back at this post. Is regarding the fact that Dell and Sony make AOI computers too. If I recall correctly, again just for giggles, the TRS-80 Model III was the first all in one, back in the summer of 1980. Then came Apple with the first Macintosh. TRS-80 included keyboard, no mouse. What's a mouse?
The Commodore PET was even earlier (1977). Love that integrated cassette tape drive!
Comments
There were other OSes out there trying to compete but MS was very savvy in business (if not in coding) and they had IBM?s long history to back them up. While there are many reasons, one of the main reasons Apple was able to exist today through all those different PC HW and PS OS companies battling it out is because of the business model, not in spite of it.
If it helps any, IBM originally wanted the PC to run 16-bit CP/M, but the only version available at the time (from Digital Research) was 8-bit. IBM turned to Microsoft who purchased a 16-bit clone of CP/M from Seattle Computing and adapted it to the PC. To make a long story short, Digital Research later released their version, called DR-DOS, which was quite popular in Europe. Microsoft worked very hard and in some extremely devious ways to compel the OEMs to sell MS-DOS exclusively. In fairly short order DR was erased as a threat on the PC platform, and we ended up with the peculiar world where although IBM-PCs were made by hundreds if not thousands companies, nearly all of them ran the same OS.
That BTW is where you get potential antitrust issues -- it wasn't entirely because Microsoft developed a 95% market share, but because this market share was used to prevent others from becoming competitors on the PC hardware platform, which (and this is critical) was not manufactured by Microsoft.
Could Apple have duplicated this feat? In a word, no. The first ingredient in this formula was IBM inventing and then losing control of the PC platform, which they certainly did not anticipate, and at the same time, having no control over the operating system. So IBM ended up with the worst of both worlds -- hardware which could be sold as "IBM-PC compatible," for which they received zero dollars, and Microsoft raking in the bucks for the OS, over which they had exclusive control. IBM tried to recover some degree of control over their hardware platform with OS/2 (and Microchannel) but we know how that worked out. (Part of the reason for the failure of OS/2 is that IBM trusted Microsoft as a partner, and Microsoft screwed them royally.)
The damage to IBM from this course of events was incalculable. Actually it is somewhat calculable -- during the early '90s IBM posted the largest dollar loss by any company in the world to that date.
I don't see how anyone, knowing the history of how Microsoft came to dominate the industry, could see a way for Apple to chart the same course and succeed. And this is even before we talk about Apple's disastrous experiment with clone licensing.
I’m not saying that isn’t a good deal to suit one’s needs, but you really should look up the word “same” in a dictionary.
Price of CPUs from the Intel price sheet...Difference in just the processor costs in batches of 1000 is… $714
You are wrong as to the kind of processor that the entry level Mac Pro 2.66 Quad comes with.
It is NOT the higher end Intel X5550 2.66GHz Quad core that is the DP Xeon Nehalem variant - only available in as a BTO option in the higher end 8-core Mac Pro's which would cost nearly $4700 from Apple. The actual processor that comes with the 'entry-level' $2499 Quad-core Mac Pro (used by Nano_tubes for his price comparisons) is the very same 'lowest-end' W3520 Xeon Nehalem variant used in the Pystar "Open 7". So the $$$$ difference is in fact over $700 - as Nano_tubes correctly itemized.
Next time, before you post technical specifications of Apple's computers to be used in rebutting what turned out to be factually correct technical information, I suggest that you take the time to find out what those specifications actually are.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...lem-specs.html
You are wrong as to the kind of processor that the entry level Mac Pro 2.66 Quad comes with.
It is NOT the higher end Intel X5550 2.66GHz Quad core that is the DP Xeon Nehalem variant - only available in as a BTO option in the higher end 8-core Mac Pro's which would cost nearly $4700 from Apple. The actual processor that comes with the 'entry-level' $2499 Quad-core Mac Pro (used by Nano_tubes for his price comparisons) is the very same 'lowest-end' W3520 Xeon Nehalem variant used in the Pystar "Open 7". So the $$$$ difference is in fact over $700 - as Nano_tubes correctly itemized.
Next time, before you post technical specifications of Apple's computers to be used in rebutting what turned out to be factually correct technical information, I suggest that you take the time to find out what those specifications actually are.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...lem-specs.html
You are correct. Though I did look it up at Apple.com, which is a better than 3rd party site, I just missed the listed for the quad.
Yeah, about 3 years after Apple started.
Just for giggles, I have to look back at this post. Is regarding the fact that Dell and Sony make AOI computers too. If I recall correctly, again just for giggles, the TRS-80 Model III was the first all in one, back in the summer of 1980. Then came Apple with the first Macintosh. TRS-80 included keyboard, no mouse. What's a mouse?
Just for giggles, I have to look back at this post. Is regarding the fact that Dell and Sony make AOI computers too. If I recall correctly, again just for giggles, the TRS-80 Model III was the first all in one, back in the summer of 1980. Then came Apple with the first Macintosh. TRS-80 included keyboard, no mouse. What's a mouse?
The Commodore PET was even earlier (1977). Love that integrated cassette tape drive!
http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5100.html
1975! But a 5 inches, hard to call it a monitor. Looks like there IS a place to keep your sandwich warm though.
Actually, I think that's a pod bay door (early prototype).