Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer in his home"

david20_at_alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Date: 11/24/04 

Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:28:22 +0000 (UTC)

In article <8_edncIuruJnCDncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>In article <41A34237.55FA3814@teksavvy.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>>> HUH!!!! Stay within the decade. We were talking about the beginnings
>>> of the PC market.
>>
>>DEC started to shift to resellers paradigm in the 1980s. I fact, by 1986,
>>calling dec to ask to buy a vax
>
>This happened because DEC was going out of the VAX business. It's
>exactly how DEC treated people who wanted to buy PDP-10s in 1979.

Going out of the Vax business in 1986 ?
Alpha wasn't released until about 1991.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

>
>> ..would yield an automatic "why don't you call
>>hamilton avnet (or whatever the big regional reseller-du-jour was) and one
>had
>>to insist to talk to a dec sales rep.
>>
>>However, you also forget that initially, IBM aimed its PCs at businesses
>too.
>
>That's because IBM's strategy was distributed processing [excuse the
>swear]. DEC didn't think that was a good approach mostly because
>of the unmaintainability of hard/software. If you want examples
>of the mess, look at the Billyboy-installed base.
>
>
>>It did allow the PC to become retail as a side dish.
>
>It was not the core business; although, by that time, DEC had eaten
>all of their seed corn and had shot themselves in the balls to make
>sure they couldn't make any more.
>
>> ..market progressed from
>>there, and Compaq came in and pulled the rug from under IBM for many
>reasons.
>
>Fine. Why is staying out of the PC biz and concentrating on delivering
>computing services to business, educational, and government entities
>a bad decision? A bad decision was to try to be all things to all
>peoples at all times. DEC should have stayed with their business
>plan.
>
>>
>>> Certainly DEC fucked itself but not because it ignored
>>> PC business. They weren't retail. PCs are purely retail.
>>
>>Not initially. And there was no reason for DEC not to build PCs and make
>them
>>available through "the channel".
>
>There were lots of reasons not to get into that business. There
>are still lots of reasons not to get into that business.
>
>>
>>
>>> This is an example of what DEC's business model was. If it
>>> was going to continue having the reputation of quality, and
>>> thoroughly tested _systems_, it could not get into the PC
>>> business.
>>
>>True. But IBM managed quite well to spurt out PCs while keeping its
>enterprise
>>business quite "quality" oriented.
>
>Do a comparison of between IBM's financial business structure and
>DEC's. IBM could afford to experiment with this type of business.
>
>> ..And look today at HP which is a consumer
>>goods business with an enterprise sideline business.
>
><cough> I see a floundering fish who is dependent on the cash
>flow produced by selling expendibles. I suggest you take
>a look at how they deal with a quality product of theirs, which
>they killed off, that people are still mourning. HP-35.
>>
>>> >In fact, under Palmer, DEC had a thriving PC business.
>>>
>>> It did not. WTF are you talking about? When DEC "sold" a
>>> PC, it was not selling its own products.
>>
>>Humm, wonder what they were all building then in Kanata (Canada), and
>wonder
>>about those DEC ads on TV (yes!) about its canadian made personal
>computers
>>and laptops. And they were becoming quite succesful, visible in shops that
>had
>>IBM AS400s for instance.
>>
>>You can't expect to become a big contender inside of 2 or 3 quarters. DEC
>>shoudl have stayed in for a couple more years before admitting defeat.
>
>If this was after Olsen, DEC was not going to stay in any business
>at all.
>
>> ... The
>>real reason DEC gave up on PCs is due to musical chairs game involving
>Pessatori.
>>
>>> Alphas were never, ever
>>> in the retail market.
>>
>>This isn't because DEC couldn't. It is because DEC decided it didn't want
>to.
>
>Now try to remember why it didn't want to. There were practical
>reasons not to go retail.
>
>>It decided that its Alpha would not compete against its PCs
>
>Gawd, you have PCitis. It is a special form of small computer
>thinking. An Alpha was designed to run thousands of user jobs,
>and not be used as a stand alone machine. Sheesh. Do you also
>insist that a jet engine be in with every lawn mower?
>
>
>> ...and as a result,
>>prevented Alphas from competing against wintel.
>
>That's not the reason that prevented Alphas from competing with
>billyboy. Palmer and billyboy signed a contract that created the
>thingie called NT. The terms were that billyboy would supply
>all the software funding. It was clear that he would get
>DEC workers going and then pull the rug at an appropriate time.
>No funding, DECcie programmers don't get paid. Now they have
>to find another job within DEC or elsewhere.
>
>
>> ..(and the few low end alphas
>>that were built were crippled).
>
>It takes time to find and fix hardware aspects.
>>
>>
>>> Palmer's priority job was to strip the company of all cash, sell
>>> all profitable sectors and isolate the help desk part in prepartation
>>> for the corporate sale to Compaq.
>>
>>That was for the last 3 years (1996 to 1999). Prior to that, he was just a
>>headless chicken running around, moving people left and right and not
>knowing
>>what to do.
>
>NO HE WASN'T!!!! You just didn't notice what was going on. I don't
>think anybody did except me.
>
>> ..And the mild PC success was around that time.
>
>/BAH
>
>Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Quantcast