Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jul 2017 21:54 UTC
IBM

Since I abused the first part in Ars' two-parter on the history of the IBM PC for my own selfish purposes, it's only fair to use the publication of part two to actually talk about the subject matter at hand.

In November 1979, Microsoft's frequent partner Seattle Computer Products released a standalone Intel 8086 motherboard for hardcore hobbyists and computer manufacturers looking to experiment with this new and very powerful CPU. The 8086 was closely related to the 8088 that IBM chose for the PC; the latter was a cost-reduced version of the former, an 8-bit/16-bit hybrid chip rather than a pure 16-bit like the 8086.

IBM opted for the less powerful 8088 partly to control costs, but also to allow the use of certain hardware that required the 8-bit external data bus found on the 8088. But perhaps the biggest consideration stemmed, as happens so often, from the marketing department rather than engineering. The 8086 was such a powerful chip that an IBM PC so equipped might convince some customers to choose it in lieu of IBM's own larger systems; IBM wanted to take business from other PC manufacturers, not from their own other divisions.

The IBM PC and its compatibles changed the computing landscape more than any other platform, and to this day it remains the archetype of what people think of when they think of "computer". While the archetypal computer is surely changing into a laptop or even a smartphone, they've got a long way to go before they push the PC out of the collective consciousness as the "default" computer.

Thread beginning with comment 647492
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: "Digital"
by phoenix on Wed 2nd Aug 2017 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE: "Digital""
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

That shouldn't warrant a complaint.


Yes, it should, as it's horribly inaccurate. Digital is a trademark of DEC and is not related to Digital Research at all.

If you want to shorten it for use later in the article, the correct/accurate way to do so would be to use DR instead.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: "Digital"
by Drumhellar on Wed 2nd Aug 2017 20:09 in reply to "RE[2]: "Digital""
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Stylistically, a complete word is preferable to an abbreviation. Shortening it to a single word is perfectly acceptable, even if it happens to be the trademark of another company, especially since that other company isn't being discussed at all in the article.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: "Digital"
by Alfman on Thu 3rd Aug 2017 13:57 in reply to "RE[3]: "Digital""
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Drumhellar,

Stylistically, a complete word is preferable to an abbreviation. Shortening it to a single word is perfectly acceptable, even if it happens to be the trademark of another company, especially since that other company isn't being discussed at all in the article.


I don't think any abbreviation was necessary, but to the extent it was going to be abbreviated to the name of another company it should have been done explicitly to avoid ambiguity and potential confusion.

That said, the substance of the article is very informative and I'm glad the author wrote it.

Reply Parent Score: 2