Specter 0 Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 In late 2000, IBM announced that it was reversing its once legendary devotion to exclusively proprietary products and would invest $1 billion in open source software--a move many described as a first for Big Blue. But that's not the case. Almost 20 years earlier, when IBM threw its immense weight into the home computing ring with the debut of the first IBM Personal Computer, Big Blue also introduced the Purple Book--beginning a kind of open source movement arguably more influential than even the later arrival of Linux. Never heard of the Purple Book? Perhaps you know it better by a more formal name: the IBM PC Technical Reference Manual. It was available for every first-generation IBM PC, and it contained all the necessary schematics and data to build compatible hardware and software for the computer. Considering the fact that IBM constructed the IBM PC almost exclusively from off-the-shelf parts, the Purple Book made it possible for competing manufacturers to build "clone" PCs under their own imprints, making IBM's PC a de facto open source technology. Even though IBM still retained all intellectual property rights to the PC design, Big Blue's desire for the product to become a standard--with other companies making compatible products that would support it--outweighed the potential market security of having a niche product. Even though Apple, Commodore, and Atari made similar disclosures for their own early-generation home computer hardware and software, IBM's reputation and sheer industry power were what incited the PC revolution (with a little help from one Bill Gates and Microsoft, who licensed the early version of DOS that ran the first IBM PC to both Big Blue and the clone PC manufacturers). The Purple Book was the first sacred text of the personal computer movement. However, the Purple Book didn't necessarily tell users (and clone-makers) everything. In fact, none of the documentation for the first IBM PC listed one particularly world-famous command, and its subsequent discovery and popularity have led some to characterize it as the first PC "Easter egg." What world famous command did the first IBM PC manual omit? The command is none other than the renowned "three-finger salute": [Ctrl][Alt][Delete]. For the original PC, this keystroke combination produced a warm reboot, and it’s famous today for launching the Task Manager under more recent versions of Windows. IBM engineer and member of the original IBM PC development team David Bradley is the original programmer of the [Ctrl][Alt][Delete] feature. He claims the command's absence from the Purple Book had nothing to do with secrecy or propriety, but it was due to a belief that the average user would never need it. Bradley coded the command in a matter of minutes as a shortcut for PC testers to work around hardware and software lockups. With so much new (and far from foolproof) technology debuting for the IBM PC after its release, the three-finger salute proved equally useful for consumer users. Word of the "secret" command leaked and found its way into PC magazines, presaging future "Easter egg" features in everything from operating systems to video games to DVD movies. For its part, [Ctrl][Alt][Delete] became famously indispensable in its own right. So famous, in fact, that the glory has rubbed off on the previously unknown Bradley. The television game show Jeopardy has featured David Bradley and [Ctrl][Alt][Delete]in a Final Jeopardy question, and the now retired engineer has received numerous accolades and citations in PC history texts, events, and news stories for his creation of the warm reboot command. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteKnight77 1 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 The one thing I have known for a long time is that all PCs are actually IBM clones. No matter what hardware is installed, What CPU powers it, and what vid card is running 3d graphics, it still is an IBM clone. Yes Bill Gates helped to bring PCs to the home market, but it was IBM's foresight that enabled the whole revolution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Specter 0 Posted February 19, 2004 Author Share Posted February 19, 2004 True, but sadly, it wouldn't have happened without Billy Boy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XavierOnasis 0 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Particulars are interesting, but surely there are some others out there who've purchased software requiring a "100% IBM Compatible" Neat stuff. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteKnight77 1 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 "100% IBM Compatible" Wouldn't a clone be 100% compatible? The way I see it, it has the same architechture. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XavierOnasis 0 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Yeah. To be honest, I never understood the 100% part. Never heard tell of a 67% compatible or a 43%. Our old 486sx made a point of stating its 100% compatability on the packing box it came in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brass 0 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 funny this is is the loss of the word clone. I used it a while back and only got blink blink from thier eyes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Specter 0 Posted February 19, 2004 Author Share Posted February 19, 2004 Particulars are interesting, but surely there are some others out there who've purchased software requiring a "100% IBM Compatible" Neat stuff. From the beginning, all software written for a PC has been 100% IBM compatible. Check some of your software boxes where the system requirements are. It used to be on there. @XO, Way back when in the beginning, in the days of PC DOS and the 286, there were some machines that weren't quite 100% compatible. In other words, they wouldn't or couldn't run all of IBM's software, or they couldn't run the 3rd party software from some mfr's. Hence the 100% statement. @WK For the most part, yes, a clone is 100% compatible. But there was a time when IBM was playing with a couple of things that never took off as a standard, such as MCA(Micro Channel Architecture) this was a 64 bit architecture they tried to market too soon for it's time and was extremely expensive, but you only found it in the true IBM computers, never a clone, unless the cloner was contracted to IBM; and the 2.88MB Floppy Drive, which was also expensive, and rare, as at the time for a long time, only IBM made it. Back in the Hey Day of Apple With Lisa and the Macintosh, the word clone was important. Not so much anymore. It has been traded for the phrase "PC". Back then to Joe Blow User, an IBM clone was what Apple wasn't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 0 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 i just learnt all of this in Info Sys at school The main difference between IBM and others (Apple, Acorn etc) is the processor type. IBM uses C.I.S.C Others use R.I.S.C Also the reason everything is IBM clone, is cos when they pioneered PC's, they just said "any of u computer dudes, you can build these PC's, we'll tell ya how!" or something to that extent But Mac said "no, we are angry and selfish, if you want Mac style, you have to buy from apple. gggrrrr" That is why IBM style PC's hold about 95.1% of the market, while apple+other taking up 4.9% Interesting topic. I think Mac gets a bad rap really. If they did what IBM did, they would proabbly be huge now, sharing at about 50 50 with IBM. R.I.S.C systems are faster, Mac uses a more logical disk desgin, maximising space and removbing the need to defrag. They were also the the first PC's with G.U.I, and mouseys , as a opposed to IBM which has text based dos Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.