Re: New Cobol compiler written in Cobol
From: Robert Wagner (spamblocker-robert_at_wagner.net)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 03:52:16 GMT
On 30 Jan 2005 13:17:41 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> Note the regularity of timing -- twenty years between generations,
>Only if you ignore everything else that happened. Being selective
>allows you to 'prove' any conclusion you started with.
>For example 1992 or so was a significant date as the release of the
>first usable version of Windows, yet it didn't fit in your '20 years'
>so you didn't mention it.
I don't regard pre-95 Windows as a milestone. At the time, I thought
it was disappointing, didn't use it and didn't observe many others
using it. Before 95, the only GUI I liked was MacIntosh, but it wasn't
widely used enough to pursue.
Both 20 year cycles had paradigm shifts mid-cycle, generally when the
operating system caught up with hardware. I regard Win-95 as one such
milestone. Another was the release of SCO XENIX 386 in 87.
MY 20 year cycles are based on hardware platform. The early years of a
cycle, when software is inadequate, present a unique opportunity to
>> Mainframers brushed it aside as a computer, thinking of it as a
>IBM designed the IBM PC to be a 'better Apple ][ PC' which was
>increasingly being found in corporate mainframe sites where it was used
>to run Visicalc and word processing.
The people who start a revolution usually have no vision of what they
launched. The corrollary is that systems hyped as revolutionary
usually languish. Examples are AS/400 and Apple.
The knockout programs that made the PC a must-have were Lotus 1-2-3
>> it will be a fat XBox or Playstation running Linux. It will have
>multiple CPUs, blazing speed and huge storage.
>Multi-CPU and 'blazing speed' maybe but 'XBox or Playstion' is not how
>I would put it. It does seem that 'XBox Next' will be Power based with
>IBM manufacturing the chips while PS/3 also uses IBM tecnology which
>may utilise Power designs.
The CELL chip will be made by IBM, Sony and Toshiba, who are each
spending billions on fab plants. They are not spending that much money
to build PS3s. The chip will be used in HDTVs, set-top boxes and
mainframes, at least.
The trick is to find applications that don't compete head-to-head with
the PC, because superior hardware isn't enough to beat it. Amiga had
hardware 15 years ahead of the PC when it lost. Enthusiasts, not big
companies, will turn this hardware into a PC replacement, just as they
are slowly making Linux a Windows replacement. As I said, programming
opportunities will abound for the next few years.
>Now we should see why IBM sold off, sorry 'partnered', the PC division.
>Apart from being a foothold in China it also dumps the contracts with
>Intel and MS leaving them free to come up with an in-house Power based
>machine running Linux that can be everything from a cheap diskless
>terminal (like LTSP) through desktops running Linux/workspace to
>clustered servers and supercomputer closely coupled machines.
Clustered servers and supercomputers are specialized, low volume
markets. China doesn't want that, it wants millions of low priced
plain-old PCs and low-end servers. It's agnostic about operating
systems; it will use Windows, Linux or OS X .. whatever works, has the
application base and doesn't get in the way with licensing. Apple has
a semi-decent application base. If they'd stop pushing overpriced
hardware to elitists, China could be their golden opportunity.
>IBM can make Power chips at a fraction of the price of buying in
>Pentiums. As the hardware price falls the software becomes the largest
>part of the cost. Linux/Workspace (based on OpenOffice.org) will be a
>fraction of the price of Windows/Office and will avoid all the TCO of
>having to maintain the crap that the BSA 'spanish inquisition' insists
Same idea as above. BSA is a vehicle to protect Microsoft's
comfortable monopoly. China has no incentive nor inclination to play
that game. It'll buy the best value for he yuan. Short-tern, that'll
be a no-name PC with a pirated copy of Windows.
>Microsoft is increasingly tied to having to maintain individual
>tracking of every licence and subscription and tying down every copy to
>combat piracy, especially in emerging markets. This makes it onerous on
>the users by way of the BSA, failed installs, having to repurchase if
>hardware is changed, DRM, so called 'Trusted Computing' (in which MS
>trusts none of their customers) and having to maintain 'subscriptions'.
>The new IBMs will make all that irrelevant, much to the customers'
>delight, and to MS's dismay.
Someone will dethrone MS. IBM isn't the first contender that comes to
my mind. I'd bet on an aggressive Asian company such as Samsung,
Fujitsu or NEC. IBM, who once had a monopoly in Japan, fell to fifth
place after Japanese companies offered competition. Why would they do
better in China?
Look what happened in the cellphone market. Motorola once had a
monopoly. Then Nokia went from nowhere to number one. Now Samsung is
about to take the lead. While this was going on, companies like
Siemens and Sony Ericsson were too comfortable in their elderhood to
In automobiles, Hyundai is moving from a joke five years ago to the
fifth largest in the world by 2010. It has already passed Nissan and
Mazda in some Asian markets.
>> TV-like graphics and sound will be the norm rather than an
>'TV-like' is very poor compared to computer monitors. If you mean
>'realistic animation' then yes, but that is not 'tv-like'.
That's what I meant.