Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo

EDDERTON

Sorry, off topic

Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this newsgroups?

This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various computers
from this period.

ARTS: Toast
On: BBC Radio 4 FM
Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)

Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who founded
one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers. Commodore
computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the business adapt to
survive in an age when computing became even more popular? Expert
commentators and employees reflect on why the company was so successful
and what led to its demise. Alongside them is the self-made millionaire
and serial entrepreneur Sam White, to help analyse the missteps that
changed the brand's fortunes.
(Series 2, Episode 3)

Starring: Sean Farrington, Greg Foot

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marked By: 'Category: Arts' marker
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from
http://www.getdigiguide.tv/?p=1&r=7346

Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.

In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25 Jan
2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>
>EDDERTON
>
>Sorry, off topic
>
>Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this newsgroups?
>
>This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various computers
>from this period.
>
>ARTS: Toast
>On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>
>Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the business
>adapt to survive in an age when computing became even more popular?

The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't [one of
the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in markets as
different as games and business computing. So for example, if Sinclair
had a competent business computer (which for the avoidance of doubt, the
QL wasn't) who could ever take them seriously for providing equipment
mission critical to a PLC?

As it happens, my wife was the Marketing Manager of Amstrad USA when I
met her, having been recently poached off American Airlines - also based
in Dallas.

Within weeks I had spirited her away to Brentwood, Amstrad UK's HQ. Much
to both of our surprise AMS refused to [using modern language] TUPE her
over, so she soon got bored with being a housewife two hundred yards
from Amstrad HQ and started looking for jobs in similar companies.

Commodore UK (based in Maidenhead) bit her arm off (paying about £150k
in today's money) and made her their UK Marketing Manager. We decided
that as she had moved from Dallas to the UK for my benefit, I'd move
[with her, obviously] to somewhere within half an hour of her work. One
strong candidate was this house (but I was more attracted by the trains
than he was):

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oVY6WLQD7Jub1J7U8

But we ended up in something a bit bigger further west.

The net result was I now had a 90 minute commute down the M40 and
around the M25, which I did for about a year, but eventually threw
in the towel.

Amstrad later re-branded their business computers "Viglen".

>Expert commentators and employees reflect on why the company was so
>successful and what led to its demise. Alongside them is the self-made
>millionaire and serial entrepreneur Sam White, to help analyse the
>missteps that changed the brand's fortunes.
>(Series 2, Episode 3)
>
>Starring: Sean Farrington, Greg Foot
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Marked By: 'Category: Arts' marker
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from
>http://www.getdigiguide.tv/?p=1&r=7346
>
>Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.

--
Roland Perry

On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25 Jan
> 2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>
>> EDDERTON
>>
>> Sorry, off topic
>>
>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>> newsgroups?
>>
>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various computers
>> from this period.
>>
>> ARTS: Toast
>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>
>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>> founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>> Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>> business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even more
>> popular?
>
> The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't [one of
> the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in markets as
> different as games and business computing. So for example, if Sinclair
> had a competent business computer (which for the avoidance of doubt, the
> QL wasn't) who could ever take them seriously for providing equipment
> mission critical to a PLC?

In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market largely
crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating systems,
companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming focused and
business focused markets. For example Alienware is one of the more
successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which is a sub-brand of
Dell, who are very big in the business market.

Obviously the same Intel and AMD chips and supporting chipsets are
regularly sold to both market segments, and more specialised components
like 3D graphics hardware are also sold by the same suppliers to the
games market and to provide for things like video rendering, engineering
CAD workstations and the like.

Robin

In message <uou8e8$2dbjk$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:31 on Thu, 25 Jan
2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>
>>> EDDERTON
>>>
>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>
>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>newsgroups?
>>>
>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various
>>>computers from this period.
>>>
>>> ARTS: Toast
>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>
>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even more popular?
>> The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't [one
>>of the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in markets as
>>different as games and business computing. So for example, if Sinclair
>>had a competent business computer (which for the avoidance of doubt,
>>the QL wasn't) who could ever take them seriously for providing
>>equipment mission critical to a PLC?
>
>In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market largely
>crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating systems,
>companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming focused and
>business focused markets. For example Alienware is one of the more
>successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which is a sub-brand
>of Dell, who are very big in the business market.

There you go, those are apparently branded Alienware, not Dell. So very,
very, glad we aren't disagreeing about this.

>Obviously the same Intel and AMD chips and supporting chipsets are
>regularly sold to both market segments, and more specialised components
>like 3D graphics hardware are also sold by the same suppliers to the
>games market and to provide for things like video rendering,
>engineering CAD workstations and the like.

To some extent true, but completely and utterly irrelevant to the
subthread.
--
Roland Perry

On 25.01.2024 19:31, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uou8e8$2dbjk$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:31 on Thu, 25 Jan
> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>> 2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>>
>>>> EDDERTON
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>>
>>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>> newsgroups?
>>>>
>>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various
>>>> computers  from this period.
>>>>
>>>> ARTS: Toast
>>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>>
>>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>> founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>> Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>> business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even more
>>>> popular?
>>>  The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't [one
>>> of  the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in markets
>>> as different as games and business computing. So for example, if
>>> Sinclair had a competent business computer (which for the avoidance
>>> of doubt, the  QL wasn't) who could ever take them seriously for
>>> providing equipment  mission critical to a PLC?
>>
>> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>> hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market largely
>> crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating systems,
>> companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming focused and
>> business focused markets. For example Alienware is one of the more
>> successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which is a sub-brand
>> of Dell, who are very big in the business market.
>
> There you go, those are apparently branded Alienware, not Dell. So very,
> very, glad we aren't disagreeing about this.

What all this talk of market segmentation misses, though, is the actual
reason all these computer companies died. They died because the market
for "a personal computer" died. It was replaced by the market for a
"commodity x86 windows PC". That happened in the buisness market, it
happened in the gaming market and it happened in the home computer
market. There are 3 companies that made consumer computing devices in
the 1980s that make computing devices today: HP, Apple and Nintendo. HP
won by managing to compete in the commodity x86 windows PC market, while
the other two survived by tying their computing device sales into a
broader range of product offerings. In Apples case, music players,
phones, software and internet based services, and in Nintendo's case,
its in house game development sudios.

>> Obviously the same Intel and AMD chips and supporting chipsets are
>> regularly sold to both market segments, and more specialised
>> components like 3D graphics hardware are also sold by the same
>> suppliers to the games market and to provide for things like video
>> rendering, engineering CAD workstations and the like.
>
> To some extent true, but completely and utterly irrelevant to the
> subthread.

Oh noes! Thread drift! The end of the world is nigh!

Robin

In message <fL7nKrG2gpslFAsL@perry.uk>, at 17:19:50 on Thu, 25 Jan 2024,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:

>Commodore UK (based in Maidenhead) bit her arm off (paying about £150k
>in today's money) and made her their UK Marketing Manager.

Official PR photo: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/JSP-CBM.jpg
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 17:19:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>
>Amstrad later re-branded their business computers "Viglen".
>
Didn't Amstrad acquire the Viglen brand?

Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 17:19:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Amstrad later re-branded their business computers "Viglen".
>>
> Didn't Amstrad acquire the Viglen brand?
>

Yes, the company, not just the brand:

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/06/13/Amstrad-buys-Viglen-for-30-mln-pounds/4738771480000/

I think it always operated quite independently.

On 25 Jan 2024 19:14, Bob wrote:
> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25 Jan
>> 2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>
>>> EDDERTON
>>>
>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>
>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>> newsgroups?
>>>
>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various computers
>>> from this period.
>>>
>>> ARTS: Toast
>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>
>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>> founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>> Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>> business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even more
>>> popular?
>>
>> The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't [one of
>> the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in markets as
>> different as games and business computing. So for example, if Sinclair
>> had a competent business computer (which for the avoidance of doubt, the
>> QL wasn't) who could ever take them seriously for providing equipment
>> mission critical to a PLC?
>
> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
> hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market largely
> crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating systems,
> companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming focused and
> business focused markets. For example Alienware is one of the more
> successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which is a sub-brand of
> Dell, who are very big in the business market.

It wasn't that simple. Even when one tried out software on a sample PC,
it wasn't certain it would run on the one you finally bought several of
them from, say, Viglen as the components used would change and would
have an effect, given how tight device drivers and memory maps were in
those days.

In message <eZQsN.83196$CYpe.72315@fx40.iad>, at 16:20:26 on Fri, 26 Jan
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 17:19:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Amstrad later re-branded their business computers "Viglen".
>>>
>> Didn't Amstrad acquire the Viglen brand?
>
>Yes, the company, not just the brand:
>
>https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/06/13/Amstrad-buys-Viglen-for-30-mln-p
>ounds/4738771480000/

Time flies, I didn't realise it was quite that long ago.

>I think it always operated quite independently.

You have got to be kidding. No such concept in the AMS empire (which was
probably one of it's greatest strengths).
--
Roland Perry

In message <iqk7rilr3u9lor7d56iqvjijo97ou0qhlv@4ax.com>, at 15:45:17 on
Fri, 26 Jan 2024, Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> remarked:
>On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 17:19:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Amstrad later re-branded their business computers "Viglen".
>>
>Didn't Amstrad acquire the Viglen brand?

Yes, and that's how they were able to easily rebrand the business
computers. They almost bought Stone Computers (no, nothing to do with
the Flintstones, it's based in a town on the Trent an Mersey Canal)
which would have given them a second alternative brand.

Some of the "Apprentice" was shot at Viglen's premises, in particular
the getting-into-the-taxi after-being-fired. Which they shot a batch of
at the beginning of the process, and then spliced in the footage inside
the taxi later.

Most of the time they got the continuity correct, but a few times
someone got fired from the boardroom - which was a film studio in NW
London - and was wearing something slightly different getting into the
taxi [filmed several weeks earlier].

I think the comedy villain "interviews" in the penultimate episode
were also filmed at Viglen, rather than the film studio, because it was
cheaper to use a real location rather than building something for use in
just one episode.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <eZQsN.83196$CYpe.72315@fx40.iad>, at 16:20:26 on Fri, 26 Jan
> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 17:19:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Amstrad later re-branded their business computers "Viglen".
>>>>
>>> Didn't Amstrad acquire the Viglen brand?
>>
>> Yes, the company, not just the brand:
>>
>> https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/06/13/Amstrad-buys-Viglen-for-30-mln-p
>> ounds/4738771480000/
>
> Time flies, I didn't realise it was quite that long ago.
>
>> I think it always operated quite independently.
>
> You have got to be kidding. No such concept in the AMS empire (which was
> probably one of it's greatest strengths).

I don't have your insider's knowledge, but had the impression that Viglen
was always run as a separate business. Obviously it shared a main
shareholder with the other Amstrad companies, and he'd clearly have been in
overall charge, but I didn't think the companies shared facilities, admin,
procurement, production, sales, marketing, etc?

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2024 19:14, Bob wrote:
>> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>> 2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>>
>>>> EDDERTON
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>>
>>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>> newsgroups?
>>>>
>>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various computers
>>>> from this period.
>>>>
>>>> ARTS: Toast
>>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>>
>>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>> founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>> Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>> business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even more
>>>> popular?
>>>
>>> The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't [one of
>>> the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in markets as
>>> different as games and business computing. So for example, if Sinclair
>>> had a competent business computer (which for the avoidance of doubt, the
>>> QL wasn't) who could ever take them seriously for providing equipment
>>> mission critical to a PLC?
>>
>> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>> hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market largely
>> crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating systems,
>> companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming focused and
>> business focused markets. For example Alienware is one of the more
>> successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which is a sub-brand of
>> Dell, who are very big in the business market.
>
> It wasn't that simple. Even when one tried out software on a sample PC,
> it wasn't certain it would run on the one you finally bought several of
> them from, say, Viglen as the components used would change and would
> have an effect, given how tight device drivers and memory maps were in
> those days.

Years ago my former employer had a contract to buy ostensibly standard PCs
from a local supplier. I wasn’t directly involved, but apparently it was
always exciting to find out what was inside the case this week.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <Vv5tN.356661$p%Mb.36960@fx15.iad>, at 11:09:41 on Sat, 27
Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <eZQsN.83196$CYpe.72315@fx40.iad>, at 16:20:26 on Fri, 26 Jan
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 17:19:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Amstrad later re-branded their business computers "Viglen".
>>>>>
>>>> Didn't Amstrad acquire the Viglen brand?
>>>
>>> Yes, the company, not just the brand:
>>>
>>> https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/06/13/Amstrad-buys-Viglen-for-30-mln-p
>>> ounds/4738771480000/
>>
>> Time flies, I didn't realise it was quite that long ago.
>>
>>> I think it always operated quite independently.
>>
>> You have got to be kidding. No such concept in the AMS empire (which was
>> probably one of it's greatest strengths).
>
>I don't have your insider's knowledge, but had the impression that Viglen
>was always run as a separate business. Obviously it shared a main
>shareholder with the other Amstrad companies, and he'd clearly have been in
>overall charge, but I didn't think the companies shared facilities, admin,
>procurement, production, sales, marketing, etc?

There's more to being independent than having your own premises, staff
etc.
--
Roland Perry

In message <uoudh8$2dthr$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:41:28 on Thu, 25 Jan
2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 25.01.2024 19:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uou8e8$2dbjk$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:31 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25
>>>>Jan 2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>>>
>>>>> EDDERTON
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>>>
>>>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>>>newsgroups?
>>>>>
>>>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various
>>>>>computers  from this period.
>>>>>
>>>>> ARTS: Toast
>>>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>>>
>>>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>>>founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>>>Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>>>business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even more popular?
>>>>  The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't
>>>>[one of  the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in
>>>>markets as different as games and business computing. So for
>>>>example, if Sinclair had a competent business computer (which for
>>>>the avoidance of doubt, the  QL wasn't) who could ever take them
>>>>seriously for providing equipment  mission critical to a PLC?
>>>
>>> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>>>hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market largely
>>>crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating systems,
>>>companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming focused
>>>and business focused markets. For example Alienware is one of the
>>>more successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which is a
>>>sub-brand of Dell, who are very big in the business market.

>> There you go, those are apparently branded Alienware, not Dell. So
>>very, very, glad we aren't disagreeing about this.
>
>What all this talk of market segmentation misses, though, is the actual
>reason all these computer companies died. They died because the market
>for "a personal computer" died. It was replaced by the market for a
>"commodity x86 windows PC".

While the majority of personal computers became commodities, there's
still plenty which aren't. I'm typing this on a £2k Toughbook, for
example, which almost no ordinary consumers would regard as an
appropriate choice for them.

>That happened in the buisness market, it happened in the gaming market
>and it happened in the home computer market. There are 3 companies
>that made consumer computing devices in the 1980s that make computing
>devices today: HP, Apple and Nintendo.

There's numerous missing from that list, not least Lenovo (nee IBM) and
of course Dell. Microsoft is still making the Surface.

>HP won

2023 stats...

Lenovo: 16 million units, 23.5% market share.
HP: 13.5 million units, 19.8% market share.
Dell: 10.3 million units, 15% market share.
Apple: 7.2 million units, 10.6% market share.
Asus: 4.9 million units, 7.1% market share.

>by managing to compete in the commodity x86 windows PC market, while
>the other two survived by tying their computing device sales into a
>broader range of product offerings. In Apples case, music players,
>phones, software and internet based services, and in Nintendo's case,
>its in house game development sudios.
>
>>> Obviously the same Intel and AMD chips and supporting chipsets are
>>>regularly sold to both market segments, and more specialised
>>>components like 3D graphics hardware are also sold by the same
>>>suppliers to the games market and to provide for things like video
>>>rendering, engineering CAD workstations and the like.

>> To some extent true, but completely and utterly irrelevant to the
>>subthread.
>
>Oh noes! Thread drift! The end of the world is nigh!

If only many of the non-drifted responses here weren't quite so wide of
the mark, that we could have time to drift.
--
Roland Perry

On 08.02.2024 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uoudh8$2dthr$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:41:28 on Thu, 25 Jan
> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 25.01.2024 19:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uou8e8$2dbjk$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:31 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25
>>>>> Jan  2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EDDERTON
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>>>> newsgroups?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various
>>>>>> computers  from this period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ARTS: Toast
>>>>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>>>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>>>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>>>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>>>> founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>>>> Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>>>> business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even
>>>>>> more popular?
>>>>>  The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't
>>>>> [one  of  the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in
>>>>> markets  as different as games and business computing. So for
>>>>> example, if  Sinclair had a competent business computer (which for
>>>>> the avoidance  of doubt, the  QL wasn't) who could ever take them
>>>>> seriously for  providing equipment  mission critical to a PLC?
>>>>
>>>> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>>>> hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market
>>>> largely crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating
>>>> systems, companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming
>>>> focused and  business focused markets. For example Alienware is one
>>>> of the more  successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which
>>>> is a sub-brand  of Dell, who are very big in the business market.
>
>>>  There you go, those are apparently branded Alienware, not Dell. So
>>> very,  very, glad we aren't disagreeing about this.
>>
>> What all this talk of market segmentation misses, though, is the
>> actual reason all these computer companies died. They died because the
>> market for "a personal computer" died. It was replaced by the market
>> for a "commodity x86 windows PC".
>
> While the majority of personal computers became commodities, there's
> still plenty which aren't. I'm typing this on a £2k Toughbook, for
> example, which almost no ordinary consumers would regard as an
> appropriate choice for them.

In terms of its computing internals, it is commodity x86 hardware
running windows, just in an expensive case.

>> That happened in the buisness market, it happened in the gaming market
>> and it happened in the home computer market.  There are 3 companies
>> that made consumer computing devices in the 1980s that make computing
>> devices today: HP, Apple and Nintendo.
>
> There's numerous missing from that list, not least Lenovo (nee IBM)

Lenovo has never been part of IBM. They are separate companies with
separate histories. IBM sold its consumper computing products business
to Lenovo. Lenovo did not begin selling computers until after 1990.

> and of course Dell.

I'll grant that, I was under the mistaken belief that Dell didn't start
selling computers until after 1990, but in fact the company was selling
computers a little before then.

> Microsoft is still making the Surface.

It never sold hardware in the 1980s.

>> HP won
>
> 2023 stats...
>
> Lenovo: 16 million units, 23.5% market share.

wasn't selling computers in the 1980s

> Asus: 4.9 million units, 7.1% market share.

wasn't selling computers in the 1980s.

Robin

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 08.02.2024 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uoudh8$2dthr$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:41:28 on Thu, 25 Jan
>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 25.01.2024 19:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <uou8e8$2dbjk$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:31 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25
>>>>>> Jan  2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EDDERTON
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>>>>> newsgroups?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various
>>>>>>> computers  from this period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ARTS: Toast
>>>>>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>>>>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>>>>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>>>>> founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>>>>> Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>>>>> business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even
>>>>>>> more popular?
>>>>>>  The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't
>>>>>> [one  of  the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in
>>>>>> markets  as different as games and business computing. So for
>>>>>> example, if  Sinclair had a competent business computer (which for
>>>>>> the avoidance  of doubt, the  QL wasn't) who could ever take them
>>>>>> seriously for  providing equipment  mission critical to a PLC?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>>>>> hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market
>>>>> largely crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating
>>>>> systems, companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming
>>>>> focused and  business focused markets. For example Alienware is one
>>>>> of the more  successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which
>>>>> is a sub-brand  of Dell, who are very big in the business market.
>>
>>>>  There you go, those are apparently branded Alienware, not Dell. So
>>>> very,  very, glad we aren't disagreeing about this.
>>>
>>> What all this talk of market segmentation misses, though, is the
>>> actual reason all these computer companies died. They died because the
>>> market for "a personal computer" died. It was replaced by the market
>>> for a "commodity x86 windows PC".
>>
>> While the majority of personal computers became commodities, there's
>> still plenty which aren't. I'm typing this on a £2k Toughbook, for
>> example, which almost no ordinary consumers would regard as an
>> appropriate choice for them.
>
> In terms of its computing internals, it is commodity x86 hardware
> running windows, just in an expensive case.
>
>>> That happened in the buisness market, it happened in the gaming market
>>> and it happened in the home computer market.  There are 3 companies
>>> that made consumer computing devices in the 1980s that make computing
>>> devices today: HP, Apple and Nintendo.
>>
>> There's numerous missing from that list, not least Lenovo (nee IBM)
>
> Lenovo has never been part of IBM. They are separate companies with
> separate histories. IBM sold its consumper computing products business
> to Lenovo. Lenovo did not begin selling computers until after 1990.
>
>> and of course Dell.
>
> I'll grant that, I was under the mistaken belief that Dell didn't start
> selling computers until after 1990, but in fact the company was selling
> computers a little before then.
>
>> Microsoft is still making the Surface.
>
> It never sold hardware in the 1980s.
>
>>> HP won
>>
>> 2023 stats...
>>
>> Lenovo: 16 million units, 23.5% market share.
>
> wasn't selling computers in the 1980s
>
>> Asus: 4.9 million units, 7.1% market share.
>
> wasn't selling computers in the 1980s.
>
> Robin
>

I think we should include Lenovo. It started life as IBM’s personal
computer division, and was spun out and rebranded. The case design of their
laptops shows the history

On 08.02.2024 18:02, Tweed wrote:
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 08.02.2024 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uoudh8$2dthr$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:41:28 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 25.01.2024 19:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <uou8e8$2dbjk$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:31 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25
>>>>>>> Jan  2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> EDDERTON
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>>>>>> newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various
>>>>>>>> computers  from this period.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ARTS: Toast
>>>>>>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>>>>>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>>>>>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>>>>>> founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>>>>>> Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>>>>>> business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even
>>>>>>>> more popular?
>>>>>>>  The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't
>>>>>>> [one  of  the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in
>>>>>>> markets  as different as games and business computing. So for
>>>>>>> example, if  Sinclair had a competent business computer (which for
>>>>>>> the avoidance  of doubt, the  QL wasn't) who could ever take them
>>>>>>> seriously for  providing equipment  mission critical to a PLC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>>>>>> hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market
>>>>>> largely crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating
>>>>>> systems, companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming
>>>>>> focused and  business focused markets. For example Alienware is one
>>>>>> of the more  successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which
>>>>>> is a sub-brand  of Dell, who are very big in the business market.
>>>
>>>>>  There you go, those are apparently branded Alienware, not Dell. So
>>>>> very,  very, glad we aren't disagreeing about this.
>>>>
>>>> What all this talk of market segmentation misses, though, is the
>>>> actual reason all these computer companies died. They died because the
>>>> market for "a personal computer" died. It was replaced by the market
>>>> for a "commodity x86 windows PC".
>>>
>>> While the majority of personal computers became commodities, there's
>>> still plenty which aren't. I'm typing this on a £2k Toughbook, for
>>> example, which almost no ordinary consumers would regard as an
>>> appropriate choice for them.
>>
>> In terms of its computing internals, it is commodity x86 hardware
>> running windows, just in an expensive case.
>>
>>>> That happened in the buisness market, it happened in the gaming market
>>>> and it happened in the home computer market.  There are 3 companies
>>>> that made consumer computing devices in the 1980s that make computing
>>>> devices today: HP, Apple and Nintendo.
>>>
>>> There's numerous missing from that list, not least Lenovo (nee IBM)
>>
>> Lenovo has never been part of IBM. They are separate companies with
>> separate histories. IBM sold its consumper computing products business
>> to Lenovo. Lenovo did not begin selling computers until after 1990.
>>
>>> and of course Dell.
>>
>> I'll grant that, I was under the mistaken belief that Dell didn't start
>> selling computers until after 1990, but in fact the company was selling
>> computers a little before then.
>>
>>> Microsoft is still making the Surface.
>>
>> It never sold hardware in the 1980s.
>>
>>>> HP won
>>>
>>> 2023 stats...
>>>
>>> Lenovo: 16 million units, 23.5% market share.
>>
>> wasn't selling computers in the 1980s
>>
>>> Asus: 4.9 million units, 7.1% market share.
>>
>> wasn't selling computers in the 1980s.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>
> I think we should include Lenovo. It started life as IBM’s personal
> computer division, and was spun out and rebranded. The case design of their
> laptops shows the history

Lenovo was its own business, selling computers it produced itself for
over a decade before it bought the personal computer elements of IBM.

RObin

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 08.02.2024 18:02, Tweed wrote:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 08.02.2024 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <uoudh8$2dthr$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:41:28 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 25.01.2024 19:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <uou8e8$2dbjk$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:31 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25
>>>>>>>> Jan  2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EDDERTON
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>>>>>>> newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various
>>>>>>>>> computers  from this period.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ARTS: Toast
>>>>>>>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>>>>>>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>>>>>>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>>>>>>> founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>>>>>>> Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>>>>>>> business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even
>>>>>>>>> more popular?
>>>>>>>>  The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't
>>>>>>>> [one  of  the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in
>>>>>>>> markets  as different as games and business computing. So for
>>>>>>>> example, if  Sinclair had a competent business computer (which for
>>>>>>>> the avoidance  of doubt, the  QL wasn't) who could ever take them
>>>>>>>> seriously for  providing equipment  mission critical to a PLC?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>>>>>>> hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market
>>>>>>> largely crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating
>>>>>>> systems, companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming
>>>>>>> focused and  business focused markets. For example Alienware is one
>>>>>>> of the more  successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which
>>>>>>> is a sub-brand  of Dell, who are very big in the business market.
>>>>
>>>>>>  There you go, those are apparently branded Alienware, not Dell. So
>>>>>> very,  very, glad we aren't disagreeing about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> What all this talk of market segmentation misses, though, is the
>>>>> actual reason all these computer companies died. They died because the
>>>>> market for "a personal computer" died. It was replaced by the market
>>>>> for a "commodity x86 windows PC".
>>>>
>>>> While the majority of personal computers became commodities, there's
>>>> still plenty which aren't. I'm typing this on a £2k Toughbook, for
>>>> example, which almost no ordinary consumers would regard as an
>>>> appropriate choice for them.
>>>
>>> In terms of its computing internals, it is commodity x86 hardware
>>> running windows, just in an expensive case.
>>>
>>>>> That happened in the buisness market, it happened in the gaming market
>>>>> and it happened in the home computer market.  There are 3 companies
>>>>> that made consumer computing devices in the 1980s that make computing
>>>>> devices today: HP, Apple and Nintendo.
>>>>
>>>> There's numerous missing from that list, not least Lenovo (nee IBM)
>>>
>>> Lenovo has never been part of IBM. They are separate companies with
>>> separate histories. IBM sold its consumper computing products business
>>> to Lenovo. Lenovo did not begin selling computers until after 1990.
>>>
>>>> and of course Dell.
>>>
>>> I'll grant that, I was under the mistaken belief that Dell didn't start
>>> selling computers until after 1990, but in fact the company was selling
>>> computers a little before then.
>>>
>>>> Microsoft is still making the Surface.
>>>
>>> It never sold hardware in the 1980s.
>>>
>>>>> HP won
>>>>
>>>> 2023 stats...
>>>>
>>>> Lenovo: 16 million units, 23.5% market share.
>>>
>>> wasn't selling computers in the 1980s
>>>
>>>> Asus: 4.9 million units, 7.1% market share.
>>>
>>> wasn't selling computers in the 1980s.
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>
>> I think we should include Lenovo. It started life as IBM’s personal
>> computer division, and was spun out and rebranded. The case design of their
>> laptops shows the history
>
> Lenovo was its own business, selling computers it produced itself for
> over a decade before it bought the personal computer elements of IBM.
>
> RObin
>

Agreed, but the Lenovo laptops are direct descendants of the IBM laptops.
In practical terms it’s just the name on the case that has changed. Some of
the best designed laptops in respect of case, keyboard and pointing devices
in my opinion.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 08.02.2024 18:02, Tweed wrote:
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08.02.2024 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <uoudh8$2dthr$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:41:28 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 25.01.2024 19:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <uou8e8$2dbjk$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:31 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25
>>>>>>>>> Jan  2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EDDERTON
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>>>>>>>> newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various
>>>>>>>>>> computers  from this period.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ARTS: Toast
>>>>>>>>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>>>>>>>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>>>>>>>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>>>>>>>> founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>>>>>>>> Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>>>>>>>> business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even
>>>>>>>>>> more popular?
>>>>>>>>>  The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't
>>>>>>>>> [one  of  the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in
>>>>>>>>> markets  as different as games and business computing. So for
>>>>>>>>> example, if  Sinclair had a competent business computer (which for
>>>>>>>>> the avoidance  of doubt, the  QL wasn't) who could ever take them
>>>>>>>>> seriously for  providing equipment  mission critical to a PLC?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>>>>>>>> hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market
>>>>>>>> largely crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating
>>>>>>>> systems, companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming
>>>>>>>> focused and  business focused markets. For example Alienware is one
>>>>>>>> of the more  successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which
>>>>>>>> is a sub-brand  of Dell, who are very big in the business market.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  There you go, those are apparently branded Alienware, not Dell. So
>>>>>>> very,  very, glad we aren't disagreeing about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What all this talk of market segmentation misses, though, is the
>>>>>> actual reason all these computer companies died. They died because the
>>>>>> market for "a personal computer" died. It was replaced by the market
>>>>>> for a "commodity x86 windows PC".
>>>>>
>>>>> While the majority of personal computers became commodities, there's
>>>>> still plenty which aren't. I'm typing this on a £2k Toughbook, for
>>>>> example, which almost no ordinary consumers would regard as an
>>>>> appropriate choice for them.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of its computing internals, it is commodity x86 hardware
>>>> running windows, just in an expensive case.
>>>>
>>>>>> That happened in the buisness market, it happened in the gaming market
>>>>>> and it happened in the home computer market.  There are 3 companies
>>>>>> that made consumer computing devices in the 1980s that make computing
>>>>>> devices today: HP, Apple and Nintendo.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's numerous missing from that list, not least Lenovo (nee IBM)
>>>>
>>>> Lenovo has never been part of IBM. They are separate companies with
>>>> separate histories. IBM sold its consumper computing products business
>>>> to Lenovo. Lenovo did not begin selling computers until after 1990.
>>>>
>>>>> and of course Dell.
>>>>
>>>> I'll grant that, I was under the mistaken belief that Dell didn't start
>>>> selling computers until after 1990, but in fact the company was selling
>>>> computers a little before then.
>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft is still making the Surface.
>>>>
>>>> It never sold hardware in the 1980s.
>>>>
>>>>>> HP won
>>>>>
>>>>> 2023 stats...
>>>>>
>>>>> Lenovo: 16 million units, 23.5% market share.
>>>>
>>>> wasn't selling computers in the 1980s
>>>>
>>>>> Asus: 4.9 million units, 7.1% market share.
>>>>
>>>> wasn't selling computers in the 1980s.
>>>>
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think we should include Lenovo. It started life as IBM’s personal
>>> computer division, and was spun out and rebranded. The case design of their
>>> laptops shows the history
>>
>> Lenovo was its own business, selling computers it produced itself for
>> over a decade before it bought the personal computer elements of IBM.
>>
>> RObin
>>
>
> Agreed, but the Lenovo laptops are direct descendants of the IBM laptops.
> In practical terms it’s just the name on the case that has changed. Some of
> the best designed laptops in respect of case, keyboard and pointing devices
> in my opinion.

Ah, the infamous pointing stick…
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_stick>
<https://xkcd.com/243/>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <uq300m$21oj0$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:37:42 on Thu, 8 Feb
2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 08.02.2024 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uoudh8$2dthr$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:41:28 on Thu, 25 Jan
>>2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 25.01.2024 19:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <uou8e8$2dbjk$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:31 on Thu, 25
>>>>Jan 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 25.01.2024 18:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <uotngl$2aj1a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:42 on Thu, 25
>>>>>>Jan  2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>> Community explores reopening rail stop closed in 1960
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge7y4e8nqgo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EDDERTON
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, off topic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was the long running thread about Amstrad and Roland etc in this
>>>>>>>newsgroups?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This programme on Radio 4 this morning talked about various
>>>>>>>computers  from this period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ARTS: Toast
>>>>>>> On: BBC Radio 4 FM
>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 25th January 2024 (Already shown)
>>>>>>> Time: 12:30 to 12:57 (27 minutes long)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Commodore Computers. Series 2, episode 3.
>>>>>>> Sean Farrington examines the remarkable story behind the man who
>>>>>>>founded one of the world's best-selling computer manufacturers.
>>>>>>>Commodore computers were huge in the 1980s so why couldn't the
>>>>>>>business adapt to survive in an age when computing became even more popular?

>>>>>>  The reason why many companies failed was because they couldn't
>>>>>>[one  of  the Laws of Marketing] have the same brand competing in
>>>>>>markets  as different as games and business computing. So for
>>>>>>example, if  Sinclair had a competent business computer (which for
>>>>>>the avoidance  of doubt, the  QL wasn't) who could ever take them
>>>>>>seriously for  providing equipment  mission critical to a PLC?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the era where computer companies made mututally incompatible
>>>>>hardware, that was certainly the case, but once the PC market
>>>>>largely crystalised around x86 processors running MS operating
>>>>>systems, companies have made a success of supplying both the gaming
>>>>>focused and  business focused markets. For example Alienware is one
>>>>>of the more  successful gaming-focused PC hardware suppliers, which
>>>>>is a sub-brand  of Dell, who are very big in the business market.
>>
>>>>  There you go, those are apparently branded Alienware, not Dell. So
>>>>very,  very, glad we aren't disagreeing about this.
>>>
>>> What all this talk of market segmentation misses, though, is the
>>>actual reason all these computer companies died. They died because
>>>the market for "a personal computer" died. It was replaced by the
>>>market for a "commodity x86 windows PC".

>> While the majority of personal computers became commodities, there's
>>still plenty which aren't. I'm typing this on a £2k Toughbook, for
>>example, which almost no ordinary consumers would regard as an
>>appropriate choice for them.
>
>In terms of its computing internals, it is commodity x86 hardware
>running windows, just in an expensive case.

Sorry, but the motherboard isn't the same as used in commodity PCs, and
in any event much of the stuff which makes it not-a-commodity is the
waterproof shockproof case with hot-swappable batteries.

>>> That happened in the buisness market, it happened in the gaming
>>>market and it happened in the home computer market.  There are 3
>>>companies that made consumer computing devices in the 1980s that
>>>make computing devices today: HP, Apple and Nintendo.

>> There's numerous missing from that list, not least Lenovo (nee IBM)
>
>Lenovo has never been part of IBM. They are separate companies with
>separate histories. IBM sold its consumper computing products business
>to Lenovo. Lenovo did not begin selling computers until after 1990.

You've actually just confirmed that Lenovo is in effect the modern
branding for IBM PCs.

>> and of course Dell.
>
>I'll grant that, I was under the mistaken belief that Dell didn't start
>selling computers until after 1990, but in fact the company was selling
>computers a little before then.

I was at the launch of Dell-UK in around 1986, and the US parent company
was founded in 1984.

>> Microsoft is still making the Surface.
>
>It never sold hardware in the 1980s.

There were numerous hardware products.

>>> HP won
>> 2023 stats...
>> Lenovo: 16 million units, 23.5% market share.
>
>wasn't selling computers in the 1980s

IBM was (see above)

>> Asus: 4.9 million units, 7.1% market share.
>
>wasn't selling computers in the 1980s.

Would you rather I just wrote <redacted> to avoid confusing you?

In any event, this "had to be making them in the 80's" is a prime
example of moving the goalposts. However, their first motherboard was a
486, so it can't have been much later.
--
Roland Perry

In message <uq32kp$228kr$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:22:33 on Thu, 8 Feb
2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:

>> I think we should include Lenovo. It started life as IBM’s personal
>> computer division, and was spun out and rebranded. The case design of their
>> laptops shows the history
>
>Lenovo was its own business, selling computers it produced itself for
>over a decade before it bought the personal computer elements of IBM.

Why is that nugget of information relevant?
--
Roland Perry