Re: is Vax addressing sane today

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

I can remember Flight Simulator being used as the benchmark for
compatibility as far back as 1985. A report on a computer show mentioned
that clone makers were demoing it running on their products.
>
This is why I feel the term “IBM compatible” was misleading, it should
have been “Microsoft compatible” from at least that point on.

It was IBM PC compatible, and that was not misleading, because that's
what it was about.  "Microsoft compatible" would have been misleading
(if you want it to mean the same as "IBM PC compatible"), because lots
of hardware was Microsoft DOS compatible that was not an IBM PC clone
and therefore not 100% IBM PC compatible.  And MS-DOS was certainly
the higher-profile Microsoft product than the Flight Simulator.

And many buyers did not care about the Flight Simulator, but more
about Lotus 1-2-3, which also required an IBM PC compatible machine.

Of course you saw the Flight Simulator a lot at shows: Moving pictures
attract the eye in a way that a static spreadsheet screen does not.

- anton
--
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
  Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>