94 lines
5.4 KiB
Markdown
94 lines
5.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
layout: post
|
|
title: Remembering COMPAQ
|
|
date: 2016-02-24 14:00:00
|
|
permalink: /blog/2016/02/24/
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
IBM is obviously the company everyone thinks of first when we talk about the IBM PC -- after all, IBM is right
|
|
there in the name. And they designed the thing. So IBM deserves lots of credit, especially the folks who worked
|
|
in Boca Raton at IBM's Entry Systems Division in the early 1980's.
|
|
|
|
However, IBM was a huge company that existed *before* the IBM PC and which still exists today; they had some built-in
|
|
advantages. The PC era also saw a lot of companies spring up from nowhere and then disappear just as quickly.
|
|
Some of them didn't do anything particularly innovative or noteworthy -- they probably just wanted to ride the PC wave
|
|
and make some easy money in the process.
|
|
|
|
I think one of the more exceptional companies from that era is COMPAQ. It's easy to dismiss COMPAQ as just another
|
|
"copy-cat" operation, but I think it's a mistake to dismiss any company in the PC business as simply "copying" or
|
|
"cloning" the IBM design. Companies like COMPAQ were really in the *compatibility* business.
|
|
|
|
Innovation in the PC industry would not have been as rapid and diverse if IBM had been the only supplier of
|
|
compatible machines and accessories. And IBM probably would have continued some of the monopolistic practices it had
|
|
perfected in the mainframe era, like exclusive service contracts. That might have been a win for IBM, but it almost
|
|
certainly would *not* have been a win for customers.
|
|
|
|
In 1982, the founders of COMPAQ took a big gamble, by reportedly investing around a million dollars to create
|
|
system software (ROM BIOS) that mimicked IBM's without infringing on it. I don't know if COMPAQ pioneered the concept
|
|
of "clean room" design, where the engineers designing and coding have no direct contact with the hardware and software
|
|
they're cloning, but they were certainly successful.
|
|
|
|
But that wasn't COMPAQ's most important contribution. That was just the price they had to "pay to play." Armed with
|
|
compatible hardware and software, COMPAQ proceeded to innovate in ways that IBM did not.
|
|
|
|
Look at COMPAQ's first product: the COMPAQ Portable. For starters, it was *portable*. And unlike
|
|
IBM machines, it didn't force you to choose between a higher-quality text-only (MDA) display or a lower-quality
|
|
graphics-capable (CGA) display. COMPAQ improved on IBM's mutually-exclusive display choices by creating a monochrome
|
|
display that could display both high-quality text *and* graphics.
|
|
|
|
IBM released their own portable unit a year later, but it looked suspiciously COMPAQ-like, and it lacked COMPAQ's
|
|
innovative display.
|
|
|
|
That tradition of innovation at COMPAQ continued for many years. Sometimes they even seemed *more* concerned about
|
|
compatibility than IBM did. For example, faster machines sometimes broke speed-sensitive floppy-based copy protection
|
|
schemes, which COMPAQ tried to avoid by automatically *slowing* the machine down whenever a floppy drive was spinning.
|
|
|
|
To my knowledge, IBM never bothered with such a feature -- maybe IBM was simply being pragmatic, or perhaps they were
|
|
just a little arrogant, operating on the theory that if the universe revolves around IBM, then the planets will
|
|
simply realign *themselves* (translation: software vendors will release new versions if they want to remain IBM-compatible).
|
|
|
|
Sadly, COMPAQ was ultimately absorbed by another behemoth -- Hewlett Packard -- and then simply disappeared. Today,
|
|
all we have are the memories.
|
|
|
|
### Speaking of Memories
|
|
|
|
In particular, Read-Only Memories: we have precious few of those, too. I finally obtained
|
|
a [ROM Dump](/devices/pc/rom/compaq/bios/portable/) from COMPAQ's first machine, the COMPAQ Portable, but I had to buy
|
|
a system board on eBay to get it. Considering all the effort (and money) that COMPAQ invested in writing that code,
|
|
you would think those things would be memorialized a bit better.
|
|
|
|
Looking ahead to the day when PCjs will be able to simulate the original COMPAQ Portable, I thought it would be a good
|
|
idea to create my own roughly chronological list of [COMPAQ Machines](/devices/pc/machine/compaq/) from the 1980s,
|
|
since they are all machines I would like to see PCjs eventually support:
|
|
|
|
+ COMPAQ Portable
|
|
+ COMPAQ [Portable] Plus
|
|
+ COMPAQ DeskPro
|
|
+ COMPAQ DeskPro 286
|
|
+ COMPAQ Portable 286
|
|
+ COMPAQ Portable II
|
|
+ [COMPAQ DeskPro 386](/devices/pc/machine/compaq/deskpro386/)
|
|
+ COMPAQ Portable III
|
|
+ COMPAQ Portable 386
|
|
+ COMPAQ 386/20e
|
|
+ COMPAQ SLT Series (SLT/286)
|
|
+ COMPAQ LTE Series (LTE 286, LTE 386)
|
|
|
|
It's hard to stop at this point, because PCjs supports the 80386, and COMPAQ produced other 80386-based systems,
|
|
like those in the "LTE Lite" series. But I think I need to stick to my original plan and draw a line at the end of the
|
|
1980s.
|
|
|
|
### Regarding The COMPAQ Name
|
|
|
|
As best I can tell, COMPAQ preferred to print its company name in all-caps, so that's my practice as well.
|
|
|
|
However, it seems that sometime between the release of [COMPAQ MS-DOS 3.10](/disks/pc/dos/compaq/3.10/) and
|
|
[COMPAQ MS-DOS 3.31](/disks/pc/dos/compaq/3.31/), there may have been a shift in policy. Both products still
|
|
called themselves `The COMPAQ Personal Computer MS-DOS`, but in 3.31, the copyright string changed to
|
|
`Compaq Computer Corp.`
|
|
|
|
Their all-caps practice also extended to at least *some* product names (eg, the `COMPAQ DESKPRO`), but I'm not sure
|
|
how strict they were, and I'm decidedly less so, which is why I use the name `COMPAQ DeskPro`.
|
|
|
|
*[@jeffpar](http://twitter.com/jeffpar)*
|
|
*February 24, 2016*
|