The true killer app for the IBM 5150?

[frozenfire75i]

What was the true killer app for the IBM 5150? I have heard many say VisiCalc but that was really an apple 2 program? I have heard Louts 1-2-3 was the killer app for the IBM 5150 PC? What do Ya’ all think?

[Bill_Loguidice]

Visicalc was definitely the killer app for the Apple II. I'd say Lotus 1-2-3 initially and then WordPerfect in regards to the early PC...

[Yzzerdd]

Hmm.... Definately DOS...LOL

I was going to say the first IBM word processor for the 5150, but we've had word-processing computers for ages....Perhaps a DB or spreadsheet program, such as Reflex?

--Ryan

[ahm]

http://www.bricklin.com/history/vcexecutable.htm

[the xt guy]

Lotus 1-2-3 was definitely the "killer app" for the IBM PC. When Lotus introduced 1-2-3, they said it was only going to be made for the IBM PC (and perhaps one other brand; can't remember for certain). The combination of the IBM PC and this software app swept all the non-compatible IBM look-alikes into oblivion and made "PC compatible" the catchword for 1983.

I've read Lotus programmed 1-2-3 to write directly to the display of the PC, bypassing both DOS and the BIOS, which would have slowed it down considerably. IBM was amazed when they first saw it running and asked Lotus "How did you get it to run so fast?"

Up until this point, there were a few PC "look-alikes" (for lack of a better word) but their BIOS was only partially compatible with IBM's. This meant that even though the computers looked like an IBM on the outside, they would not run all of the software of the PC.

Initially, software writers got around this by writing slightly different versions for different models. Microsoft did this with Multiplan, which made it run slower.

I remember reading about the first PC version (2x) of Word Perfect for DOS, and how the company that made the Victor computer paid for tens of thousands of copies to run on the (proprietary) 9000. In just a very short time, the PC compatible bandwagon had made all the non-compatible "look-alikes" (such as the Victor) paperweights; and Victor had to pay for all new copies of WP to run on their next generation of PC compatibles.

So it was the combination of both hardware (IBM PC & XT) AND a killer software app (Lotus 1-2-3) together that caused the IBM PC market to reach "critical mass".

[frozenfire75i]

Thank you very nice write up! May I repost this on my site http://www.vintageibm.net ?

Lotus 1-2-3 was definitely the "killer app" for the IBM PC. When Lotus introduced 1-2-3, they said it was only going to be made for the IBM PC (and perhaps one other brand; can't remember for certain). The combination of the IBM PC and this software app swept all the non-compatible IBM look-alikes into oblivion and made "PC compatible" the catchword for 1983.

I've read Lotus programmed 1-2-3 to write directly to the display of the PC, bypassing both DOS and the BIOS, which would have slowed it down considerably. IBM was amazed when they first saw it running and asked Lotus "How did you get it to run so fast?"

Up until this point, there were a few PC "look-alikes" (for lack of a better word) but their BIOS was only partially compatible with IBM's. This meant that even though the computers looked like an IBM on the outside, they would not run all of the software of the PC.

Initially, software writers got around this by writing slightly different versions for different models. Microsoft did this with Multiplan, which made it run slower.

I remember reading about the first PC version (2x) of Word Perfect for DOS, and how the company that made the Victor computer paid for tens of thousands of copies to run on the (proprietary) 9000. In just a very short time, the PC compatible bandwagon had made all the non-compatible "look-alikes" (such as the Victor) paperweights; and Victor had to pay for all new copies of WP to run on their next generation of PC compatibles.

So it was the combination of both hardware (IBM PC & XT) AND a killer software app (Lotus 1-2-3) together that caused the IBM PC market to reach "critical mass".

[the xt guy]

certainly, thanks for the compliment.

[tezza]

Thank you very nice write up! May I repost this on my site http://www.vintageibm.net ?

Good idea Eric,

I run a model-specific website myself and, although the focus always tends to be on the hardware for these things, it's actually the hardware + software that made them useful devices for people in the past. That aspect of computing history gets ignored sometimes.

Tez

[Terry Yager]

I'd say that the programs which have had the greatest historical impact were the terminal programs we used to access the BBSs, (PROCOMM & Telix come to mind), early email progs, and later, programs to access the I-Net. The terminal programs were the first to bring large communities of users together, and the Net is the extension of those communities, all gathered under one umbrella. The computer as a communications device is perhaps the most important concept that has evolved from those early PCs & softwares.

--T

[mikey99]

I agree about the terminal programs. For me the first killer app was
PC-Talk. They opened up a whole new world of forums/downloads/email.

[tezza]

I spent about 3 years from 1988 to 1992 being an active BBS user. Started at 300 baud and finished up at 2400.

Telix was the comms program of choice. Great software.

Then the Internet came along and that was that.

[Trixter]

What was the true killer app for the IBM 5150? I have heard many say VisiCalc but that was really an apple 2 program? I have heard Louts 1-2-3 was the killer app for the IBM 5150 PC? What do Ya’ all think?

A "killer app" is a program that is SO good you buy the MACHINE to run it.

Lotus 1-2-3 falls under that classification. Just as accountants were buying Apple II machines JUST to run Visicalc, so were people doing for Lotus 1-2-3.

It was enough of a factor that Lotus went out of their way to produce a version of 1-2-3 that runs on the IBM PCjr. It contains TWO cartridges (each 64K) and also requires a floppy drive (to save your work, of course). Plugging in the cartridges, which loaded 128K of program ROM, allowed Lotus 1-2-3 to work within the limited RAM of a typical PCjr (128K RAM).

[Floppies_only]

Hmmm. I think it's disqualifying, since it came out about seven years after the computer, but Microsoft Works for DOS, version 1.05 or 2.00a is an awesome program. It displays windows into files on a monochrome monitor by using the graphics characters in the ASCII character set on the 5150. With 640k of RAM, you can have eight windows open and cut and paste between them. The program has a word processor (with spell check), spreadsheet, and database. It will run on a system with two floppies. I think that they have to be double sided floppies. But the point is, no hard drive required.

Maybe it's just my favorite. I am going to write my book on it.

Sean

[Unknown_K]

DOOM sold many a 486, and also made home ethernet networks spring up.

I purchased a 286 for engineering apps along with my need for lotus 123 back in the late 1980's.

[Bill_Loguidice]

Hmmm. I think it's disqualifying, since it came out about seven years after the computer, but Microsoft Works for DOS, version 1.05 or 2.00a is an awesome program. It displays windows into files on a monochrome monitor by using the graphics characters in the ASCII character set on the 5150. With 640k of RAM, you can have eight windows open and cut and paste between them. The program has a word processor (with spell check), spreadsheet, and database. It will run on a system with two floppies. I think that they have to be double sided floppies. But the point is, no hard drive required.

Maybe it's just my favorite. I am going to write my book on it.

Sean

I wish you luck with trying to write a book on it, but frankly, I don't write books on anything but Microsoft Word, either '03 or '07. If you're working with a publisher, that's the format that they expect it in (in my experience), and most in fact give you a template with pre-defined styles for things like headers, images, etc. I use a 2GB heavy duty flash memory keychain for my pages/chapters, which gives me great portability, and I back it up regularly. I also use Microsoft OneNote to organize my notes, though it of course depends upon the complexity of the book (or article as the case may be).

Years ago, around 1996 in fact, I had a "rude" awakening at one of my first real jobs of having to use WordPerfect 5.1 under a SCO UNIX environment, after being spoiled by WYSIWIG word processing on the Amiga (Final Write) and Windows (AmiPro and later Word), though I'd used my fair share of text-based applications on the C-64 and Adam earlier (and Smith Corona WP on old DOS-based IBM's in college). I eventually adapted of course out of necessity and came to admire WP 5.1's speed, though not its rather arcane shortcut commands (which I came to master - at least on one level). For a few years after I maintained two environments - Word on my main system and WP 5.1 on any older systems, particularly older laptops I had around. I eventually drifted away from WP 5.1 when it just didn't make sense to maintain it anymore, particularly from a compatibility standpoint (conversions to modern WP's weren't always smooth). It seemed like there was always something lost in the translation, particularly the more complex you got with the original document. (and when I transitioned from a large spreadsheet in an early Microsoft Works to Excel, I had a similar experience)

In any case, my point is, from a reliability standpoint (being floppy-based) and from a compatibility standpoint, you might want to re-think using that old DOS-based Works for something long like a book, and maybe if you really have a fondness for it from a practical standpoint, keep it to shorter works, like simple articles. Just my unsolicited two cents...

[Bill_Loguidice]

I've read Lotus programmed 1-2-3 to write directly to the display of the PC, bypassing both DOS and the BIOS, which would have slowed it down considerably. IBM was amazed when they first saw it running and asked Lotus "How did you get it to run so fast?"

Lotus 1-2-3 and Microsoft Flight Simulator were always the stress tests for early PC Clones. If they ran them, they were generally considered to be extremely compatible. Maybe we need to add Microsoft Flight Simulator to the list of "killer apps" for the IBM PC? It certainly was quite popular and used a lot of the platform's features (though was enhanced when run on the PCjr)...

[frozenfire75i]

Sounds like a cool program.... could you email me a copy?

BTW I picked up a copy of Lotus 123 1a... neat program! runs well on PC!


Hmmm. I think it's disqualifying, since it came out about seven years after the computer, but Microsoft Works for DOS, version 1.05 or 2.00a is an awesome program. It displays windows into files on a monochrome monitor by using the graphics characters in the ASCII character set on the 5150. With 640k of RAM, you can have eight windows open and cut and paste between them. The program has a word processor (with spell check), spreadsheet, and database. It will run on a system with two floppies. I think that they have to be double sided floppies. But the point is, no hard drive required.

Maybe it's just my favorite. I am going to write my book on it.

Sean

[Trixter]

Lotus 1-2-3 and Microsoft Flight Simulator were always the stress tests for early PC Clones. If they ran them, they were generally considered to be extremely compatible. Maybe we need to add Microsoft Flight Simulator to the list of "killer apps" for the IBM PC? It certainly was quite popular and used a lot of the platform's features (though was enhanced when run on the PCjr)...

Flight Simulator 1.0x was not enhanced for the PCjr; v2.12 and later was, though, which came out in 1984.

[Floppies_only]

I wish you luck with trying to write a book on it, but frankly, I don't write books on anything but Microsoft Word, either '03 or '07. If you're working with a publisher, that's the format that they expect it in (in my experience), and most in fact give you a template with pre-defined styles for things like headers, images, etc.

Well, since you said that, maybe I will just write a chapter and go through the bother of manually touching up the re-formatting, and then write the rest of the book with something that converts to Word better.

Does anybody know what the earliest version of Word is that uses the current file format?

I have to tell you though, I absolutely cannot stand Window's text-selection algorithm. Has anybody noticed that it never does what you want it to the first time, how you have to sweep the mouse left and right to select what you want? I admit, lately it did work right for me once. Once, in ten years. :)

Sean

[Bill_Loguidice]

Well, since you said that, maybe I will just write a chapter and go through the bother of manually touching up the re-formatting, and then write the rest of the book with something that converts to Word better.

Does anybody know what the earliest version of Word is that uses the current file format?

I have to tell you though, I absolutely cannot stand Window's text-selection algorithm. Has anybody noticed that it never does what you want it to the first time, how you have to sweep the mouse left and right to select what you want? I admit, lately it did work right for me once. Once, in ten years. :)

Sean

Latter versions of Word have adjustable text selection. You can change all kinds of options in that regard. Word 97 is probably the earliest version you can get away with while still supporting the formats that everyone uses. Obliviously the latest version of Word uses its own format (.docx) and a (free) converter is needed for earlier versions, but it's not something anyone really has to worry about at this point, as I'm not even sure it will become the standard over regular .doc.

Again, for most users/uses, you don't need 100% Word compatibility, meaning actually running a recent version of Word, but if you do plan on working with publishers particularly in regards to books, just get Word itself. You shouldn't have to worry about any formatting or conversion issues. Writing a book is a big enough PITA as it is without that extra layer of hassle.

[Yzzerdd]

I think I have Word 2.0, but havent tried it yet. I know that formats are interchangable between Word 3.0 and the 2007. Anything that uses .doc prefix should be interchangable with word, as well as .txt (the standard format for word processors of the 80s, notably IBM Writing Assistant). Formatting transfers over just fine. But I agree, if you will be swapping between computers with that disk frequently, use a computer with Word '97. Also, use a 360K drive for safety and keep backups on floppies and HDD (on newer and older systems) then when you fill a disk, image it. I have been pondering writing a book myself, but am still formulating the plot.

--Ryan

[Floppies_only]

I think I have Word 2.0, but havent tried it yet. I know that formats are interchangable between Word 3.0 and the 2007. Anything that uses .doc prefix should be interchangable with word, as well as .txt (the standard format for word processors of the 80s, notably IBM Writing Assistant). Formatting transfers over just fine.
[...]

--Ryan

Hey Ryan. You meant Word for Windows, right? They made Word for DOS back in the day. I didn't like it much. I have a copy of Word for Windows version one but I seem to remember that it wouldn't show you the whole width of the page. That made it unusable for me.

I found a set of Office 4.3 program disks that I had. It was sitting close to the wall that separates my apartment from the neihbors. I hope their vacuum cleaner didn't corrupt the disks.

I found out that Works for Windows version two (which I also have) can save files in various different formats. The picture in the book showed Word Perfect, so I'm sure that it will save files as Word files.

[Going into the weeds] My file upgrade path will be notes written with Paperclip for the C64, converted to text files for the PC, opened with Works for DOS and turned into chapters of the book, then opened with Works for Windows version two and saved as Word files, then lastly converted to the newest version of Word. Whew!

If it works I will write the whole book on Works for DOS.

By the way Ryan, there are books that teach you how to do things like tighten up the plot of your book. Wayne Dyer said "Don't die with your music still inside of you." After I got the idea for my book and started looking at "how to" books I realized that I could have had the idea much sooner.

Maybe if I get published I'll move into a bigger apartment and set up a System/36 mainframe and terminals in it. I don't know, they seem difficult to come by on eBay. Maybe I can find one that's just going out of service in some South American company and get them to ship it here.

Maybe I will just settle for a room with all of my computers set up at the same time. Right now I only have room for two. :(

Sean

[Bill_Loguidice]

Maybe if I get published I'll move into a bigger apartment and set up a System/36 mainframe and terminals in it. I don't know, they seem difficult to come by on eBay. Maybe I can find one that's just going out of service in some South American company and get them to ship it here.

Maybe I will just settle for a room with all of my computers set up at the same time. Right now I only have room for two. :(

Sean

Not sure if you meant that, but on the oft-chance that you are lucky enough to get published, you'll be lucky to be paid a few thousand dollars for your time as an advance, which you may or may not exceed on actual book sales to start earning additional royalties. It's the rare book author who makes even remotely the amount of effort/time required in $$$ back in regards to "profit", and certainly not enough to live off of in any capacity. You basically write for fun and a pittance and keep plugging away and leave it at that. If you want to write, you write, but don't expect to make a living at it (meaning your primary means of income). Not even close.

Personally I have a regular high paying job that I usually despise, but it takes care of the lifestyle I want for myself and my family, and write articles and books on the side. Articles often roughly pay for the time put into writing them, but books never seem to get anywhere close. It's the whole my time is worth x number of dollars per hour thing that you must always keep in mind when doing anything that is not necessarily for fun... It's the reason why I pay someone to cut my grass for instance--it's cheaper to pay someone to take care of it than for me to spend ~4 hours doing it myself...

[Floppies_only]

...it's cheaper to pay someone to take care of it than for me to spend ~4 hours doing it myself...

It takes four hours to cut your lawn? What kind of country estate are you living on? When I was a kid I could cut our lawn and sweep the driveway and sidewalk in an hour.

Too bad writing doesn't pay so well. I was hoping that I could help my cousin's son to get some post-secondary education. But everybody that I tell the idea of my book to says "interesting."

There might be fringe benefits. I'd like to start a Yahoo group for my fans and then have stimulating discussions with them - and cruise for hot women at the same time :)

Sean

[Bill_Loguidice]

It takes four hours to cut your lawn? What kind of country estate are you living on? When I was a kid I could cut our lawn and sweep the driveway and sidewalk in an hour.

Too bad writing doesn't pay so well. I was hoping that I could help my cousin's son to get some post-secondary education. But everybody that I tell the idea of my book to says "interesting."

There might be fringe benefits. I'd like to start a Yahoo group for my fans and then have stimulating discussions with them - and cruise for hot women at the same time :)

Sean

It's about .5 acre, so it's not huge, but it is time-consuming. I can pay the lawn service $35 a session and it gets cut and bagged to the street (in the required paper bag for lawn clippings). I'm sure I could do less than 4 hours, but not by much, particularly since I only have a push mower at this time from the old house. Even at 1 hour, it wouldn't be worth the time.

And again, writing does not pay well, and even if you had the best possible idea and actually somehow got a decent publisher interested, it doesn't mean the book will sell. There's an understandable impression out there that just having a book published is some type of magic bullet, but it really isn't. Thousands of books get published every year (just in the mainstream) and it's very, very difficult to get noticed. It's also infinitely more difficult to break through in the fiction market than it is in non-fiction, where I spend my time. Even with a literary agent (all but a necessity for fiction work, by the way), I have a great deal of difficulty getting certain projects picked up by larger publishing houses.

Anyway, I realize this is continuing to get awfully off topic, so I don't want to offend anyone by continuing this discussion here (it's obviously something I'm rather into and like discussing). I'll be happy to continue it with you in a different, more appropriate forum or offline if you wish. Regardless, like I said, I wish you all the best--it's a difficult business and breaking through initially is very, very difficult, doubly so if you're thinking about going the fiction route.

It's also why I recommend against going the vintage computer/software route for writing your book. The more steps you introduce, the more unnecessary difficulty you insert into the process, the lower your work to value ("profit", not that there's any real profit anyway) ratio, much like my lawn service example. It's also very difficult to justify how modern word processing on a modern system is not the best option for working with large volumes of text, particularly with no-brainer backups and the fact that you're dealing on the first pass with industry standards. And this is from someone who thinks it's fun to compute on a huge range of vintage systems, but I've found it's best to leave it at that, "fun".

[Druid6900]

However, it never hurts to try.

As I said before, it's better to try and fail than never try at all.

[Floppies_only]

Anyway, I realize this is continuing to get awfully off topic, so I don't want to offend anyone by continuing this discussion here (it's obviously something I'm rather into and like discussing). I'll be happy to continue it with you in a different, more appropriate forum or offline if you wish.

He's willing to talk to me! Yay! You have to realize, Bill, that as a published author you have a certain alure. Yes, I'd definitely like to ask some more questions. I will post a reply to your message in the "General Off Topic" section of the Vintage Computer Forums. I should be able to do it tomorrow.

http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?f=33

But the on-topic thing that I can say is that figuring out ways to do things, especially when they are hard like cross platform compatibility, is exciting to me. Then, after I figure out how to do it, actually doing it is rewarding. So, reformating text might be a total drag for you, but for me, it is an accomplishment, something that makes me feel like I can accomplish anything and the sky is the limit. Heinlein wrote "each cat his own rat." In ancient computers I have found mine :)

See you tomorrow.

Sean

[tezza]

Heinlein wrote "each cat his own rat."

Hehehe. I like that phrase. I must remember it.

Reading this conversation takes me back to the days when I first started to use word processing, in my early 20s. Having HANDwritten all my assignments, essays, reports etc. for my undergraduate degree IN (mostly illegible) PEN, it was an amazing thing to discover Word Processing (and own a computer that could do it) by the time I got to graduate school. Sure, you had to learn to type, but it meant no more 2 or 3 drafts in pencil! Yay!

I can't imagine what hand-writing a whole THESIS must have been like! If I had been born just a few years earlier, I would have expeienced the (labourious) process!

Tez

[Bill_Loguidice]

But the on-topic thing that I can say is that figuring out ways to do things, especially when they are hard like cross platform compatibility, is exciting to me. Then, after I figure out how to do it, actually doing it is rewarding. So, reformating text might be a total drag for you, but for me, it is an accomplishment, something that makes me feel like I can accomplish anything and the sky is the limit. Heinlein wrote "each cat his own rat." In ancient computers I have found mine :)

See you tomorrow.

Sean

Again, there's also a difference in what you're writing. What I write (videogame and computer stuff) requires things like images with captions and what not, and various headers and things related to style sheets/templates from the publisher. It doesn't make sense for me to write something in an out-of-date application that requires conversions, as the actual process itself outside of any conversion or worrying about backups or what-not is time consuming enough. If you're writing fiction or non-fiction without any need for limages or layout, then certainly a pure text solution is perfectly fine obviously and any conversion issues negligible. Text is more or less text. I still personally wouldn't put up with the relative unreliability of floppy media though in comparison to hard drives and flash drives with quick backups (or even doing work online via Google or whatever).

And to answer some of the other posts, I'm 35 now and I remember very distinctly having to handwrite all of my stuff in grade school. I was one of the first to turn in papers done on computers though in my class, starting in sixth grade with output on a dot matrix printer on a C-64 (my earlier systems didn't have printers). I even often mixed text and graphics. It wasn't until college though (with the Coleco Adam, Commodore Amiga and finally a 386 SX-20 laptop) that I can recall transitioning from writing on paper first to writing directly within a word processor (rather than typing from what I wrote on paper). Now I can't imagine writing any other way but on a computer, and in fact my handwriting has suffered because of it. Obviously with my first real job post college, everything was done on computers, be it WordPerfect on Unix or Word under Windows.