Looking at it today what I notice is that the ads and the content were disjoint. The ads were heavily for high-end microcomputers often running CP/M and the S-100 bus often in multiprocessor and multiuser configurations often with exotic graphic systems for the time, like you see these guys
prominently. That stuff was barely talked about in the editorial which was much more about ‘home computers’ like Apple and TRS-80 and Atari and TI up to 1983 or so. Up until then there were a few good ‘computer magazines’ like Creative Computing [2] that were platform agnostic but around that time they started to become more specific to platforms like I was subscribing to Rainbow for my color computer and there were a lot of mags for the C-64 [3] and emerging for the IBM PC and clones. Byte got more focused on the PC and low end CP/M machines with a little interest in high-end workstations and also 68k computers like Mac an Amiga… but just a little.
By the late 1980s the cool kids (some of those “kids” were adults) were already online on BBSes and you didn’t need magazines to keep up with free and ‘free’ (pirate) software. I think computer magazines were struggling, the PC kept growing. Computer Shopper became dominant because boy you could find good deals in it. Then the WWW came along and computer magazines were obsolete overnight.
[1] I saw plenty of PDP-11s and other minicomputers but never saw a high end microcomputer of that era outside the pages of Byte…. But somebody bought them.
[2] loved it at the time but it doesn’t have the staying power of Byte, there is a lab in the EE building next door donated by David Ahl who founded Creative Computing, some issues of CC in the 1978-1979 period are wild.
[3] the c-64 was a huge hit in terms of third party software and having friends who had them, but I don’t think it was talked about in Byte like other home computers because Byte was going upmarket then.
Originally the PDP-11s and the CP/M machines were in different markets. DEC's culture was science/tech/academia, selling to educated technical users and OEMs.
The CP/M market was the precursor of the modern PC market - mostly small businesses who didn't see themselves as technical but understood that word processing and spreadsheets could save them time and money.
Minis weren't considered small systems, both for reasons of cost and complexity, so Byte didn't cover them.
By the mid-80s the cost of a PDP-11 had come right down, and was comparable to a high-end CP/M box. DEC made some efforts to sell to small businesses, but never quite understood the people or the market.
Then the IBM PC and its clones appeared and nuked the CP/M market from orbit.
This was DEC's biggest strategic failure. It had about ten years to make the PDP-11 and VAX designs an industry standard. But it was too busy selling expensive peripherals and trying to compete with IBM at the high end to pay attention to what was happening at the low end, and IBM clones stole its lunch.
Amusingly, the Soviets managed to do what DEC failed to do -- make microcomputers based on the PDP/11. They had cloned the PDP-11 on a chip and used it as the basis of a microcomputer line!
DEC had a 1-chip PDP-11 but a 1-chip PDP-11 wasn't competitive with the better chips coming out around 1982. That DEC Professional was not such a great machine and the software support for it was worse. You couldn't run software from the minicomputer and even if you could it wasn't suitable for the needs of end users on a single-user system who were asking to open bigger spreadsheets and such.
I knew the PDP-11 pretty well, I never got my hands on a high-end CP/M machine.
The PDP-11 came out around 1970, the OS I always used on it was RSTS/E which was provided an interactive BASIC programming environment. You might have 15 terminals and each user got their own 64k address space. It was a lot like using BASIC on a Apple ][ but a little better, especially because you got to keep files on a hard drive and if you were in a programming class you could share files with the instructor and other student. You could also, like CP/M, run other binaries in that address space and you could edit with the TECO text editor, use a FORTRAN compiler, etc. Ordinarily you would use a VT-100 terminal with 80x25 text which was bigger than most home computers which were more like 40x25. If you were lucky you had a color vk100
OS for multitasking or actually had one CPU board for user, that, like the PDP-11 gave every user a 64k address space.
When I was getting into this stuff as an 8 year old in 1980 (really!) there was a lot of talk about an 8 to 16 bit transition so of course I imagined future micros would look something like the PDP-11. With micros we had just a handful of 8-bit registers, with mostly 8-bit operations but sometimes 16-bit operations because you sure as hell have to be able do pointer arithmetic. The PDP-11 had 8 16-bit registers and seemed pretty powerful in comparison, but...
it had a 64k problem space. When micros first came out, it was prohibitive to fill out the 64k address space but by 1983 or so even cheap machines had the full 64k. The crisis of the industry was that ordinary user applications needed more RAM. The PDP-11 had a virtual memory system that had 8 8k pages, not too different from virtual memory systems today but simple and small. It worked great for sharing the machine between users but not so great for applications, i guess they could have updated the OS and compilers to do better -- late generation 8-bit machines like my TRS-80 Color Computer 3 had a similar memory management system, but they didn't.
People thought the 68k was the future with a 16x32-bit register file like the IBM 360 mainframe but it wasn't... turns out you can't really pipeline a computer which has indirect addressing [1] so the likes of Motorola and DEC were abandoning the 68k and VAX by the late 1980s. These had no future. Also the 68k did not perform in real life as well as people thought it would.
The 8086 though was pure "worse is better"; the segmentation model seemed lame in comparison to the 32-bit 68k line, but it was actually easy and fun (in my opinion) to use in assembly language and you couldn't afford, say, 8 MB of memory and didn't need a system that could handle it. All of a sudden you could make bigger spreadsheets and CP/M was headed for the dustbin at the high end.
Funny though CP/M did have a sort of revival in that it became common in low-end machines like the C-128 but it was too little too late, the industry going in the PC direction. A last hurrah for me was that circa 1988 I wrote some software in BASIC for a teacher at my school who had a CP/M computer and I had a Z80 emulator that ran on my 286 machine which was 3x faster than any real Z80. That 286 was lame in a lot of ways but it was crazy fast for the price.
[1] ... this was the one RISC/CISC CPU thing that really mattered!
> CP/M did have a sort of revival in that it became common in low-end machines like the C-128
Amstrad were good late 80s CP/M machines. We got both those and C128 in New Zealand.
> the one RISC/CISC CPU thing that really mattered!
Not only indirect addressing, but also multiple memory operands in the same instruction — more than one VM page, really, though a single unaligned operand crossing a page boundary is also bad. Many machines trap on that case to this day and let software emulate it.
Not being able to easily tell how long an instruction is (and thus where the next one starts) is also bad, but can be overcome at some cost in the front end, and the back end is unaffected. Unlike x86 and VAX the 68k does actually tell you everything you need in the first 16 bits, but yes the complex addressing of the 020/030 were what killed it.
Byte was interesting because it editorially covered everything from home computers to high-end workstations. Byte was a favorite for me (at the time I was in high school) because it covered things that platform specific mags didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromemco [1]
prominently. That stuff was barely talked about in the editorial which was much more about ‘home computers’ like Apple and TRS-80 and Atari and TI up to 1983 or so. Up until then there were a few good ‘computer magazines’ like Creative Computing [2] that were platform agnostic but around that time they started to become more specific to platforms like I was subscribing to Rainbow for my color computer and there were a lot of mags for the C-64 [3] and emerging for the IBM PC and clones. Byte got more focused on the PC and low end CP/M machines with a little interest in high-end workstations and also 68k computers like Mac an Amiga… but just a little.
By the late 1980s the cool kids (some of those “kids” were adults) were already online on BBSes and you didn’t need magazines to keep up with free and ‘free’ (pirate) software. I think computer magazines were struggling, the PC kept growing. Computer Shopper became dominant because boy you could find good deals in it. Then the WWW came along and computer magazines were obsolete overnight.
[1] I saw plenty of PDP-11s and other minicomputers but never saw a high end microcomputer of that era outside the pages of Byte…. But somebody bought them.
[2] loved it at the time but it doesn’t have the staying power of Byte, there is a lab in the EE building next door donated by David Ahl who founded Creative Computing, some issues of CC in the 1978-1979 period are wild.
[3] the c-64 was a huge hit in terms of third party software and having friends who had them, but I don’t think it was talked about in Byte like other home computers because Byte was going upmarket then.