Subject: Computing what-ifs (case 1)
From: [email-masked] (Daniel L. McDonald)
Date: 10 Sep 1993 00:24:40 -0700
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers

This is the first of two threads relating to the history of computing.  I
am splitting these as such because I feel they can be treated as two
separate questions.  The nature of the computing industry now is that all of
the big giants in the business are now weakened, or in vastly different
form.  It's these giants I want to hypothesize about.

I'm cross-posting this to alt.folklore.computers, because they will have
ample background for this discussion.

CASE 1:

Eckert & Mauchley had tons of chances with their technically superior UNIVAC
machines to dominate the market.  Bad luck, and IBM's sales force, made that
nearly impossible.  In _The Machine That Changed the World_, T. J. Watson
Jr. mentions something to the effect of, "If Remington-Rand concentrated on
computers, IBM wouldn't have dented the market."

What if Remington Rand (or even some of E & M's earlier supporters) had
given computers full and adequate funding and sales support.  How would this
have affected the industry, and even modern technology?
-- 
Dan McDonald    |Internet: [email-masked], UUCP: ..!uunet!arizona!danmcd
U. of Arizona   |BITNET: [email-masked]
Computer Science| "I'm in a groove now, or is it a rut?
2nd year Grad.  |  I need some feedback, but all the lines are cut." - Rush

From: [email-masked] (Daniel L. McDonald)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: 10 Sep 1993 00:29:35 -0700

This is the second of two threads relating to the history of computing.  I
am splitting these as such because I feel they can be treated as two
separate questions.  The nature of the computing industry now is that all of
the big giants in the business are now weakened, or in vastly different
form.  It's these giants I want to hypothesize about.
 
I'm cross-posting this to alt.folklore.computers, because they will have
ample background for this discussion.

CASE 2
======

The only reason IBM went into the computer business was because T. J. Watson
Jr. was a hell of a lot more of a visionary than his father, who ran IBM
until sometime in the 50's (when escapes me).  The younger Watson turned the
already potent IBM sales force into an army of computer advocates, as well
as introducing the ideas of backward compatibility ("OUR machines can read
old IBM punched cards!")

What if T. J. Watson Jr. was not the visonary he was, but was just another
yes-man waiting for Dad's spot?  Would IBM be in even worse shape today than
it is already?  Would Eckert and Mauchley's bad luck have been lessened to
the point where we'd joke about UNIVAC dinosaurs rather than IBM dinosaurs?
-- 
Dan McDonald    |Internet: [email-masked], UUCP: ..!uunet!arizona!danmcd
U. of Arizona   |BITNET: [email-masked]
Computer Science| "I'm in a groove now, or is it a rut?
2nd year Grad.  |  I need some feedback, but all the lines are cut." - Rush

From: [email-masked] (Paul Tomblin)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 12:27:12 GMT

[email-masked] (Daniel L. McDonald) writes:
>This is the second of two threads relating to the history of computing.  I
>am splitting these as such because I feel they can be treated as two
>separate questions.  The nature of the computing industry now is that all of
>the big giants in the business are now weakened, or in vastly different
>form.  It's these giants I want to hypothesize about.
[second of two hypotheticals deleted]

I think the answer to both of these that only IBM could have been IBM.  The 
reason IBM went anywhere is that the hundreds or thousands of places already 
using IBM punch card machines had an easy upgrade path.  The only way 
somebody else could have become "the IBM of computing" is if they had 
provided an upgrade path from IBM punch cards.  All of them ignored the 
"dusty decks" and the huge value of existing data - except IBM.  Because of 
that, only IBM's clearly inferior early computers were wanted at IBM punch 
card shops, and IBM became the dominant force in the computing world.

I don't think Watson Jr. was a visionary - but he _did_ recognize that a 
company's data was more valuable than the computer/punch card machine it ran 
on.

-- 
Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com
"Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your
mid-life crisis?"  "Yeah.  Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too"
 - Calvin's mom and dad

From: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: 12 Sep 1993 22:39:16 -0400

It's quite possible that, without IBM's ability to to capitalize, there
might not have been a computer industry at all. (Or a much more limited
one) One factor often verlooked in discussing idustry is the need for mass
production of components. Many of the parts used in early IBM's were (I
believe) also used in many of the other products made by
IBM...typewriters, etc. Thus, if you're ordering ten thousand widgets a
month for your typewriters, it's trivial to order two dozen more for this
new-fangled "computer" gizmo. If, on the other hand, you're just making a
computer, costs for individual components increase dramatically.

And, once more specialized and computer-specific parts are needed, IBM had
the bucks to fund the development of "the tools to make the tools"..and
once this was done, the components could be bought much more cheaply by
competitors, who would have been unable to fund the original investment.
IWO, if it wasn't IBM, it would have needed to be someone just as large,
faceless, and obnoxious. Any likely candidates?

From: [email-masked] (Douglas Fowler)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: 13 Sep 1993 03:11:05 GMT

In a previous article, [email-masked] ([email-masked]) says:
>It's quite possibi that, without IBM's ability to to capitalize, there
>might not have been a computer industry at all. (Or a much more limited
>one) One factor often verlooked in discussing idustry is the need for mass
>production of components. Many of the parts used in early IBM's were (I
>believe) also used in many of the other products made by
>IBM...typewriters, etc. Thus, if you're ordering ten thousand widgets a
>month for your typewriters, it's trivial to order two dozen more for this
>new-fangled "computer" gizmo. If, on the other hand, you're just making a
>computer, costs for individual components increase dramatically.
>
>And, once more specialized and computer-specific parts are needed, IBM had
>the bucks to fund the development of "the tools to make the tools"..and
>once this was done, the components could be bought much more cheaply by
>competitors, who would have been unable to fund the original investment.
>IWO, if it wasn't IBM, it would have needed to be someone just as large,
>faceless, and obnoxious. Any likely candidates?
>
     What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their
monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a
computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long
distance sompany.  Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ-
ent direction then.  Instead of being done for businesses that wanted to
doing accounting, etc., computers would have been used as communications
instruments.  It would have been binary e-mail at first, a series of 1's
and 0's forming letters much like the old Morse Code, but by the early
70s slightly more modern e-mail systems would have been formed.
     Heaven knows what effect the breakup of AT&T would have had on this,
however.  It probably would have finally opened the market for new companies
like Apple, etc.
-- 
Doug Fowler: [email-masked]  Heaven is a great big hug that lasts forever
        "And when that One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name;
   He writes, not whether you've won or lost, but how you played the game"
                      --Grantland Rice

From: [email-masked] (Paul Tomblin)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 13:18:20 GMT

[email-masked] (Douglas Fowler) writes:
[about who could have been "IBM" if IBM hadn't been it]
>     What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their
>monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a
>computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long
>distance sompany.  Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ-

One problem - until the break up, they were expressly forbidden by US law 
from selling computers or software to anybody.  That's why Unix was given 
away to universities.  And the rest is history!

-- 
Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com
"Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your
mid-life crisis?"  "Yeah.  Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too"
 - Calvin's mom and dad

From: jones@pyrite (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 14:57:16 GMT

From article <[email-masked]>,
by [email-masked] ([email-masked]):
> It's quite possibi that, without IBM's ability to to capitalize, there
> might not have been a computer industry at all.

This theory fails to explain the birth of the minicomputer industry in the
1960's.  DEC, for example, was founded just before 1960 as a manufacturer
of digital components -- transistorized logic modules and the hardware
needed to use them.  Their initial growth was largely powered by the sale
of these components to non-computer-related markets, but they quickly
began to experiment with building computers using their components, and
within 5 years, they had built and sold the foundation machines for three
very successful families of computers.

> One factor often verlooked in discussing idustry is the need for mass
> production of components. Many of the parts used in early IBM's were (I
> believe) also used in many of the other products made by
> IBM...typewriters, etc.

Indeed, most of IBM's early peripherals, such things as line printers,
card readers, and card punches, were all modified parts of stand-alone
electromechanical accounting machines.

On the other hand, DEC was able to build up sufficient production capacity
selling digital logic modules that they were able to use it as a
foundation for their early computer ventures.  It is clear that the early
minicomputer pioneers, companies like CDC, DEC and CCC profited immensely
from the knowledge gleaned from the first generation of computers, but
that section of the industry relied very little on things IBMish.

Finally, note that IBM's punched-card-based accounting machines faced a
competing I/O technology.  IBM used their card-readers, punches, and
printers as peripherals, because they were available.  Outside of IBM,
many computer pioneers chose a different technology for I/O and off-line
storage -- the equally mature technology developed out of the telegraph
industry known as the teletype with paper-tape reader and punch.

The minicomputer industry standardized on paper-tape and teletypes,
offering punched-card support because IBM was there, but I suspect that
they'd have 
> 
> And, once more specialized and computer-specific parts are needed, IBM
> had the bucks to fund the development of "the tools to make the tools"

There weren't any expensive tools needed to make the tools!  For example,
DEC's first generation of computers, those based on their systems
modules, used hand-soldered single-sided printed circuit boards with
hand wired, soldered backplanes.  These things required sources of
printed circuit boards -- the radio industry was big enough to provide
that, and they needed sources of transistors, again, amply provided by
the radio industry.  Card-edge connectors were new technology, but not a
particularly high technology.

It was only when DEC got into large scale mass production that they began
to need complex "tools to make the tools".  By that time, they had plenty
of computers available.  For example, they used PDP-4 computers to run the
numerically controlled wire-wrap machines used to mass produce the PDP-8,
PDP-9 and PDP-10 computers.

Wire-wrap technology wasn't an IBM technology!  It came from Gardner
Denver, and DEC and Western Electric were pioneering users of the
technology.

> IWO, if it wasn't IBM, it would have needed to be someone just as large,
> faceless, and obnoxious. Any likely candidates?

As I said, the explosive growth of the minicomputer industry doesn't seem
to have needed IBM.  But even if an IBM was needed, there were plenty of
other big companies that could have driven the industry:  The Bell System
comes to mind -- AT&T and Western Electric had the muscle, and they
provided a huge market demand for such things as vacuum tubes, transistors,
card edge connectors, interconnect technology, and other prerequisites for
the successful development of a computer industry.

Other alternatives to IBM were provided by Burroughs and NCR, IBM's biggest
competitors in the commercial business machine arena.  All three compaines
date back to the late 19th century, and all three had competing
electromechanical solutions to the problems of business data processing.

The consumer electronics industry -- led by RCA (General Electric), but
also including Magnavox and others, was full of potential.

Finally, you can't discount the screwball factor!  Recall that the first
commercial venture to manufacture and sell computers in the UK was Lyons,
a bakery chain of all things!  They had essentially no relevant technology
base, just a nagging problem with accounting that they thought they could
improve by using a computer.  Out of this was born a very successful early
venture in computer manufacturing!

					Doug Jones
					[email-masked]

From: [email-masked]
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 17:01:41 GMT

From article <[email-masked]>,
by [email-masked] (Douglas Fowler):
> In a previous article, [email-masked] ([email-masked]) says:

>>It's quite possibi that, without IBM's ability to to capitalize, there
>>might not have been a computer industry at all. ...

>      What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their
> monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a
> computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long
> distance sompany.  Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ-
> ent direction then.  Instead of being done for businesses that wanted to
> doing accounting, etc., computers would have been used as communications
> instruments.  It would have been binary e-mail at first, a series of 1's
> and 0's forming letters much like the old Morse Code, but by the early
> 70s slightly more modern e-mail systems would have been formed.

It would have been 7 level ASCII (or possibly 5 level BAUDOT) from the
start, not at all something like morse code!  Remember, teletypes were
invented to support long distance telegraphy (a primitive kind of e-mail!)
and remember that during the middle of this century, AT&T owned both
Teletype corporation and Western Union!

Teletypes are old technology, dating back to Samuel Grey's printing
telegraph a century ago.  By the 1930's, 5-level Baudot code was in common
use in newsrooms around the world, and by the dawn of the computer era,
teletypes were mature enough that teletypes and competing machines such
as the Fridden Flexowriter were almost universally used as console terminals
on all non-IBM machines.

But yes, with that quibble, you're right -- if AT&T had taken the lead, the
leading use of computers would have been in telephony and telegraphy, with
other applications such as payroll or accounting falling out as secondary
applications areas.  Similarly, had Honeywell taken a greater interest in
computers back in the 1950's, industrial control systems would have been
a primary applications area.  (For those not in the know, Honeywell is
another company that dates back to the last century -- they started out
making thermostats and boiler controls).

				Doug Jones
				[email-masked]

From: [email-masked] (Edward Rice)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 14:38:33

  DF> From: [email-masked] (Douglas Fowler)

  > And, once more specialized and computer-specific parts are needed, IBM
  > had the bucks to fund the development of "the tools to make the
  > tools"..and once this was done, the components could be bought much more
  > cheaply by competitors, who would have been unable to fund the original
  > investment. IWO, if it wasn't IBM, it would have needed to be someone
  > just as large, faceless, and obnoxious. Any likely candidates?
  > 
  DF> What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their
  DF> monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to
  DF> develop a computer system with the enormous profits gained from being
  DF> the only long distance sompany.

The Consent Drecree of 1956 prohibited AT&T from competing in information
services or hardware.  Why do you think they waited until /after/ divestiture,
to get into the computer market?

From: [email-masked] (Thayne Forbes)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 00:16:09 GMT

Paul Tomblin ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Douglas Fowler) writes:
: [about who could have been "IBM" if IBM hadn't been it]
: >     What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their
: >monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a
: >computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long
: >distance sompany.  Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ-

: One problem - until the break up, they were expressly forbidden by US law 
: from selling computers or software to anybody.  That's why Unix was given 
: away to universities.  And the rest is history!

Far be it for me to correct you two, but from my point of view AT&T did
have a huge influence on the industry.  Hence all the hokey and redundant
line disiplines for running ttys (Teletypes) thru modems.  The rumor that
I heard is that until quite recently people at Bell Labs still used modems
to connect local terminals.  Nice idea in the 60's but just extra work
today.  (Why yes, I am debugging a serial line problem today, why do
you ask?).

From: [email-masked] (Edward Rice)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 01:26:19

  DW> From: jones@pyrite (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)

  DW> It was only when DEC got into large scale mass production that they
  DW> began to need complex "tools to make the tools".  By that time, they
  DW> had plenty of computers available.  For example, they used PDP-4
  DW> computers to run the numerically controlled wire-wrap machines used to
  DW> mass produce the PDP-8, PDP-9 and PDP-10 computers.

I took a tour of the IBM manufacturing facility in Poughkeepsie, NY, with a
friend in about 1971.  It was stupendous -- the building was the biggest I'd
ever been in, and looked like it was about a mile long by a quarter mile wide.
 They were cranking out 360 systems by the truckload, and a few odd 9020's
(perhaps 9020-A's) for the FAA.  And the whole thing was run by a very modest
handful of 1410's.  They had some 7040 or 7010 boxes doing administrative
work, and some of the 1410's might really have been 1460's -- I forget the
distinction between the two models.

  DW> Wire-wrap technology wasn't an IBM technology!  It came from Gardner
  DW> Denver, and DEC and Western Electric were pioneering users of the
  DW> technology.

Yup.  I used to spend /hours/ standing in the aisles of the Honeywell
(formerly GE computer division, now Nippon Electric or Machines Bull)
manufacturing facility in Phoenix, watching the Gardner Denver machinery
wire-wrap.  It was an absolute miracle (of the time, anyway) to see those
robots working.  (Would have been the early '70's -- wire-wrap was big in
those days.)

From: [email-masked] (Bob S.- Contractor)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: 16 Sep 1993 21:04:45 GMT

>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
>[email-masked] (Daniel L. McDonald) writes:
>>This is the second of two threads relating to the history of computing.  I
>>am splitting these as such because I feel they can be treated as two
>>separate questions.  The nature of the computing industry now is that all of
>>the big giants in the business are now weakened, or in vastly different
>>form.  It's these giants I want to hypothesize about.
>>[second of two hypotheticals deleted]
>
>I think the answer to both of these that only IBM could have been IBM.  The 
>reason IBM went anywhere is that the hundreds or thousands of places already 
>using IBM punch card machines had an easy upgrade path.  The only way 
>somebody else could have become "the IBM of computing" is if they had 
>provided an upgrade path from IBM punch cards.  All of them ignored the 
>"dusty decks" and the huge value of existing data - except IBM.  Because of 
>that, only IBM's clearly inferior early computers were wanted at IBM punch 
>card shops, and IBM became the dominant force in the computing world.
>
>I don't think Watson Jr. was a visionary - but he _did_ recognize that a 
>company's data was more valuable than the computer/punch card machine it ran 
>on.
>
>-- 
>Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com
>"Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your
>mid-life crisis?"  "Yeah.  Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too"
> - Calvin's mom and dad
>
=============================================
UNIVAC also had punch card tabulating machine installations - thousands
of them using 90-column equipment. UNIVAC finally made 80 and 90 column
versions of their low end computers (SS80 and 90).
============================================
Sabu

From: [email-masked] (Paul Tomblin)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 23:57:11 GMT

(Don't blame me - it's Bob S. who screwed up the quoting and attributions 
here)
[email-masked] (Bob S.- Contractor) writes:
[I, Paul Tomblin wrote the following]
>>I don't think Watson Jr. was a visionary - but he _did_ recognize that a 
>>company's data was more valuable than the computer/punch card machine it ran 
>>on.
[Bob S. wrote the following]
>=============================================
>UNIVAC also had punch card tabulating machine installations - thousands
>of them using 90-column equipment. UNIVAC finally made 80 and 90 column
>versions of their low end computers (SS80 and 90).
>============================================

Yes, but did their early computers use the same equipment?  I don't think so 
- I think first they didn't realize that people wanted an upgrade path and an 
easy way to computerize by stages.

From my reading of early computing history, it seems to me that "The Seven 
Dwarves" went the path of the modern consultant who comes in and says "right 
- throw out all your old stuff, and buy my new stuff", instead of saying 
"well, we'll migrate this application to PCs first, then this one, then this 
one, and eventually you won't need the dinosaur at all".  (Substitute PCs for 
computer, and dinosaur for Punch Card Tabulator for the older perspective)

-- 
Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com
"Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your
mid-life crisis?"  "Yeah.  Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too"
 - Calvin's mom and dad

From: [email-masked] (Ethan Dicks)
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Date: 18 Sep 93 05:45:27 EDT

Paul Tomblin ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Douglas Fowler) writes:
: [about who could have been "IBM" if IBM hadn't been it]
: >     What about AT&T...

: One problem - until the break up, they were expressly forbidden by US law 
: from selling computers or software to anybody.  That's why Unix was given 
: away to universities.

Since I have never worked for a University (as an employee), I am not an
authority, but I was always under the impression that AT&T provided UNIX
source licenses to Universities for the outrageous sum of $1/year, protecting
the copyright of their intellectual property.  If they had not maintained a
clear history of contractual obligation and financial renumeration, they 
wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if they tried to defend their copyright 
in court.

In short, the software was cheap to widen acceptance, but it cost anything
at all to guard the defensibility of a (potential) copyright infringement suit.

-ethan

From: [email-masked] (Jeff DelPapa)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 01:41:49 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Ethan Dicks <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Paul Tomblin ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: [email-masked] (Douglas Fowler) writes:
>: [about who could have been "IBM" if IBM hadn't been it]
>: >     What about AT&T...
>
>: One problem - until the break up, they were expressly forbidden by US law 
>: from selling computers or software to anybody.  That's why Unix was given 
>: away to universities.
>
>Since I have never worked for a University (as an employee), I am not an
>authority, but I was always under the impression that AT&T provided UNIX
>source licenses to Universities for the outrageous sum of $1/year, protecting
>the copyright of their intellectual property.  If they had not maintained a
>clear history of contractual obligation and financial renumeration, they 
>wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if they tried to defend their copyright 
>in court.
>
>In short, the software was cheap to widen acceptance, but it cost anything
>at all to guard the defensibility of a (potential) copyright infringement suit.
>
If you were commercial it wasn't so cheap, and they went to great
lengths to be sure you didn't expect support -- lost in a move was a
framed canceled check for $30,000 -- payable to the Bell Labs scrap
materials reclamation center.  there has been a small shift in
attitude since then.

<dp>

From: daveb@jaws (David Breneman)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computing what-ifs (case 2)
Date: 15 Sep 93 19:26:31 GMT

Douglas Fowler ([email-masked]) wrote:
: 
:      What about AT&T - the government didn't force them to break their
: monopoly until the early 80s, and I can just see them trying to develop a
: computer system with the enormous profits gained from being the only long
: distance sompany.  Of course, I think it would have taken a skightly differ-
: ent direction then.  Instead of being done for businesses that wanted to
: doing accounting, etc., computers would have been used as communications
: instruments.  

(Deletions...)

In a way they were.  The 3B20, the first computer AT&T offered for sale
(with the new System V Release 1 OS) was originally desinged to control
telephone switching equipment.  They *had* it, but couldn't *sell* it
until after divestiture.

--
David Breneman                        Email: [email-masked]
System Administrator,                 Voice: 206 881-7544  Fax: 206 556-8033
Software Engineering Services
Digital Systems International, Inc.        Redmond, Washington,  U. S. o' A.