# Copyright - fusion and Mach 3



## jaywood1207 (Aug 31, 2015)

I have had a question in regards to using the fusion and Mach 3 connectors on custom handles and whether Proctr and Gambe approve. I'm assuming all the legalities are taken care if behind the scenes before they even hit market at all the suppliers but how does this work?  What are the steps that the suppliers would go through in order to get approval?  How do you respond to a question like this?


----------



## mecompco (Aug 31, 2015)

Personally, I don't suppose I'd lose much (any) sleep over it. They are still getting money from the blades, so who cares what handle it is attached to. Nor would I respond to any such question. JMHO.


----------



## skiprat (Aug 31, 2015)

I would think as long as they sell the blades that fit, they would be happy.:biggrin:


----------



## thewishman (Aug 31, 2015)

If you had a company built on inexpensive razors and expensive blades, would you have a problem with someone driving the sales of more blades? I sell razor handles that take Fusion or Mach3 blades, I don't sell Fusion or Mach3 razors.


----------



## liljohn1368 (Aug 31, 2015)

Even though its free advertisement they still look down on copywrite infringement.  But I think no more than you would do it and not advertise you probably will be ok..when I cut vinyl to put as a decal on a vehicle or a t shirt I have to really be careful.....


----------



## jaywood1207 (Aug 31, 2015)

Thanks for the answers so far. I realize that they still make money on the blades but how does the copyright work between the suppliers and P&G in this case.


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (Aug 31, 2015)

Suppliers are likely from China, and likely not concerned with US copyright or patents.


----------



## Gin N' Tonic (Aug 31, 2015)

I think it would be more of a patent issue and you are not making a direct copy so I seriously doubt you would have any problems. I've not seen or heard of Parker suing anyone here for patent infringement for making a pen from a kit, and I have not seen or heard of them suing a kitless pen maker either.

Full Disclosure: I am not an attorney, I do not play one on T.V. and I did NOT stay at a holiday inn express last night.


----------



## ed4copies (Aug 31, 2015)

maxwell_smart007 said:


> Suppliers are likely from China, and likely not concerned with US copyright or patents.



So you are right to be concerned, if you are the one selling the product, you are the one that is easiest to sue.


----------



## Skie_M (Sep 1, 2015)

You're making a product that is not copyrighted that uses a product that is copyrighted ....


How many of us make pens that take a "cross type" refill or a "parker type" refill?  You know, those are copyrighted too, right?

But, are we selling those actual branded refills or an alternate that fits the pen in the exact same way?


It's quite easy for us to say "Hey, I'm not selling YOUR products, but I am helping you SELL YOUR products."


----------



## jaywood1207 (Sep 2, 2015)

To say this is the same as a pen with a Parker or cross refill really isn't the same. Parker and Cross sell the refills for the purpose of using in a pen. P & G do not sell the connectors for their Mach 3 and Fusion refills.  They sell the refills which is comparable to Cross and Parker. 

Thanks for the comments. The situation has been dealt with.


----------



## Brooks803 (Sep 2, 2015)

I would propose the question to the companies that are selling the kits as "fusion" & "mach3". After all, they're the ones marketing them as so.


----------



## hanau (Sep 2, 2015)

Any one seen a kit for Harry's razors?  
https://www.harrys.com/

Blades are pretty good and not at all the expensive.


----------



## Skie_M (Sep 2, 2015)

hanau said:


> Any one seen a kit for Harry's razors?
> https://www.harrys.com/
> 
> Blades are pretty good and not at all the expensive.



Seeing as how they sell replacement cartridges for Mach 3 razors ..... 

At least, they look like mach 3 cartridges to me ... I may be wrong.


Here's another investment for us men looking for a decent shave:

Blade Buddy


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 2, 2015)

Unless (and it is highly unlikely) Gillette has a patent on the connector, there is no problem selling a product that accepts Fusion or mac3 blades.  If you say that in your ads, you must indicate that Fusion and Mac3 are registered copyrights of Gillette and you are not connected with Gillette.  It is the names that are copyrighted not the products and if all you are saying is that your razor will use their blades - what can they sue for - it is not illegal to make a product that uses consumables provided by other companies.  As some one noted, you can not be sued for making a pen that accepts refills made by Parker, or Schmidt, or Pilot....same applies to razor blades, they are consumable and there are most likely other companies who make blades that will work.


----------



## tbroye (Sep 2, 2015)

I use Harry's shaving product the blade holder looks ver similar to a Mach 3 but attaches a little differently and cheaper also.  I am will to bet Shave Club is the same or close.  The packaging looks the same except for the label.  So if Gillette hasn't gone after these 2 outfits I doubt the would bother you.  I would't be surprised if the blades came from the same factory.


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 2, 2015)

tbroye said:


> I use Harry's shaving product the blade holder looks ver similar to a Mach 3 but attaches a little differently and cheaper also.  I am will to bet Shave Club is the same or close.  The packaging looks the same except for the label.  So if Gillette hasn't gone after these 2 outfits I doubt the would bother you.  I would't be surprised if the blades came from the same factory.


 Right - Gillette makes most of their money selling blades why on earth would they object to someone selling razors that use them.


----------



## KenV (Sep 2, 2015)

P.S.  I think the operative term of art is "Trademark".


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 2, 2015)

KenV said:


> P.S.  I think the operative term of art is "Trademark".


 Either Copyright or Trade Mark can be used depending on what it is.  In this case, you are correct Fusion and Mac3 are registered trade marks.


----------



## Holz Mechaniker (Sep 2, 2015)

When Bill Gates sold his DOS program to IBM he really didn't sell it, He gave it away so every PC will be capable of running Microsoft programs.  Now we are for the sake of clarification, Nickel and Dime hobbyist.  P&C will go after those that commissioned these blade holders, ie. PSI, Craft Supplys...   before they come at us.  NOW as others have said, they rather have someone buy their blades than **** and moan over what we make.


----------



## Skie_M (Sep 2, 2015)

*sigh* ... I remember back in the day when 11 bucks got me a 5-pack of razor heads and I was mad at the price gouging ....  Nowadays it's 25 bucks for a 5-pack and I'm praying they each last 2 months or so ...


So ... I shelled out about 25 dollars and got me a safety razor kit .... I use that for all the heavy shaving and just use the cartridges for touch-up ... they last MUCH longer now!   And the safety razor's blades only cost 2 dollars for a 10-pack.


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (Sep 2, 2015)

Does no one use electric??


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 2, 2015)

Holz Mechaniker said:


> *When Bill Gates sold his DOS program to IBM he really didn't sell it,* He gave it away so every PC will be capable of running Microsoft programs.  Now we are for the sake of clarification, Nickel and Dime hobbyist.  P&C will go after those that commissioned these blade holders, ie. PSI, Craft Supplys...   before they come at us.  NOW as others have said, they rather have someone buy their blades than **** and moan over what we make.


Yes he did sell it...IBM paid for most of the development of PCDOS but allowed Gates to also market the program under the name MSDOS.  Bad decision on IBM's part.  IBM also saved intel's bacon by buying 20% of the company and pumping in a lot of money then selling out after Intel was on firm footing.


----------



## Skie_M (Sep 3, 2015)

maxwell_smart007 said:


> Does no one use electric??



electric what?


----------



## oneleggimp (Sep 3, 2015)

The Gilette afety Razor Company was founded on the principle of give the razor itself away free or sell it at a very minimal cost and make your profit by selling razor blades.  Same thing with todays multi-blade razor 'heads"..  For that matter other companie are doing the same thing.  You can buy an ink jet printer for next to nothing but BOY OH BOY do Ink Cartridges COST BIG TIME.  I would think PSI would have had to get permission to use the Trademark razor names  From my standpoint, the liability would be PSI's -not ours.


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (Sep 3, 2015)

Skie_M said:


> maxwell_smart007 said:
> 
> 
> > Does no one use electric??
> ...



Electric razors - I don't know how you all can pay those exorbitant blade fees!


----------



## randyrls (Sep 3, 2015)

I avoid the high cost of electric razors, holders and blades.
<<<<<  Checkout the photo!


----------



## rd_ab_penman (Sep 3, 2015)

Gillette has the Copyright/Trademark on the names Mach III and Fusion. etc. and a Patent on the blade holders.

Les


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 3, 2015)

oneleggimp said:


> The Gilette afety Razor Company was founded on the principle of give the razor itself away free or sell it at a very minimal cost and make your profit by selling razor blades.  Same thing with todays multi-blade razor 'heads"..  For that matter other companie are doing the same thing.  You can buy an ink jet printer for next to nothing but BOY OH BOY do Ink Cartridges COST BIG TIME.  I would think PSI would have had to get permission to use the Trademark razor names  From my standpoint, the liability would be PSI's -not ours.


Permission to use a Trade Mark name is not required if you are using it identifying the owner's product and acknowledge the owner of the Trade Mark in your advertising.  i.e. you can legally say that your razor accepts Fusion blades if you acknowledge that "Fusion" is a registered trade mark of Gillette.


----------



## oneleggimp (Sep 3, 2015)

randyrls said:


> I avoid the high cost of electric razors, holders and blades.
> <<<<<  Checkout the photo!


Me Too, Randy S.  Fortunately I have a wife who likes my beard.  I had it shaved when I was on  a ventilator with a Trach Tube to keep the trach area free from beard hair.  As soon as the I was off the vent and the trach tube was removed and the stoma had closed, my wife encouraged me to re-grow  my beard.


----------



## greggas (Sep 3, 2015)

I had a commission last year where I made custom fusion razors for Gillette's entire design division...they loved them and it turned into quite a bit of follow up sales....I think they told me at the time that Gillette had released ( i'm using very laymans terms here ) the patents for reproduction on the Mach 3 and Fusion??


----------



## Skie_M (Sep 3, 2015)

Copyrights and patents, unless extended, automatically expire after 10 years .... how old is the Mach 3?

If under 10 years old, a company can voluntarily make their patent public, which would permit others to make copies at will, whether profit is made or not.  This is also called a "patent release" or "free public license".



maxwell_smart007 said:


> Skie_M said:
> 
> 
> > maxwell_smart007 said:
> ...



ehhh ... they make electric razors??  When the hell did that happen? 

That can't be good, putting electricity and water together on your face.  I think I'll pass.


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 3, 2015)

Skie_M said:


> *Copyrights and patents, unless extended, automatically expire after 10 years .... how old is the Mach 3?*
> 
> If under 10 years old, a company can voluntarily make their patent public, which would permit others to make copies at will, whether profit is made or not.  This is also called a "patent release" or "free public license".
> 
> ...


I think you need to do a little more research on this.  Patents last for 17 years and copyrights last for the lifetime of the copyright owner and can be passed on in the owners estate.


----------



## Skie_M (Sep 4, 2015)

Oh .... perhaps I was thinking of the movie business .... I read that stuff there that's over 10 years old automatically enters public domain for ownership of rights.

I do know that an invention, once patented, can have it's patent duration extended if the patent owner files a new patent with significant advancements/additions to their product.


Also, a funny side detail ... the Copyright Protection Act (signed in Stockholm, 1978) ... an excerpt of it is shown in the beginning of every commercially made VHS tape and DVD sold in America ....

What Hollywood never shows is the expiration date...  December 31st, 1999.

This is why former President Bill Clinton signed into law the Digital Copyright Millennium Act, which gives the end consumer MUCH more power over things that they have purchased... but Hollywood doesn't want us to know about that.

Downloading is not a crime.  The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that downloading copyrighted materials is never a crime.  Uploading it is the crime ....

Hollywood makes it's living lying to the world and making us believe it ... why would this be any different?


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (Sep 4, 2015)

I think you're misinformed.  Downloading per say is not illegal - but downloading copyrighted items IS illegal.  The courts uphold that the act of downloading from a site is not illegal - but if you download copyrighted material, you are committing a crime.    

And as for your 10 year expiry, you may want to do some more research, as I'm quite sure that's misguided as well:
_"The law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible 
medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978, from the moment of its 
creation and gives it a term lasting for the author’s life plus an additional 70 
years." (US Copyright office)_

If your claim was true, any movie over 10 years old could be re-released by any other company?  That's just not something that sounds even sort of true.  

Copyright infringement is always illegal - whether prosecuted or not, it's clearly an illegal act.


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 4, 2015)

maxwell_smart007 said:


> I think you're misinformed.  Downloading per say is not illegal - but downloading copyrighted items IS illegal.  The courts uphold that the act of downloading from a site is not illegal - but if you download copyrighted material, you are committing a crime.
> 
> And as for your 10 year expiry, you may want to do some more research, as I'm quite sure that's misguided as well:
> _"The law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible
> ...


US Copyright Law as it pertains to when, by whom and how 'recorded' or digital copyrighted materials can be copied is long. complex and confusing.  I seriously doubt that any single individual can completely understand it.


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (Sep 4, 2015)

Smitty37 said:


> US Copyright Law as it pertains to when, by whom and how 'recorded' or digital copyrighted materials can be copied is long. complex and confusing.  I seriously doubt that any single individual can completely understand it.



All the more reason to avoid downloading!


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 4, 2015)

maxwell_smart007 said:


> Smitty37 said:
> 
> 
> > US Copyright Law as it pertains to when, by whom and how 'recorded' or digital copyrighted materials can be copied is long. complex and confusing.  I seriously doubt that any single individual can completely understand it.
> ...


Agreed...


----------



## tjseagrove (Sep 4, 2015)

Smitty37 said:


> Holz Mechaniker said:
> 
> 
> > *When Bill Gates sold his DOS program to IBM he really didn't sell it,* He gave it away so every PC will be capable of running Microsoft programs.  Now we are for the sake of clarification, Nickel and Dime hobbyist.  P&C will go after those that commissioned these blade holders, ie. PSI, Craft Supplys...   before they come at us.  NOW as others have said, they rather have someone buy their blades than **** and moan over what we make.
> ...



Let's get this all straight.  IBM approached Bill Gates about an operating system for their computer.  He referred them to Digital Research who had CP/M available but the owners wife would not sign the NDA so IBM went back to Gates.  Bill Gates actually didn't have anything do went and purchased QDOS from  Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products keeping his negotiations with IBM secret so  walked away with it for $50,000.  He then negotiated the deal with IBM to license the operating system but talked them into letting him keep the rights to offer it elsewhere.  The rest is history.
5762


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 4, 2015)

tjseagrove said:


> Smitty37 said:
> 
> 
> > Holz Mechaniker said:
> ...


Close but no cigar!  1) IBM did in fact offer CP/M as an alternative operating system 6 months after the initial offering of the PC. It did not sell well because it cost 6 times the $40.00 charged for PC-DOS.

 2) It was an internal decision to go with an outside developer for PC-DOS because IBM had lost a series of copyright infringement lawsuits where they had looked at products, then developed their own.  It was always IBM's plan for Microsoft to own PC-DOS.  Bill Gates did not out-smart IBM as has often been implied.  That decision was perfectly in keeping with IBM's original marketing plan for the PC where IBM made the interface specifications immediately available for other developers to use.

3) Microsoft was not contacted until July 1980 and the contract was signed in November 1980 first shipments were in February 1981.  Microsoft did buy their version of DOS from Seattle Computer Products and modified it to meet IBM Specifications.  Going back to Holz Machaniker's post...Since originally IBM quickly had 85% of the PC market and IBM was selling PC-DOS and MS-DOS was microsoft's bread and butter, they weren't giving it away.  They did give away  software to displace Netscape as the dominant browser software.


----------



## tjseagrove (Sep 4, 2015)

Smitty37 said:


> tjseagrove said:
> 
> 
> > Smitty37 said:
> ...



1)  IBM did in fact offer CP/M "AFTER" the fact but in the run up had passed on it.  AS you said it was way more expensive.

2) Outsmarting IBM, not really implied, but in hindsight, where the market went it was not good for IBM in the long run.  BUt who could have seen the future in November 1980....oh yeah, Steve Jobs did :biggrin:

3) PC-DOS and MS-DOS were "licensed" not sold.

Ultimately, everything I stated lines up perfectly with the history.  I decided to skip using 10 pages for all the details.  My main "correction", it was licensed and not sold.
131


----------



## Skie_M (Sep 4, 2015)

Netscape Navigator = Mozilla Firefox.


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 4, 2015)

tjseagrove said:


> Smitty37 said:
> 
> 
> > tjseagrove said:
> ...


Yea but I was there - I received my first PC in February 1981 with the 1st shipments and actually spoke with some of the developers before the PC was announced.   

Zenith also actually had a DOS and used CP/M before IBM even entered the PC market.  They were also partnered with Microsoft.

You missed the movie if you think Gates "outsmarting IBM" is not often implied or actually stated.


----------



## tbroye (Sep 4, 2015)

Wasn't the PC that were not IBM cal IBM Clones and had a license to product them.  I know some of the early software was not compatible with non IBM PC'S.  There were work arounds and all kinds of pirated and hacked stuff but there were some law suits about intellectual properties.  I remember there were labels on software that said if would work with DOS 2.11 or higher.  That was so long a go I remember all the facts


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 4, 2015)

tbroye said:


> Wasn't the PC that were not IBM cal IBM Clones and had a license to product them.  I know some of the early software was not compatible with non IBM PC'S.  There were work arounds and all kinds of pirated and hacked stuff but there were some law suits about intellectual properties.  I remember there were labels on software that said if would work with DOS 2.11 or higher.  That was so long a go I remember all the facts


 Yes the non-IBM PC's were at first called IBM Clones (actually the term was used for a few years).  No clones were not licensed, IBM actually provided the interface specifications to anyone who wanted them.  (Computers are not patentable)and the only thing IBM did not release was the BIOS (built in operating system) that was protected by copyright which IBM did enforce vigorously.


----------



## tbroye (Sep 5, 2015)

Thanks Smitty.  It was quite the deal back in the day.  I had a Tandy 1000  and remember all the talk in the various magazine (No internet) and Bulletin Boards.


----------



## MesquiteMan (Sep 5, 2015)

Smitty, Bios= Basic input/output system


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 5, 2015)

MesquiteMan said:


> Smitty, Bios= Basic input/output system


Not at IBM in the 1980s.  It meant Built In Operating System.  It was a  permanent micro coded program contained in Read Only Solid State Memory that allow the system reach a state where it could load the disc operating system.  I personally modified BIOS in IBM PC's that were modified for use in Test Equipment. EDIT when I say modified I actually mean replaced the original BIOS chips with our own.


----------



## Sylvanite (Sep 5, 2015)

Smitty37 said:


> MesquiteMan said:
> 
> 
> > Smitty, Bios= Basic input/output system
> ...


Sorry Smitty, but BIOS never stood for "built in operating system" -- not even in the 80's.  I was an OS/2 programmer, and a PS/2 BIOS programmer, and the architect / lead programmer for IBM SurePath BIOS (the version IBM licensed to other PC manufacturers).  Originally, I recall BIOS being an acronym for "Basic Input / Output Services", but I no longer have a copy of the PC1 source code so I can't verify that (although I do have an amusing story about the PC/AT BIOS).  I just checked my IBM Personal Computer Standard manual (the SurePath BIOS technical reference), and the Phoenix System BIOS tech ref (which I keep for sentimental reasons).  Both of them define BIOS as "Basic Input / Output System", so that's the official answer.

Regards,
Eric


----------



## tbroye (Sep 5, 2015)

I remeber now AT was better than just a PC both were sold.  It would have cost me $800 to ad a 10mb hard drive to my computer and I had to change the BIOS chip on top of it.  My computer had to becom a Tandy 2000 if I remember correctly    Them were the days.


----------



## Skie_M (Sep 5, 2015)

How did we get this sidetracked?

I need to go shave ...


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 5, 2015)

Sylvanite said:


> Smitty37 said:
> 
> 
> > MesquiteMan said:
> ...


 I worked on some of the original PCs (there was never a PC1)modifying them for use in test equipment and my department did some of the Beta Testing on the XT/370. And, at one point we were the largest internal user of PC/370 machines which we acquired directly from the developers at IBM. I never heard the term Basic input output system used. Also BIT stood for Built-in-Test and BITE meant Built-in-Test Equipment.  And, in spite of the huge sales, the PC was never really very profitable for IBM.


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 5, 2015)

Sylvanite said:


> Smitty37 said:
> 
> 
> > MesquiteMan said:
> ...


The PS2 was not the same PC as the IBM PC and in fact was an unsuccessful attempt by IBM to put Pandora back in the box.  It had a different I/O channel that the PC Clone makers refused to accept keeping what became called the ISA bus.  I had a PS2 both on my desk at work and at home and it was a very good machine but lost IBM a lot of market share.  My department was also involved in beta testing the AT/370 and had quite a lot of them.  I also had an IBM portable which was really an XT with a built in monitor --- Calling it portable was a stretch it took two people to carry it if you wanted to move in any distance.  The PS2 was the last IBM PC I had, after that I went to clones.


----------



## tbroye (Sep 5, 2015)

Ok back on track.  I use Harry"'s raors like a Mach 3 but the holder and blades are a lot cheaper.  Head is simular to a Gillette but how if fastens to the handle is different who would you contact to see about have kits made to fite differn heads/blade holder?  I thing Harry makes their profit on the other products like shave cream and aftr shave  Right now being retire I have enough blade to last at least a year if not longer, shaving may 3 times a week.  i like shave I get and feel the money I spent was worht it  I know there are other shave clubs around woneder what their razors are like mechanicaly ?


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 5, 2015)

tbroye said:


> Ok back on track.  I use Harry"'s raors like a Mach 3 but the holder and blades are a lot cheaper.  Head is simular to a Gillette but how if fastens to the handle is different who would you contact to see about have kits made to fite differn heads/blade holder?  I thing Harry makes their profit on the other products like shave cream and aftr shave  Right now being retire I have enough blade to last at least a year if not longer, shaving may 3 times a week.  i like shave I get and feel the money I spent was worht it  I know there are other shave clubs around woneder what their razors are like mechanicaly ?


 You want to have someone make kits that use a different holder?  You would have to interest someone who deals with or is a kit manufacturer and convince them there is a large enough market to make it worth their while.


----------



## Skie_M (Sep 6, 2015)

Alright, so Harry's uses a different connector technology ....

I would suggest you take one of Harry's razors handle) and see about "re-skinning" it, first of all.

If that doesn't look feasible, you could send a spare razor head with cartridge off to a kit maker and see if he can replicate it for you, while adding an attachment option on the back to make it kit friendly.



Mmm ... getting flashbacks of computer terminology ...

ISA - Industry Standard Architecture ...  (common in IBM-compatible PCs)
MCA - Micro-Channel Architecture ... (common in Apple-based PCs)
AGP - Accelerated Graphics Port ... (common on more recent PC mainboards)


----------



## Sylvanite (Sep 6, 2015)

Smitty37 said:


> I worked on some of the original PCs (there was never a PC1)modifying them for use in test equipment and my department did some of the Beta Testing on the XT/370.... . Also BIT stood for Built-in-Test and BITE meant Built-in-Test Equipment.


When I said "PC1", I meant the original IBM PC - which is how many people differentiated between it and all the subsequent "personal computers".  I don't need to list all the variants that were ever made, do I?  Thank you for helping test the XT/370, but I was an actual BIOS developer (and eventual lead developer) at IBM Entry Systems Division in Boca Raton.  I can assure you that nobody there _ever_ referred to BIOS as an "operating system"  It simply isn't one.

Also, until now, I have never heard anybody use the terms "bit" or "byte" as you define them.  The IBM PC built in test (in ROM along with the BIOS), was called POST, which is short for "Power-On-Self-Test".

Regards,
Eric


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 6, 2015)

Sylvanite said:


> Smitty37 said:
> 
> 
> > I worked on some of the original PCs (there was never a PC1)modifying them for use in test equipment and my department did some of the Beta Testing on the XT/370.... . Also BIT stood for Built-in-Test and BITE meant Built-in-Test Equipment.
> ...



*Well we now know you have never worked in Test Equipment Engineering and it was BITE not byte.* 

Re BIOS. I could be thinking about BASIC.  If you were there at the start you must know that the original PC could be ordered without any disk drive and had a serial cassette port.  PC DOS was not required for such a machine (I don't know if any were ever actually built without a disk drive) I did use a cassette on my home PC but had two disk drives as well.  Anyway the BASIC language was (or could be built in) and came up if you powered on with no disk in either drive.  That machine had enough of a built in operating system to run uncompiled BASIC programs. That could be where the BIOS came from.  At my age my memory is still good but not perfect.

If you wonder about the order of the variations PC, XT, XT-370. Portable, AT, AT-370 then PS2.  I used all of them at work, at home or both.  I also installed a lot of upgrades some IBM and some OEM (more OEM)


----------



## Sylvanite (Sep 6, 2015)

Smitty37 said:


> *Well we now know you have never worked in Test Equipment Engineering and it was BITE not byte.*


And, we know that you never worked in BIOS Development.  I know that I spelled "byte" not "bite".  It was intentional.



> Re BIOS. I could be thinking about BASIC.  If you were there at the start you must know that the original PC could be ordered without any disk drive and had a serial cassette port.  PC DOS was not required for such a machine (I don't know if any were ever actually built without a disk drive) I did use a cassette on my home PC but had two disk drives as well.  Anyway the BASIC language was (or could be built in) and came up if you powered on with no disk in either drive.  That machine had enough of a built in operating system to run uncompiled BASIC programs. That could be where the BIOS came from.


Yes, I am well aware that the original PC could be ordered without disk drives.  I personally bought one in that configuration (16K memory, no diskette drives, CGA card, and green-screen).  It came with IBM PC Diagnostics on a cassette tape (the only part of that machine that I still have).  The only problem was that IBM did not sell a cassette cable -- but that was ok, because the pinout for the cassette connector was the same as for the Tandy TRS-80 (and Radio Shack sold that cable).

In addition to the ROM BIOS, the IBM PC had ROM BASIC, which was a BASIC interpreter written by Microsoft that BIOS jumped to if it couldn't find a diskette boot sector to load.  Oh, and BASIC stands for "Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code".  BIOS did not come from BASIC, and BASIC did not come from BIOS.  Neither is an operating system.



> If you wonder about the order of the variations PC, XT, XT-370. Portable, AT, AT-370 then PS2.


I don't wonder.  I touched them all (although I never actually used the *370 machines which were really just the regular PCs with a 370 adapter installed).  You left out several, including the XT-286, the PC-Jr, and the PS/1 line.  "PS2" was actually "PS/2" and was a whole line of computers (with, as you noted the proprietary microChannel bus).  There was also the ThinkPad series, not to mention the PC Servers.

None of that, however, has anything to do with penturning, let alone disposable razor head intellectual property.  So, I'll apologize to the public for the thread hijack, and let it (hopefully) return to the original topic.

Sincerely,
Eric


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (Sep 6, 2015)

Razors guys, not computers!


----------



## Smitty37 (Sep 6, 2015)

maxwell_smart007 said:


> Razors guys, not computers!


Hi. The OP sent me a PM long ago telling me he had the information he was looking for....And thanking me.  So I thought it was harmless to talk a little about the past.


----------



## Gregf (Sep 6, 2015)

Regardless, it was a fun trip down memory lane.


----------

