What were the early PC applications requiring a hard disk?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
19
down vote

favorite

3

I had to wait about 5 years before hard drives (HDs) became affordable enough to begin moving off of floppies. During this time, I remember my desire for an HD being based on convenience. All the software I used was designed to run fine from floppies, but an HD offered much faster loading plus access to all those applications without swapping floppy disks and (sometimes) rebooting. The combined speed and ready access translated to the convenience that made an HD highly desirable for me.

But many mainstream computer users weren't focused on running lots of different application like I was. They just needed one or two applications that were critical. The implication being that unless those applications required an HD, the HD would not be worth the significant added expense. I'd like to know what early, popular PC applications fell into the category of requiring an HD, based on the sheer size of the code and/or data they needed? Also is there evidence of any application being a "market driver" in the adoption of HDs?

Out of the triad of word processing, spreadsheet, and database as the early "sweet-spot" for serious PC applications, it seems obvious that a database would be the most likely to require and benefit from an HD. So, I'd ideally like an answer that challenges or confirms that assumption by citing specific popular applications of the time.

ibm-pc hard-disk

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Peter Mortensen

1235

asked 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think the question in itself is malaligned, as disk space needed is rarely about programs/applications. But data. And already a siple wordstar text document can excede a floppy. There are many professions that need to work with large documents and handling them in sections with a seperate floppy for each is not only inconveniant, but translates to direct cost, that outrun the investment for a hard disk within weeks.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I know Wordstar was popular. I did not know it was routinely used to edit documents that would not fit on a floppy, since I'd assume those documents needed to fit in RAM, and floppy capacity typically outpaced RAM capacity.
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Beside that PC RAM exceded PC-Floppy size (360 KiB), It was already one great feature of Wordstar under CP/M to be able to handle text larger than available RAM.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Raffzahn An application requiring a hard disk would be one where the application itself exceeded the size of a single floppy and couldn't handle swapping. Windows 2.1 and later would be such an example.
  – user71659
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  There were plenty of people whose work involved sitting down and typing pretty much continuously. Whether it was data entry, letter writing, or writing up accounting information, a person with practice can produce data at a rate of roughly 30-40KB per hour, i.e. in an 8 hour day they can nearly fill a DS DD 5.25" floppy disk. For people working with that kind of data, hard disks are an essential organisation tool.
  – Jules
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

up vote
19
down vote

favorite

3

I had to wait about 5 years before hard drives (HDs) became affordable enough to begin moving off of floppies. During this time, I remember my desire for an HD being based on convenience. All the software I used was designed to run fine from floppies, but an HD offered much faster loading plus access to all those applications without swapping floppy disks and (sometimes) rebooting. The combined speed and ready access translated to the convenience that made an HD highly desirable for me.

But many mainstream computer users weren't focused on running lots of different application like I was. They just needed one or two applications that were critical. The implication being that unless those applications required an HD, the HD would not be worth the significant added expense. I'd like to know what early, popular PC applications fell into the category of requiring an HD, based on the sheer size of the code and/or data they needed? Also is there evidence of any application being a "market driver" in the adoption of HDs?

Out of the triad of word processing, spreadsheet, and database as the early "sweet-spot" for serious PC applications, it seems obvious that a database would be the most likely to require and benefit from an HD. So, I'd ideally like an answer that challenges or confirms that assumption by citing specific popular applications of the time.

ibm-pc hard-disk

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Peter Mortensen

1235

asked 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think the question in itself is malaligned, as disk space needed is rarely about programs/applications. But data. And already a siple wordstar text document can excede a floppy. There are many professions that need to work with large documents and handling them in sections with a seperate floppy for each is not only inconveniant, but translates to direct cost, that outrun the investment for a hard disk within weeks.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I know Wordstar was popular. I did not know it was routinely used to edit documents that would not fit on a floppy, since I'd assume those documents needed to fit in RAM, and floppy capacity typically outpaced RAM capacity.
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Beside that PC RAM exceded PC-Floppy size (360 KiB), It was already one great feature of Wordstar under CP/M to be able to handle text larger than available RAM.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Raffzahn An application requiring a hard disk would be one where the application itself exceeded the size of a single floppy and couldn't handle swapping. Windows 2.1 and later would be such an example.
  – user71659
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  There were plenty of people whose work involved sitting down and typing pretty much continuously. Whether it was data entry, letter writing, or writing up accounting information, a person with practice can produce data at a rate of roughly 30-40KB per hour, i.e. in an 8 hour day they can nearly fill a DS DD 5.25" floppy disk. For people working with that kind of data, hard disks are an essential organisation tool.
  – Jules
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

up vote
19
down vote

favorite

3

up vote
19
down vote

favorite

3

3

I had to wait about 5 years before hard drives (HDs) became affordable enough to begin moving off of floppies. During this time, I remember my desire for an HD being based on convenience. All the software I used was designed to run fine from floppies, but an HD offered much faster loading plus access to all those applications without swapping floppy disks and (sometimes) rebooting. The combined speed and ready access translated to the convenience that made an HD highly desirable for me.

But many mainstream computer users weren't focused on running lots of different application like I was. They just needed one or two applications that were critical. The implication being that unless those applications required an HD, the HD would not be worth the significant added expense. I'd like to know what early, popular PC applications fell into the category of requiring an HD, based on the sheer size of the code and/or data they needed? Also is there evidence of any application being a "market driver" in the adoption of HDs?

Out of the triad of word processing, spreadsheet, and database as the early "sweet-spot" for serious PC applications, it seems obvious that a database would be the most likely to require and benefit from an HD. So, I'd ideally like an answer that challenges or confirms that assumption by citing specific popular applications of the time.

ibm-pc hard-disk

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Peter Mortensen

1235

asked 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

I had to wait about 5 years before hard drives (HDs) became affordable enough to begin moving off of floppies. During this time, I remember my desire for an HD being based on convenience. All the software I used was designed to run fine from floppies, but an HD offered much faster loading plus access to all those applications without swapping floppy disks and (sometimes) rebooting. The combined speed and ready access translated to the convenience that made an HD highly desirable for me.

But many mainstream computer users weren't focused on running lots of different application like I was. They just needed one or two applications that were critical. The implication being that unless those applications required an HD, the HD would not be worth the significant added expense. I'd like to know what early, popular PC applications fell into the category of requiring an HD, based on the sheer size of the code and/or data they needed? Also is there evidence of any application being a "market driver" in the adoption of HDs?

Out of the triad of word processing, spreadsheet, and database as the early "sweet-spot" for serious PC applications, it seems obvious that a database would be the most likely to require and benefit from an HD. So, I'd ideally like an answer that challenges or confirms that assumption by citing specific popular applications of the time.

ibm-pc hard-disk

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Peter Mortensen

1235

asked 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Peter Mortensen

1235

edited yesterday

Peter Mortensen

1235

edited yesterday

Peter Mortensen

1235

1235

asked 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

asked 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

asked 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

12.7k46110

• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think the question in itself is malaligned, as disk space needed is rarely about programs/applications. But data. And already a siple wordstar text document can excede a floppy. There are many professions that need to work with large documents and handling them in sections with a seperate floppy for each is not only inconveniant, but translates to direct cost, that outrun the investment for a hard disk within weeks.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I know Wordstar was popular. I did not know it was routinely used to edit documents that would not fit on a floppy, since I'd assume those documents needed to fit in RAM, and floppy capacity typically outpaced RAM capacity.
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Beside that PC RAM exceded PC-Floppy size (360 KiB), It was already one great feature of Wordstar under CP/M to be able to handle text larger than available RAM.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Raffzahn An application requiring a hard disk would be one where the application itself exceeded the size of a single floppy and couldn't handle swapping. Windows 2.1 and later would be such an example.
  – user71659
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  There were plenty of people whose work involved sitting down and typing pretty much continuously. Whether it was data entry, letter writing, or writing up accounting information, a person with practice can produce data at a rate of roughly 30-40KB per hour, i.e. in an 8 hour day they can nearly fill a DS DD 5.25" floppy disk. For people working with that kind of data, hard disks are an essential organisation tool.
  – Jules
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think the question in itself is malaligned, as disk space needed is rarely about programs/applications. But data. And already a siple wordstar text document can excede a floppy. There are many professions that need to work with large documents and handling them in sections with a seperate floppy for each is not only inconveniant, but translates to direct cost, that outrun the investment for a hard disk within weeks.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I know Wordstar was popular. I did not know it was routinely used to edit documents that would not fit on a floppy, since I'd assume those documents needed to fit in RAM, and floppy capacity typically outpaced RAM capacity.
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Beside that PC RAM exceded PC-Floppy size (360 KiB), It was already one great feature of Wordstar under CP/M to be able to handle text larger than available RAM.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Raffzahn An application requiring a hard disk would be one where the application itself exceeded the size of a single floppy and couldn't handle swapping. Windows 2.1 and later would be such an example.
  – user71659
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  There were plenty of people whose work involved sitting down and typing pretty much continuously. Whether it was data entry, letter writing, or writing up accounting information, a person with practice can produce data at a rate of roughly 30-40KB per hour, i.e. in an 8 hour day they can nearly fill a DS DD 5.25" floppy disk. For people working with that kind of data, hard disks are an essential organisation tool.
  – Jules
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

9

9

I think the question in itself is malaligned, as disk space needed is rarely about programs/applications. But data. And already a siple wordstar text document can excede a floppy. There are many professions that need to work with large documents and handling them in sections with a seperate floppy for each is not only inconveniant, but translates to direct cost, that outrun the investment for a hard disk within weeks.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago

I think the question in itself is malaligned, as disk space needed is rarely about programs/applications. But data. And already a siple wordstar text document can excede a floppy. There are many professions that need to work with large documents and handling them in sections with a seperate floppy for each is not only inconveniant, but translates to direct cost, that outrun the investment for a hard disk within weeks.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago

2

2

I know Wordstar was popular. I did not know it was routinely used to edit documents that would not fit on a floppy, since I'd assume those documents needed to fit in RAM, and floppy capacity typically outpaced RAM capacity.
– Brian H
2 days ago

I know Wordstar was popular. I did not know it was routinely used to edit documents that would not fit on a floppy, since I'd assume those documents needed to fit in RAM, and floppy capacity typically outpaced RAM capacity.
– Brian H
2 days ago

1

1

Beside that PC RAM exceded PC-Floppy size (360 KiB), It was already one great feature of Wordstar under CP/M to be able to handle text larger than available RAM.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago

Beside that PC RAM exceded PC-Floppy size (360 KiB), It was already one great feature of Wordstar under CP/M to be able to handle text larger than available RAM.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago

@Raffzahn An application requiring a hard disk would be one where the application itself exceeded the size of a single floppy and couldn't handle swapping. Windows 2.1 and later would be such an example.
– user71659
2 days ago

@Raffzahn An application requiring a hard disk would be one where the application itself exceeded the size of a single floppy and couldn't handle swapping. Windows 2.1 and later would be such an example.
– user71659
2 days ago

1

1

There were plenty of people whose work involved sitting down and typing pretty much continuously. Whether it was data entry, letter writing, or writing up accounting information, a person with practice can produce data at a rate of roughly 30-40KB per hour, i.e. in an 8 hour day they can nearly fill a DS DD 5.25" floppy disk. For people working with that kind of data, hard disks are an essential organisation tool.
– Jules
yesterday

There were plenty of people whose work involved sitting down and typing pretty much continuously. Whether it was data entry, letter writing, or writing up accounting information, a person with practice can produce data at a rate of roughly 30-40KB per hour, i.e. in an 8 hour day they can nearly fill a DS DD 5.25" floppy disk. For people working with that kind of data, hard disks are an essential organisation tool.
– Jules
yesterday

 | 
show 6 more comments

5 Answers
5

active

oldest

votes

up vote
16
down vote

I cannot state for certain that it required a hard disk, but using AutoCAD (v1 released Dec.82) without one would have been awkward to well-nigh unbearable. The program itself was huge for the time and used countless data files. I can't imagine running it from floppy.

Even if v1.0 could do so, by the time v2 or v3 was released HD had to be required. It pushed the PC to its limits, demanding "high-res" graphics and RAM beyond 640 kbytes.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

answered 2 days ago

RichF

4,0541334

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So AutoCAD was released 3 years prior to the introduction of the computer it ran on?
  – Glen Yates
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @GlenYates ack! I meant to type "Dec.82" as stated early in the Wiki article to which I linked. ("Bad fingers! Bad!!")
  – RichF
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Re: "the computer it ran on", technically CP/M was the original feature lead for AutoCAD rather than DOS, because CP/M had actual graphics drivers by then so was easier to get started on. But that was still 1982; the company undertook simultaneous development and CP/M just happened to take the lead. Source: fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_14.html . And I think AutoCAD-80 may now be lost software. Just a trivia digression for you!
  – Tommy
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I remember building a custom PC for AutoCAD around 1988-89. It was the first time I saw a Number NIne graphics card and a high capacity 3.5" HD (I think around 100MB).
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  For AutoCAD 1.4 on DOS, the the program, overlay files and whatever graphics driver you needed from the utilities disk fit very comfortably on a single 360K floppy and ran just fine. 2.x was bigger, but my fuzzy recollection is that it could fit on a 1.44M disk.
  – Blrfl
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
11
down vote

I started working for a newly-certified IBM PC dealer in the UK at the end of 1984. IBM thought we would be selling about 50% twin-floppy PC-G and 50% XT with 10MB hard drive.

In fact, I'm not sure we ever sold a PC-G. Perhaps it's because we were focused on accounting and payroll applications for small businesses - not something you would consider with 2 x 360kB drives where the programs were about 4 or 5 diskettes and the data about the same.

We also sold a cheaper CP/M-86 machine and had some twin-floppy users who just did word processing.

At that time in the UK, a PC was not something you would buy other than for business - there were other architectures which were much better value for money. It was not hard to convince businesses of the value of a hard drive.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Jim MacKenzie

690124

answered 2 days ago

grahamj42

21113

add a comment | 

up vote
6
down vote

Like RichF, I have a hard time to remember any that required a hard disk. On the other hand, it was conveniant to have a hard disk already early on. Swaping floppies, looking what to boot an where to put data might be a no-brainer for a tech nerd, Ordinary users, even if 'only' typing letters will get anoyed soon.

For example I remember an architecture company buying PC's with harddisk and Bernoulli drives already in 1982. The harddisk was ment to cover all software plus generic data, while the 5 MiB bernoulli disks did take all documents for a single project. The whole setup worked much like HD plus floppies, except the floppies being much larger (5 MiB vs. 360 KiB) and faster :)

So in this case it was less about the amount of data, as a handy process.

While above is a well defined and good worked out use case (multipe PCs to share data collections on a project level), the same urge for steamlined data handling can be found in many businesses. The need for a harddisk is rarely about programs but always about real world application thereof and the data involved/produced. Not some fancy data, but everyday stuff, just a lot thereof.

Engineers, architects, surveyors, assessors and many more needto handle quite large documents as part of their daily business. Servic specifications for a multi story building can easy count 500 and more pages. While spliting them up into a multitude of floppies is doable, it does take time thus can directly be calculated as valuable employe time - not to mention time lost by mixing up disks, one part exeding (again) a single floppy and all the issues with backup copies. These documents are the core business case for such companies, making every possible step to secure them important and cheap compared to what a lost section or dokument might mean.

Spending a few grands on a hard disk is an extreme cheap measure to improve productivity and security. Or to use a well known phrase: It's about the data, stupid.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Raffzahn

27.8k457118

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your answer is a variation of the convenience factor I presented in the question. Convenience in accessing many data files, as opposed to many applications, certainly drove HD adoption too.
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH Not sure it it is a 'conveniance' issue, when not having a hard disk costs a business measurable amounts of money - usually in a region that makes a return on investment for a hard disk within a quite short time. Conveniance might be a factor for pricate users, but doesn't realy count in a business environment. Time flipping disk is an additional cost in using a PC. No matter if the disk flipper is self employed or a payed employe.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Raffzahn The OP asked for software which wouldn't run without a hard-drive - not software which was much easier to use with one. As such, you haven't answered the question.
  – Martin Bonner
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
6
down vote

You can check the Whole Earth Software Catalog; I remember it listed a few apps as requiring hard disk. It came out in 1984, which would have been pretty early. For example DESQ does (pg 114). It's not a database btw, but a window switcher/proto-gui type of thing. Real World Accounting on pg. 103 is another, and there's even a program called Great Plains Hard Disk Accounting on the next page. It's for the Apple III though.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Bumpas2643aac

612

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Great Plains supported DOS at the time too (and is still available today, BTW, although it has been renamed - it's called "Microsoft Dynamics GP" these days). Don't know whether it needed a hard disk, though
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

PC-File III is a database that works well even without a hard drive. I used to run it from a 1.2MB high density diskette.

I don't know of any consumer applications that required a hard drive back then, only specialty programs like AutoCAD as @RichF mentioned. Windows 3.0 is probably what really drove the home market for hard drives, and what drove the market for Windows 3.0 was asked and answered in another question.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

traal

6,55412257

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Windows 3 was the first version to require a hard drive IIRC, but by the time it was released PCs were already commonly sold with a hard drive. Perhaps Windows 3 ended up nailing the coffin of hard-drive-less PCs, but I’m not sure it drove the home market for hard drives. I’m trying to remember when games started requiring hard drives; that could also have been a factor (but I’m not sure it pre-dates Windows 3).
  – Stephen Kitt
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @StephenKitt That would be a good question to ask Retrocomputing.
  – traal
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd think both games and GUIs would qualify as "applications". Did DOS ever require a hard disk, officially?
  – Brian H
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH I believe DOS 6 and above officially require a hard disk as they are supplied with a setup application that expects to be installing to a hard disk. They can still be used without in the traditional way, however, it's just not officially supported.
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7181%2fwhat-were-the-early-pc-applications-requiring-a-hard-disk%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

5 Answers
5

active

oldest

votes

5 Answers
5

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
16
down vote

I cannot state for certain that it required a hard disk, but using AutoCAD (v1 released Dec.82) without one would have been awkward to well-nigh unbearable. The program itself was huge for the time and used countless data files. I can't imagine running it from floppy.

Even if v1.0 could do so, by the time v2 or v3 was released HD had to be required. It pushed the PC to its limits, demanding "high-res" graphics and RAM beyond 640 kbytes.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

answered 2 days ago

RichF

4,0541334

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So AutoCAD was released 3 years prior to the introduction of the computer it ran on?
  – Glen Yates
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @GlenYates ack! I meant to type "Dec.82" as stated early in the Wiki article to which I linked. ("Bad fingers! Bad!!")
  – RichF
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Re: "the computer it ran on", technically CP/M was the original feature lead for AutoCAD rather than DOS, because CP/M had actual graphics drivers by then so was easier to get started on. But that was still 1982; the company undertook simultaneous development and CP/M just happened to take the lead. Source: fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_14.html . And I think AutoCAD-80 may now be lost software. Just a trivia digression for you!
  – Tommy
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I remember building a custom PC for AutoCAD around 1988-89. It was the first time I saw a Number NIne graphics card and a high capacity 3.5" HD (I think around 100MB).
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  For AutoCAD 1.4 on DOS, the the program, overlay files and whatever graphics driver you needed from the utilities disk fit very comfortably on a single 360K floppy and ran just fine. 2.x was bigger, but my fuzzy recollection is that it could fit on a 1.44M disk.
  – Blrfl
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
16
down vote

I cannot state for certain that it required a hard disk, but using AutoCAD (v1 released Dec.82) without one would have been awkward to well-nigh unbearable. The program itself was huge for the time and used countless data files. I can't imagine running it from floppy.

Even if v1.0 could do so, by the time v2 or v3 was released HD had to be required. It pushed the PC to its limits, demanding "high-res" graphics and RAM beyond 640 kbytes.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

answered 2 days ago

RichF

4,0541334

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So AutoCAD was released 3 years prior to the introduction of the computer it ran on?
  – Glen Yates
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @GlenYates ack! I meant to type "Dec.82" as stated early in the Wiki article to which I linked. ("Bad fingers! Bad!!")
  – RichF
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Re: "the computer it ran on", technically CP/M was the original feature lead for AutoCAD rather than DOS, because CP/M had actual graphics drivers by then so was easier to get started on. But that was still 1982; the company undertook simultaneous development and CP/M just happened to take the lead. Source: fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_14.html . And I think AutoCAD-80 may now be lost software. Just a trivia digression for you!
  – Tommy
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I remember building a custom PC for AutoCAD around 1988-89. It was the first time I saw a Number NIne graphics card and a high capacity 3.5" HD (I think around 100MB).
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  For AutoCAD 1.4 on DOS, the the program, overlay files and whatever graphics driver you needed from the utilities disk fit very comfortably on a single 360K floppy and ran just fine. 2.x was bigger, but my fuzzy recollection is that it could fit on a 1.44M disk.
  – Blrfl
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
16
down vote

up vote
16
down vote

I cannot state for certain that it required a hard disk, but using AutoCAD (v1 released Dec.82) without one would have been awkward to well-nigh unbearable. The program itself was huge for the time and used countless data files. I can't imagine running it from floppy.

Even if v1.0 could do so, by the time v2 or v3 was released HD had to be required. It pushed the PC to its limits, demanding "high-res" graphics and RAM beyond 640 kbytes.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

answered 2 days ago

RichF

4,0541334

I cannot state for certain that it required a hard disk, but using AutoCAD (v1 released Dec.82) without one would have been awkward to well-nigh unbearable. The program itself was huge for the time and used countless data files. I can't imagine running it from floppy.

Even if v1.0 could do so, by the time v2 or v3 was released HD had to be required. It pushed the PC to its limits, demanding "high-res" graphics and RAM beyond 640 kbytes.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

answered 2 days ago

RichF

4,0541334

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

edited 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

edited 2 days ago

Brian H

12.7k46110

12.7k46110

answered 2 days ago

RichF

4,0541334

answered 2 days ago

RichF

4,0541334

answered 2 days ago

RichF

4,0541334

4,0541334

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So AutoCAD was released 3 years prior to the introduction of the computer it ran on?
  – Glen Yates
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @GlenYates ack! I meant to type "Dec.82" as stated early in the Wiki article to which I linked. ("Bad fingers! Bad!!")
  – RichF
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Re: "the computer it ran on", technically CP/M was the original feature lead for AutoCAD rather than DOS, because CP/M had actual graphics drivers by then so was easier to get started on. But that was still 1982; the company undertook simultaneous development and CP/M just happened to take the lead. Source: fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_14.html . And I think AutoCAD-80 may now be lost software. Just a trivia digression for you!
  – Tommy
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I remember building a custom PC for AutoCAD around 1988-89. It was the first time I saw a Number NIne graphics card and a high capacity 3.5" HD (I think around 100MB).
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  For AutoCAD 1.4 on DOS, the the program, overlay files and whatever graphics driver you needed from the utilities disk fit very comfortably on a single 360K floppy and ran just fine. 2.x was bigger, but my fuzzy recollection is that it could fit on a 1.44M disk.
  – Blrfl
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So AutoCAD was released 3 years prior to the introduction of the computer it ran on?
  – Glen Yates
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @GlenYates ack! I meant to type "Dec.82" as stated early in the Wiki article to which I linked. ("Bad fingers! Bad!!")
  – RichF
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Re: "the computer it ran on", technically CP/M was the original feature lead for AutoCAD rather than DOS, because CP/M had actual graphics drivers by then so was easier to get started on. But that was still 1982; the company undertook simultaneous development and CP/M just happened to take the lead. Source: fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_14.html . And I think AutoCAD-80 may now be lost software. Just a trivia digression for you!
  – Tommy
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I remember building a custom PC for AutoCAD around 1988-89. It was the first time I saw a Number NIne graphics card and a high capacity 3.5" HD (I think around 100MB).
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  For AutoCAD 1.4 on DOS, the the program, overlay files and whatever graphics driver you needed from the utilities disk fit very comfortably on a single 360K floppy and ran just fine. 2.x was bigger, but my fuzzy recollection is that it could fit on a 1.44M disk.
  – Blrfl
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

1

1

So AutoCAD was released 3 years prior to the introduction of the computer it ran on?
– Glen Yates
2 days ago

So AutoCAD was released 3 years prior to the introduction of the computer it ran on?
– Glen Yates
2 days ago

@GlenYates ack! I meant to type "Dec.82" as stated early in the Wiki article to which I linked. ("Bad fingers! Bad!!")
– RichF
2 days ago

@GlenYates ack! I meant to type "Dec.82" as stated early in the Wiki article to which I linked. ("Bad fingers! Bad!!")
– RichF
2 days ago

2

2

Re: "the computer it ran on", technically CP/M was the original feature lead for AutoCAD rather than DOS, because CP/M had actual graphics drivers by then so was easier to get started on. But that was still 1982; the company undertook simultaneous development and CP/M just happened to take the lead. Source: fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_14.html . And I think AutoCAD-80 may now be lost software. Just a trivia digression for you!
– Tommy
2 days ago

Re: "the computer it ran on", technically CP/M was the original feature lead for AutoCAD rather than DOS, because CP/M had actual graphics drivers by then so was easier to get started on. But that was still 1982; the company undertook simultaneous development and CP/M just happened to take the lead. Source: fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_14.html . And I think AutoCAD-80 may now be lost software. Just a trivia digression for you!
– Tommy
2 days ago

I remember building a custom PC for AutoCAD around 1988-89. It was the first time I saw a Number NIne graphics card and a high capacity 3.5" HD (I think around 100MB).
– Brian H
2 days ago

I remember building a custom PC for AutoCAD around 1988-89. It was the first time I saw a Number NIne graphics card and a high capacity 3.5" HD (I think around 100MB).
– Brian H
2 days ago

1

1

For AutoCAD 1.4 on DOS, the the program, overlay files and whatever graphics driver you needed from the utilities disk fit very comfortably on a single 360K floppy and ran just fine. 2.x was bigger, but my fuzzy recollection is that it could fit on a 1.44M disk.
– Blrfl
8 hours ago

For AutoCAD 1.4 on DOS, the the program, overlay files and whatever graphics driver you needed from the utilities disk fit very comfortably on a single 360K floppy and ran just fine. 2.x was bigger, but my fuzzy recollection is that it could fit on a 1.44M disk.
– Blrfl
8 hours ago

add a comment | 

up vote
11
down vote

I started working for a newly-certified IBM PC dealer in the UK at the end of 1984. IBM thought we would be selling about 50% twin-floppy PC-G and 50% XT with 10MB hard drive.

In fact, I'm not sure we ever sold a PC-G. Perhaps it's because we were focused on accounting and payroll applications for small businesses - not something you would consider with 2 x 360kB drives where the programs were about 4 or 5 diskettes and the data about the same.

We also sold a cheaper CP/M-86 machine and had some twin-floppy users who just did word processing.

At that time in the UK, a PC was not something you would buy other than for business - there were other architectures which were much better value for money. It was not hard to convince businesses of the value of a hard drive.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Jim MacKenzie

690124

answered 2 days ago

grahamj42

21113

add a comment | 

up vote
11
down vote

I started working for a newly-certified IBM PC dealer in the UK at the end of 1984. IBM thought we would be selling about 50% twin-floppy PC-G and 50% XT with 10MB hard drive.

In fact, I'm not sure we ever sold a PC-G. Perhaps it's because we were focused on accounting and payroll applications for small businesses - not something you would consider with 2 x 360kB drives where the programs were about 4 or 5 diskettes and the data about the same.

We also sold a cheaper CP/M-86 machine and had some twin-floppy users who just did word processing.

At that time in the UK, a PC was not something you would buy other than for business - there were other architectures which were much better value for money. It was not hard to convince businesses of the value of a hard drive.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Jim MacKenzie

690124

answered 2 days ago

grahamj42

21113

add a comment | 

up vote
11
down vote

up vote
11
down vote

I started working for a newly-certified IBM PC dealer in the UK at the end of 1984. IBM thought we would be selling about 50% twin-floppy PC-G and 50% XT with 10MB hard drive.

In fact, I'm not sure we ever sold a PC-G. Perhaps it's because we were focused on accounting and payroll applications for small businesses - not something you would consider with 2 x 360kB drives where the programs were about 4 or 5 diskettes and the data about the same.

We also sold a cheaper CP/M-86 machine and had some twin-floppy users who just did word processing.

At that time in the UK, a PC was not something you would buy other than for business - there were other architectures which were much better value for money. It was not hard to convince businesses of the value of a hard drive.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Jim MacKenzie

690124

answered 2 days ago

grahamj42

21113

I started working for a newly-certified IBM PC dealer in the UK at the end of 1984. IBM thought we would be selling about 50% twin-floppy PC-G and 50% XT with 10MB hard drive.

In fact, I'm not sure we ever sold a PC-G. Perhaps it's because we were focused on accounting and payroll applications for small businesses - not something you would consider with 2 x 360kB drives where the programs were about 4 or 5 diskettes and the data about the same.

We also sold a cheaper CP/M-86 machine and had some twin-floppy users who just did word processing.

At that time in the UK, a PC was not something you would buy other than for business - there were other architectures which were much better value for money. It was not hard to convince businesses of the value of a hard drive.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Jim MacKenzie

690124

answered 2 days ago

grahamj42

21113

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Jim MacKenzie

690124

edited 2 days ago

Jim MacKenzie

690124

edited 2 days ago

Jim MacKenzie

690124

690124

answered 2 days ago

grahamj42

21113

answered 2 days ago

grahamj42

21113

answered 2 days ago

grahamj42

21113

21113

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

up vote
6
down vote

Like RichF, I have a hard time to remember any that required a hard disk. On the other hand, it was conveniant to have a hard disk already early on. Swaping floppies, looking what to boot an where to put data might be a no-brainer for a tech nerd, Ordinary users, even if 'only' typing letters will get anoyed soon.

For example I remember an architecture company buying PC's with harddisk and Bernoulli drives already in 1982. The harddisk was ment to cover all software plus generic data, while the 5 MiB bernoulli disks did take all documents for a single project. The whole setup worked much like HD plus floppies, except the floppies being much larger (5 MiB vs. 360 KiB) and faster :)

So in this case it was less about the amount of data, as a handy process.

While above is a well defined and good worked out use case (multipe PCs to share data collections on a project level), the same urge for steamlined data handling can be found in many businesses. The need for a harddisk is rarely about programs but always about real world application thereof and the data involved/produced. Not some fancy data, but everyday stuff, just a lot thereof.

Engineers, architects, surveyors, assessors and many more needto handle quite large documents as part of their daily business. Servic specifications for a multi story building can easy count 500 and more pages. While spliting them up into a multitude of floppies is doable, it does take time thus can directly be calculated as valuable employe time - not to mention time lost by mixing up disks, one part exeding (again) a single floppy and all the issues with backup copies. These documents are the core business case for such companies, making every possible step to secure them important and cheap compared to what a lost section or dokument might mean.

Spending a few grands on a hard disk is an extreme cheap measure to improve productivity and security. Or to use a well known phrase: It's about the data, stupid.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Raffzahn

27.8k457118

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your answer is a variation of the convenience factor I presented in the question. Convenience in accessing many data files, as opposed to many applications, certainly drove HD adoption too.
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH Not sure it it is a 'conveniance' issue, when not having a hard disk costs a business measurable amounts of money - usually in a region that makes a return on investment for a hard disk within a quite short time. Conveniance might be a factor for pricate users, but doesn't realy count in a business environment. Time flipping disk is an additional cost in using a PC. No matter if the disk flipper is self employed or a payed employe.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Raffzahn The OP asked for software which wouldn't run without a hard-drive - not software which was much easier to use with one. As such, you haven't answered the question.
  – Martin Bonner
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
6
down vote

Like RichF, I have a hard time to remember any that required a hard disk. On the other hand, it was conveniant to have a hard disk already early on. Swaping floppies, looking what to boot an where to put data might be a no-brainer for a tech nerd, Ordinary users, even if 'only' typing letters will get anoyed soon.

For example I remember an architecture company buying PC's with harddisk and Bernoulli drives already in 1982. The harddisk was ment to cover all software plus generic data, while the 5 MiB bernoulli disks did take all documents for a single project. The whole setup worked much like HD plus floppies, except the floppies being much larger (5 MiB vs. 360 KiB) and faster :)

So in this case it was less about the amount of data, as a handy process.

While above is a well defined and good worked out use case (multipe PCs to share data collections on a project level), the same urge for steamlined data handling can be found in many businesses. The need for a harddisk is rarely about programs but always about real world application thereof and the data involved/produced. Not some fancy data, but everyday stuff, just a lot thereof.

Engineers, architects, surveyors, assessors and many more needto handle quite large documents as part of their daily business. Servic specifications for a multi story building can easy count 500 and more pages. While spliting them up into a multitude of floppies is doable, it does take time thus can directly be calculated as valuable employe time - not to mention time lost by mixing up disks, one part exeding (again) a single floppy and all the issues with backup copies. These documents are the core business case for such companies, making every possible step to secure them important and cheap compared to what a lost section or dokument might mean.

Spending a few grands on a hard disk is an extreme cheap measure to improve productivity and security. Or to use a well known phrase: It's about the data, stupid.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Raffzahn

27.8k457118

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your answer is a variation of the convenience factor I presented in the question. Convenience in accessing many data files, as opposed to many applications, certainly drove HD adoption too.
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH Not sure it it is a 'conveniance' issue, when not having a hard disk costs a business measurable amounts of money - usually in a region that makes a return on investment for a hard disk within a quite short time. Conveniance might be a factor for pricate users, but doesn't realy count in a business environment. Time flipping disk is an additional cost in using a PC. No matter if the disk flipper is self employed or a payed employe.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Raffzahn The OP asked for software which wouldn't run without a hard-drive - not software which was much easier to use with one. As such, you haven't answered the question.
  – Martin Bonner
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
6
down vote

up vote
6
down vote

Like RichF, I have a hard time to remember any that required a hard disk. On the other hand, it was conveniant to have a hard disk already early on. Swaping floppies, looking what to boot an where to put data might be a no-brainer for a tech nerd, Ordinary users, even if 'only' typing letters will get anoyed soon.

For example I remember an architecture company buying PC's with harddisk and Bernoulli drives already in 1982. The harddisk was ment to cover all software plus generic data, while the 5 MiB bernoulli disks did take all documents for a single project. The whole setup worked much like HD plus floppies, except the floppies being much larger (5 MiB vs. 360 KiB) and faster :)

So in this case it was less about the amount of data, as a handy process.

While above is a well defined and good worked out use case (multipe PCs to share data collections on a project level), the same urge for steamlined data handling can be found in many businesses. The need for a harddisk is rarely about programs but always about real world application thereof and the data involved/produced. Not some fancy data, but everyday stuff, just a lot thereof.

Engineers, architects, surveyors, assessors and many more needto handle quite large documents as part of their daily business. Servic specifications for a multi story building can easy count 500 and more pages. While spliting them up into a multitude of floppies is doable, it does take time thus can directly be calculated as valuable employe time - not to mention time lost by mixing up disks, one part exeding (again) a single floppy and all the issues with backup copies. These documents are the core business case for such companies, making every possible step to secure them important and cheap compared to what a lost section or dokument might mean.

Spending a few grands on a hard disk is an extreme cheap measure to improve productivity and security. Or to use a well known phrase: It's about the data, stupid.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Raffzahn

27.8k457118

Like RichF, I have a hard time to remember any that required a hard disk. On the other hand, it was conveniant to have a hard disk already early on. Swaping floppies, looking what to boot an where to put data might be a no-brainer for a tech nerd, Ordinary users, even if 'only' typing letters will get anoyed soon.

For example I remember an architecture company buying PC's with harddisk and Bernoulli drives already in 1982. The harddisk was ment to cover all software plus generic data, while the 5 MiB bernoulli disks did take all documents for a single project. The whole setup worked much like HD plus floppies, except the floppies being much larger (5 MiB vs. 360 KiB) and faster :)

So in this case it was less about the amount of data, as a handy process.

While above is a well defined and good worked out use case (multipe PCs to share data collections on a project level), the same urge for steamlined data handling can be found in many businesses. The need for a harddisk is rarely about programs but always about real world application thereof and the data involved/produced. Not some fancy data, but everyday stuff, just a lot thereof.

Engineers, architects, surveyors, assessors and many more needto handle quite large documents as part of their daily business. Servic specifications for a multi story building can easy count 500 and more pages. While spliting them up into a multitude of floppies is doable, it does take time thus can directly be calculated as valuable employe time - not to mention time lost by mixing up disks, one part exeding (again) a single floppy and all the issues with backup copies. These documents are the core business case for such companies, making every possible step to secure them important and cheap compared to what a lost section or dokument might mean.

Spending a few grands on a hard disk is an extreme cheap measure to improve productivity and security. Or to use a well known phrase: It's about the data, stupid.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Raffzahn

27.8k457118

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Raffzahn

27.8k457118

answered 2 days ago

Raffzahn

27.8k457118

answered 2 days ago

Raffzahn

27.8k457118

27.8k457118

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your answer is a variation of the convenience factor I presented in the question. Convenience in accessing many data files, as opposed to many applications, certainly drove HD adoption too.
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH Not sure it it is a 'conveniance' issue, when not having a hard disk costs a business measurable amounts of money - usually in a region that makes a return on investment for a hard disk within a quite short time. Conveniance might be a factor for pricate users, but doesn't realy count in a business environment. Time flipping disk is an additional cost in using a PC. No matter if the disk flipper is self employed or a payed employe.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Raffzahn The OP asked for software which wouldn't run without a hard-drive - not software which was much easier to use with one. As such, you haven't answered the question.
  – Martin Bonner
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your answer is a variation of the convenience factor I presented in the question. Convenience in accessing many data files, as opposed to many applications, certainly drove HD adoption too.
  – Brian H
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH Not sure it it is a 'conveniance' issue, when not having a hard disk costs a business measurable amounts of money - usually in a region that makes a return on investment for a hard disk within a quite short time. Conveniance might be a factor for pricate users, but doesn't realy count in a business environment. Time flipping disk is an additional cost in using a PC. No matter if the disk flipper is self employed or a payed employe.
  – Raffzahn
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Raffzahn The OP asked for software which wouldn't run without a hard-drive - not software which was much easier to use with one. As such, you haven't answered the question.
  – Martin Bonner
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

Your answer is a variation of the convenience factor I presented in the question. Convenience in accessing many data files, as opposed to many applications, certainly drove HD adoption too.
– Brian H
2 days ago

Your answer is a variation of the convenience factor I presented in the question. Convenience in accessing many data files, as opposed to many applications, certainly drove HD adoption too.
– Brian H
2 days ago

@BrianH Not sure it it is a 'conveniance' issue, when not having a hard disk costs a business measurable amounts of money - usually in a region that makes a return on investment for a hard disk within a quite short time. Conveniance might be a factor for pricate users, but doesn't realy count in a business environment. Time flipping disk is an additional cost in using a PC. No matter if the disk flipper is self employed or a payed employe.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago

@BrianH Not sure it it is a 'conveniance' issue, when not having a hard disk costs a business measurable amounts of money - usually in a region that makes a return on investment for a hard disk within a quite short time. Conveniance might be a factor for pricate users, but doesn't realy count in a business environment. Time flipping disk is an additional cost in using a PC. No matter if the disk flipper is self employed or a payed employe.
– Raffzahn
2 days ago

@Raffzahn The OP asked for software which wouldn't run without a hard-drive - not software which was much easier to use with one. As such, you haven't answered the question.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday

@Raffzahn The OP asked for software which wouldn't run without a hard-drive - not software which was much easier to use with one. As such, you haven't answered the question.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday

add a comment | 

up vote
6
down vote

You can check the Whole Earth Software Catalog; I remember it listed a few apps as requiring hard disk. It came out in 1984, which would have been pretty early. For example DESQ does (pg 114). It's not a database btw, but a window switcher/proto-gui type of thing. Real World Accounting on pg. 103 is another, and there's even a program called Great Plains Hard Disk Accounting on the next page. It's for the Apple III though.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Bumpas2643aac

612

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Great Plains supported DOS at the time too (and is still available today, BTW, although it has been renamed - it's called "Microsoft Dynamics GP" these days). Don't know whether it needed a hard disk, though
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
6
down vote

You can check the Whole Earth Software Catalog; I remember it listed a few apps as requiring hard disk. It came out in 1984, which would have been pretty early. For example DESQ does (pg 114). It's not a database btw, but a window switcher/proto-gui type of thing. Real World Accounting on pg. 103 is another, and there's even a program called Great Plains Hard Disk Accounting on the next page. It's for the Apple III though.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Bumpas2643aac

612

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Great Plains supported DOS at the time too (and is still available today, BTW, although it has been renamed - it's called "Microsoft Dynamics GP" these days). Don't know whether it needed a hard disk, though
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
6
down vote

up vote
6
down vote

You can check the Whole Earth Software Catalog; I remember it listed a few apps as requiring hard disk. It came out in 1984, which would have been pretty early. For example DESQ does (pg 114). It's not a database btw, but a window switcher/proto-gui type of thing. Real World Accounting on pg. 103 is another, and there's even a program called Great Plains Hard Disk Accounting on the next page. It's for the Apple III though.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Bumpas2643aac

612

You can check the Whole Earth Software Catalog; I remember it listed a few apps as requiring hard disk. It came out in 1984, which would have been pretty early. For example DESQ does (pg 114). It's not a database btw, but a window switcher/proto-gui type of thing. Real World Accounting on pg. 103 is another, and there's even a program called Great Plains Hard Disk Accounting on the next page. It's for the Apple III though.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Bumpas2643aac

612

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Bumpas2643aac

612

answered 2 days ago

Bumpas2643aac

612

answered 2 days ago

Bumpas2643aac

612

612

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Great Plains supported DOS at the time too (and is still available today, BTW, although it has been renamed - it's called "Microsoft Dynamics GP" these days). Don't know whether it needed a hard disk, though
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Great Plains supported DOS at the time too (and is still available today, BTW, although it has been renamed - it's called "Microsoft Dynamics GP" these days). Don't know whether it needed a hard disk, though
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

Great Plains supported DOS at the time too (and is still available today, BTW, although it has been renamed - it's called "Microsoft Dynamics GP" these days). Don't know whether it needed a hard disk, though
– Jules
11 hours ago

Great Plains supported DOS at the time too (and is still available today, BTW, although it has been renamed - it's called "Microsoft Dynamics GP" these days). Don't know whether it needed a hard disk, though
– Jules
11 hours ago

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

PC-File III is a database that works well even without a hard drive. I used to run it from a 1.2MB high density diskette.

I don't know of any consumer applications that required a hard drive back then, only specialty programs like AutoCAD as @RichF mentioned. Windows 3.0 is probably what really drove the home market for hard drives, and what drove the market for Windows 3.0 was asked and answered in another question.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

traal

6,55412257

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Windows 3 was the first version to require a hard drive IIRC, but by the time it was released PCs were already commonly sold with a hard drive. Perhaps Windows 3 ended up nailing the coffin of hard-drive-less PCs, but I’m not sure it drove the home market for hard drives. I’m trying to remember when games started requiring hard drives; that could also have been a factor (but I’m not sure it pre-dates Windows 3).
  – Stephen Kitt
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @StephenKitt That would be a good question to ask Retrocomputing.
  – traal
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd think both games and GUIs would qualify as "applications". Did DOS ever require a hard disk, officially?
  – Brian H
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH I believe DOS 6 and above officially require a hard disk as they are supplied with a setup application that expects to be installing to a hard disk. They can still be used without in the traditional way, however, it's just not officially supported.
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

PC-File III is a database that works well even without a hard drive. I used to run it from a 1.2MB high density diskette.

I don't know of any consumer applications that required a hard drive back then, only specialty programs like AutoCAD as @RichF mentioned. Windows 3.0 is probably what really drove the home market for hard drives, and what drove the market for Windows 3.0 was asked and answered in another question.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

traal

6,55412257

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Windows 3 was the first version to require a hard drive IIRC, but by the time it was released PCs were already commonly sold with a hard drive. Perhaps Windows 3 ended up nailing the coffin of hard-drive-less PCs, but I’m not sure it drove the home market for hard drives. I’m trying to remember when games started requiring hard drives; that could also have been a factor (but I’m not sure it pre-dates Windows 3).
  – Stephen Kitt
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @StephenKitt That would be a good question to ask Retrocomputing.
  – traal
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd think both games and GUIs would qualify as "applications". Did DOS ever require a hard disk, officially?
  – Brian H
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH I believe DOS 6 and above officially require a hard disk as they are supplied with a setup application that expects to be installing to a hard disk. They can still be used without in the traditional way, however, it's just not officially supported.
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

up vote
3
down vote

PC-File III is a database that works well even without a hard drive. I used to run it from a 1.2MB high density diskette.

I don't know of any consumer applications that required a hard drive back then, only specialty programs like AutoCAD as @RichF mentioned. Windows 3.0 is probably what really drove the home market for hard drives, and what drove the market for Windows 3.0 was asked and answered in another question.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

traal

6,55412257

PC-File III is a database that works well even without a hard drive. I used to run it from a 1.2MB high density diskette.

I don't know of any consumer applications that required a hard drive back then, only specialty programs like AutoCAD as @RichF mentioned. Windows 3.0 is probably what really drove the home market for hard drives, and what drove the market for Windows 3.0 was asked and answered in another question.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

traal

6,55412257

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

traal

6,55412257

answered 2 days ago

traal

6,55412257

answered 2 days ago

traal

6,55412257

6,55412257

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Windows 3 was the first version to require a hard drive IIRC, but by the time it was released PCs were already commonly sold with a hard drive. Perhaps Windows 3 ended up nailing the coffin of hard-drive-less PCs, but I’m not sure it drove the home market for hard drives. I’m trying to remember when games started requiring hard drives; that could also have been a factor (but I’m not sure it pre-dates Windows 3).
  – Stephen Kitt
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @StephenKitt That would be a good question to ask Retrocomputing.
  – traal
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd think both games and GUIs would qualify as "applications". Did DOS ever require a hard disk, officially?
  – Brian H
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH I believe DOS 6 and above officially require a hard disk as they are supplied with a setup application that expects to be installing to a hard disk. They can still be used without in the traditional way, however, it's just not officially supported.
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Windows 3 was the first version to require a hard drive IIRC, but by the time it was released PCs were already commonly sold with a hard drive. Perhaps Windows 3 ended up nailing the coffin of hard-drive-less PCs, but I’m not sure it drove the home market for hard drives. I’m trying to remember when games started requiring hard drives; that could also have been a factor (but I’m not sure it pre-dates Windows 3).
  – Stephen Kitt
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @StephenKitt That would be a good question to ask Retrocomputing.
  – traal
  2 days ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd think both games and GUIs would qualify as "applications". Did DOS ever require a hard disk, officially?
  – Brian H
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BrianH I believe DOS 6 and above officially require a hard disk as they are supplied with a setup application that expects to be installing to a hard disk. They can still be used without in the traditional way, however, it's just not officially supported.
  – Jules
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

2

2

Windows 3 was the first version to require a hard drive IIRC, but by the time it was released PCs were already commonly sold with a hard drive. Perhaps Windows 3 ended up nailing the coffin of hard-drive-less PCs, but I’m not sure it drove the home market for hard drives. I’m trying to remember when games started requiring hard drives; that could also have been a factor (but I’m not sure it pre-dates Windows 3).
– Stephen Kitt
2 days ago

Windows 3 was the first version to require a hard drive IIRC, but by the time it was released PCs were already commonly sold with a hard drive. Perhaps Windows 3 ended up nailing the coffin of hard-drive-less PCs, but I’m not sure it drove the home market for hard drives. I’m trying to remember when games started requiring hard drives; that could also have been a factor (but I’m not sure it pre-dates Windows 3).
– Stephen Kitt
2 days ago

@StephenKitt That would be a good question to ask Retrocomputing.
– traal
2 days ago

@StephenKitt That would be a good question to ask Retrocomputing.
– traal
2 days ago

I'd think both games and GUIs would qualify as "applications". Did DOS ever require a hard disk, officially?
– Brian H
yesterday

I'd think both games and GUIs would qualify as "applications". Did DOS ever require a hard disk, officially?
– Brian H
yesterday

@BrianH I believe DOS 6 and above officially require a hard disk as they are supplied with a setup application that expects to be installing to a hard disk. They can still be used without in the traditional way, however, it's just not officially supported.
– Jules
11 hours ago

@BrianH I believe DOS 6 and above officially require a hard disk as they are supplied with a setup application that expects to be installing to a hard disk. They can still be used without in the traditional way, however, it's just not officially supported.
– Jules
11 hours ago

add a comment | 

 

draft saved

draft discarded

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7181%2fwhat-were-the-early-pc-applications-requiring-a-hard-disk%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email