By the mid-seventies microprocessors had become widely available. There was the Motorola 6800, the Intel 8080, the MOS Technology 6502, and the Zilog Z-80. Previously computing was only possible at large facilities. Computers were monstrosities that filled large rooms, required active cooling and constant maintenance. It was often joked that IBM made more money fixing their machines than selling them. With the advent of the microprocessor came the idea that individuals could own their own computing device. It was a revolution of sorts, where we would not be tied to big corporations. Where each individual could have the freedom to compute on their own.
There was no infrastructure, so the home computing movement began among students and hobbyists. There was also no internet. Mostly, those interested met at book stores and read about the latest developments in magazines. There arose the idea that the technology should be shared. That it should be developed communally, with individuals contributing what they could for the benefit of all. It was a good idea that kind of worked, but not really.
As a teenager in the seventies, I acquired a 6800 chip and built my own computer with 4k of memory, a switch array to enter hexadecimal code directly into memory, one byte at a time. And a string of 7 segment LEDs for output. It used an EPROM that housed a crude OS that did little more than read the key array, start a program, and direct output to the LEDs. Whenever I wanted to update the OS, I had to set an EPROM out in the sun for a day or two, to erase its contents, and then reprogram it, one byte at a time, hopefully not making any mistakes. I had designed a two-tone circuit to store and retrieve data on a cassette tape. About the time that I got it working, I paid a visit to one of my uncles who had been doing electronic design work for Radio Shack. He had a spare room in his house that was full of TRS-80âs in all manner of disassembly, looking a bit like robots with their wires and inner workings exposed. I felt like a kid in a toy store, yet it made me realize that as much pleasure as I got out of my little computer, there were computers available to me that were beyond what I could develop on my own.
Around 1980 or so Radio Shack sold more computers than all other manufacturers combined. Even though many hobbyists and tinkerers supported Radio Shack and bought their computers, Radio Shack never marketed to them, seeing the business market as far more lucrative. The success of the TRS-80 came not from hobbyists and tinkerers, but from dentists and rental agents, lawyers and accountants, shop owners and farmers. It is where personal computers shine, as if they were made for accounting and bookkeeping. Radio Shackâs reign was only thwarted by the advent of the IBM PC.
The TRS-80 had an operating system that centered around the BASIC programming language. It also had an assembler for those wishing faster processing time. For this, it entered the engineering and scientific worlds with the ability to quickly write little routines that saved hours or days of calculations. With a little external circuitry it worked well as a data collection device. The PC and its clones, especially after the release of Windows, do not come with a programming language - another sign that it is not designed for hobbyists and tinkerers. It was Windows 95 that changed the world, bringing the computer to the masses. At the time there was an uproar among the hobbyists, claiming that they had made the personal computer industry, and how dare companies like Microsoft and Apple create systems that anyone can use, even with limited skills. There were those who made claims, as if, if one didnât understand all the nitty gritty details of DOS, then they just werenât computer literate enough, werenât worthy of a computer. A lot of angry people.
This was about the time Linux, which is a Unix clone, came about. Unix was developed at Bell Labs and because AT&T was deemed a public utility, its inventions became public domain. They invented transistors, optic cables, and the grid that the internet lies on. All paid for by peopleâs telephone bills. There was a segment of the population that flocked to Linux. Mostly people talked of freedom from evil corporations, yet one often got the idea that the free price tag was the real motivator. At one point, I had 5 computers in the house. One mostly ran BeOS, and another Linux. Seems to me that it was the Linux machine that gave me the most trouble. I even tried some of the stuff that comes from GNU. The drawing programs, the word processors and spreadsheets, sure they worked but it was a bit like picking up your prom date driving your grandmaâs old Rambler. The biggest problem with Linux is that most software is never ported to Linux as Linux has only 4% market share. None of the programs I regularly use are Linux compatible. None of my CAD/CAE programs run on it nor does Word. It doesnât give one much freedom if one can do nothing with it. The vast majority of so-called open-source software is developed and paid for by large companies and intended for industrial and commercial use. The type of software that is highly useful to corporations, yet not economically viable as a commodity. Google touts an active open-source scenario, yet it all tends to benefit their agenda, their bottom line.
3D printing has followed a path similar to that of the personal computer. It seems to me that in the early days the powder and inkjet printers held the most promise. Even though the technology was locked down under patents and trademarks, there were DIY efforts that used highly modified HP inkjet printers. Mostly though, the technology was developed by efforts from large companies and research universities who dominated through patents and trademarks. MIT and companies like Stratasys and 3D systems were like the IBM and DEC of old, selling large machines that cost many tens of thousands of dollars, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. From the beginning, 3D printers were seen as rapid prototyping machines. 3D printers were being developed alongside CAD, and it should come as no surprise that major players like Autodesk and Dassault along with HP, Ultimaker, 3D Systems, and Stratasys dominate the .3MF Consortium.
Once low-cost 3D printers became available a whole new genre of DIY enthusiasts opened up. Those early machines required a lot of tweaking and maintenance which can be seen in those who buy a Bambu Lab printer and then insist on running one test tower after another. Old habits die hard. While the enthusiasts were cobbling together the latest DIY machines, fully enclosed machines capable of printing high-end engineering plastics began appearing in engineering, R&D, and scientific labs. Seemingly the two sidesâ paths rarely crossed. The X1-Carbon just may be the most cost effective desktop prototyping machine on the market.
It wasnât DIY enthusiasts or open-source advocates who developed the Bambu Lab printers. They were developed by highly educated professional engineers who sought to create a prosumer machine - a professional quality machine that allows consumers to produce quality products. The open-source community has been around for a long time yet seem to never progress much. It is kind of weird, a community of people who seem to advocate for free access to technology yet often act like modern day luddites. When the Mac and then Windows appeared they cried foul, preferring their buggy DOS machines â blind to the fact that the business market was what was driving the direction personal computers were taking. When Bambu Lab introduced their printers, the open-source community was upset that the Bambu Lab printers were not open-source printers. They are printers that just about anyone can operate without the need for specialized knowledge. A bit like when Microsoft went from DOS to Windows, with the same reaction from the naysayers.
By industry numbers, the open-source, DIY community makes up a rather small percentage of the market share, just like they make up a rather small percentage of the personal computer market. Yet they tend to think and act as if they have a sense of entitlement, that everyone should bow to their will. There is even an effort to gut the X1-Carbon and replace all the electronics. It is as if the open-source community is attempting to hijack a printer that they did not develop and are incapable of appreciating.
You know that the printing experience for the open-source crowd is less enjoyable than for those who use the Bambu system as intended. It can be seen throughout the comments on MakerWorld, in the threads in this forum and on reddit and Facebook. The beauty of the .3MF file format is that it allows for extensions. It is something that has long been a feature of AutoCAD, the ability to add an information field to individual objects. It is a wonderful feature that goes well beyond what an .stl file offers. With the .3MF format one can create highly complex objects with many bodies and sub bodies contained within, with the ability to have different filament and slicer settings for each body. When one extracts a .stl from a Bambu Studio .3MF to fit oneâs non-compatible third-party slicer, all that information is lost, resulting in a less than pleasurable printing experience. If you ever wondered why some people are always having problems that others do not have.
yes the X1 is now two years old (actually quite a bit more than that 
