Editing ICON (microcomputer) (section)

== History ==

===Development===

==== Origin ====

In 1981, four years after the first [[microcomputer]]s for mainstream consumers appeared, the [[Ministry of Education (Ontario)|Ontario Ministry of Education]] sensed that microcomputers could be an important component of education. In June the [[Ministry of Education (Ontario)|Minister of Education]], [[Bette Stephenson]], announced the need for computer literacy for all students and formed the Advisory Committee on Computers in Education to guide their efforts.<ref name=m266>Mangan 1994, pg. 266</ref> She stated that:

<blockquote>It is now clear that one of the major goals that education must add to its list of purposes, is computer literacy. The world of the very near future requires that all of us have some understanding of the processes and uses of computers.<ref name=m267>Mangan 1994, pg. 267</ref></blockquote>

According to several contemporary sources, Stephenson was the driving force behind the project; "whenever there was a problem she appears to have 'moved heaven and earth' to get it back on the tracks."<ref name=m266/>

The Ministry recognized that a small proportion of teachers and other school personnel were already quite involved with microcomputers and that some schools were acquiring first-generation machines. These acquisitions were uneven, varying in brand and model not just between school boards, but among schools within boards and even classroom to classroom.<ref name= McLean>McLean 1988</ref> Among the most popular were the [[Commodore PET]] which had a strong following in the new [[computer programming]] classes due to its tough all-in-one construction and built-in support for [[Microsoft BASIC]], and the [[Apple II]] which had a wide variety of educational software, mostly aimed at early education.

The Ministry wanted to encourage uses of microcomputers that supported its curriculum guidelines and was willing to underwrite the development of software for that purpose. However, the wide variety of machines being used meant that development costs had to be spread over several platforms. Additionally, many of the curriculum topics they wanted to cover required more storage or graphics capability than at least some of the machines then in use, if not all of them. Educational software was in its infancy, and many hardware acquisitions were made without a clear provision for educational software or a plan for use.<ref name= McLean/>

A series of Policy Memos followed outlining the Committee's views. Policy Memo 47 stated that computers are to be used creatively, and for information retrieval; at the time most systems were used solely for programming. They also announced funding for the development of educational software on an estimated 6000 machines. The Ministry decided that standardizing the computers would reduce maintenance costs, and allow for the development of consistent educational software.<ref name="exclusive">{{Cite news |last=Buckler |first=Grant |date=October 15, 1983 |title=School's 'Bionic Beaver' may be too exclusive |pages=I-6 |work=Montreal Gazette |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19831015&id=XhUyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SKUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1460,2629977}}</ref> The Ministry contracted the Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance (CATA) to help develop specifications for the new system.

==== Design selection ====

Policy Memos 68–73 followed in early 1983, stating that none of the existing platforms had all the qualities needed to be truly universal.<ref name=m266/> The idea of a new machine quickly gained currency, with the added bonus that it would help develop a local microcomputer industry.<ref name=exclusive/> In order to make the new machine attractive, the Ministry agreed to fund up to 75% of the purchase price from their own budget. When the plan was first announced there was widespread concern among educators. Their main complaint is that the Ministry would select a standard that was not powerful enough for their needs. A secondary concern was that the time delay between announcing and introducing the computer would be lengthy, a period in which existing purchases could be funded instead.<ref name=exclusive/>

The first set of concerns were rendered moot when the specifications were introduced in March 1983 in the "Functional Requirements for Microcomputers for Educational Use in Ontario Schools—Stage I."<ref name= McLean/> The physical design required a PET-like all-in-one case, headphones output for voice and sound effects, and a [[trackball]] for mouse-like pointing support. Inside the case, the specification called for a processor and support systems to allow a [[Computer multitasking|multitasking]] [[operating system]] to be used, selecting the [[Intel 80186]] as the CPU. Color graphics were specified, at least as an option, along with monochrome and color monitors on top. Voice synthesis was built in, and the keyboard provided for accented characters. Additionally, the systems would include no local storage at all, and would instead rely on a [[computer network|networked]] [[file server]] containing a [[hard drive]].<ref name=m270>Mangan 1994, pg. 270</ref>

The specification was considerably in advance of the [[state of the art]] of the time, and when it was delivered commentators immediately reversed their earlier concerns and suggested the machine was too powerful, and would therefore be available in too small numbers.<ref name=exclusive/>

==== CEMCORP ====

To deliver such a machine, Robert Arn, a member of the CATA team, set up [[CEMCORP]], the ''Canadian Educational Microprocessor Corporation''. When the specification was announced in 1983, CEMCORP was announced as the winner of a $10 million contract to develop and supply the initial machines.<ref name=infoworld33>Wierzbicki 1983, pg. 33</ref> An additional $5 million in funding was announced to cover development of new software applications, while the [[Ontario Institute for Studies in Education]] (OISE) was asked to convert 30 existing programs to the new machine.<ref name= McLean/><ref name=infoworld33/> In order to be able to afford what was expected to be an expensive machine, the Ministry announced a special "Recognized Extraordinary Expenditure" (REE) grant that would provide for up to 75% of the purchase costs of machines meeting the "Grant Eligible Microcomputer Systems" or "G.E.M.S." specifications.<ref name= McLean/>

At the time, only the ICON met the GEMS requirements, which cut its purchase price from around CAD$2500 to a mere $495<ref name=infoworld34>Wierzbicki 1983, pg. 34</ref> (USD$2700 and $696)<ref name=m271>Mangan 1994, pg. 271</ref> – less expensive than most existing microcomputers. The entire program was politically explosive throughout its gestation as a result, causing a continual stream of news stories. Critics complained that other machines could be bought for half the cost, but supporters pushed back that no other machine at that price point supported the GEMS specifications. The release of the [[IBM Personal Computer/AT]] in 1984 reopened the debate and made nightly news, as it used a newer and more advanced CPU than the ICON: the 80286. Around this time other platforms, such as the [[Waterloo PORT]] networking system, gained approval for the government support that had originally been the province of the ICON.

===Production===

The basic ICON design had reached "beta quality" after just over a year, using off the shelf parts, the hardware manufactured by Microtel and [[operating system]] from [[QNX|Quantum Software Systems]]. The original Microtel machines were first introduced to Ontario schools in 1984 in small numbers, packaged in a short-lived dark brown case. At this point [[Burroughs Corporation|Burroughs Canada]] was brought in to sell and support the machine. Soon, [[Sperry Corporation|Sperry]] and Burroughs merged to form [[Unisys]] in 1986. Several generations of ICON machines were produced, evolving steadily to become more PC-like. They were built into the early 1990s, but by this point were used almost entirely for running DOS and Windows programs.

=== Cancellation ===

Throughout the project's lifetime it was subject to continual debate and much political rhetoric. A 1992 article on the topic complained:

<blockquote>Bette Stephenson favoured top-down decision making and as a result got trapped by her tunnel vision. Her ICON computer fiasco drained millions from the provincial
treasury and created a white elephant scorned by boards and shunned by teachers.... Computer resources were forced upon the school system as a result of a top-down government decision that was taken precipitously and without research.<ref name=m275>Mangan 1994, pg. 275</ref></blockquote>

The Ministry ceased all support for the ICON in 1994, making it [[orphaned technology]], and the [[Archives of Ontario]] declined to take ICON hardware and copies of the ICON software, which were destroyed.{{Citation needed|date=March 2019}} This was controversial in its own right, as others maintained that it could be sent to other schools that lacked extensive Information Technology. Despite the development of the ICON program, equality among schools was not assured because each school community could afford different capital outlays depending on the parents' affluence.