Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!dg!rec
From: rec@dg.dg.com (Robert Cousins)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IBM PC prehistory
Message-ID: <256@dg.dg.com>
Date: 12 Jan 90 17:08:21 GMT
References: <1546@aber-cs.UUCP> <33896@mips.mips.COM> <21559@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <1989Dec30.235854.14254@world.std.com> <10131@microsoft.UUCP> <250@dg.dg.com> <129994@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: uunet!dg!rec (Robert Cousins)
Organization: Data General, Westboro, MA.
Lines: 28

In article <129994@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> kenobi@sun.UUCP (Rick Kwan - Sun Intercon) writes:
>I have often wondered what would happen if IBM had chosen the 68000
>instead of 8088/8086, and tailored a their own simple OS to run on
>it?  I think IBM could very easily have produced such a thing.  They
>certainly had the expertise.
>
>	Rick Kwan
>	Sun Microsystems - Intercontinental Operations
>	kenobi@sun.com
>
>"Travellin' through hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy."
>					--Han Solo

Well, IBM did make a 68k based machine, the IBM 9000 from IBM Instruments.
If memory serves me correctly, it was written up in BYTE at approximately
the same time as the PC was becoming popular.  Does anyone care to 
throw in more info?  
 
I'm still hunting for more info on the S-100 based Z80 machine IBM sold
in Europe for a while before the PC was announced.  My experience with
Z80s was that they almost always ran faster than 8088s on the software
of that day.  This must have made for some interesting sales calls
when a salesman was trying to sell a slower "16-bit" machine.

Robert Cousins
Dept. Mgr, Workstation Dev't.

Speaking for myself alone.