Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!sot-ecs!eastbloc!abm88 From: abm88@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Morley A.B.) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: IBM PC prehistory Message-ID: <581@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Date: 17 Jan 90 12:18:06 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> <256@dg.dg.com> <1990Jan15.144928.6705@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: University of Southampton, UK Lines: 34 mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: >In article <256@dg.dg.com> uunet!dg!rec (Robert Cousins) writes: >>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 >> >>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? >> > ^^ >You have the word wrong. It is "up", as in "throw up", which is >what people did when looking at one of those. We had a couple. >UTTER GARBAGE. I watched IBM demo them - their machine wouldn't run >for quite a while, and they never were able to get it to take >data from the device it was connected to, nor to print anything. >The delivered products were worse than useless. >The problems probably had little if anything to do with the processor, >and a lot to do with the programming. Also, this was a rather >independent IBM division. >Doug McDonald Ha Ha Ha! I remember Personal Computer World reviewed it and said that they thought it would be the next IBM PC!