Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: AMD vs. Intel Arbitration
Message-ID: <1990Oct22.213529.21911@amd.com>
Date: 22 Oct 90 21:35:29 GMT
References: <1416@msa3b.UUCP> <1990Oct19.232725.4421@amd.com> <2780@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 13

In article <2780@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
|In article <1990Oct19.232725.4421@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|| To begin with, IBM would not use a single sourced uP in the IBM PC.
|| Suppose IBM had chosen the Z8000 or better yet, the 68K? Where would
|| Intel be today?
|
|  a) Intel has more than one fab line if one fails

All that would be moot if IBM had refused to use a single sourced
8088 in the original IBM PC.

--
The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.