Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!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: <1990Oct26.013646.29735@amd.com>
Date: 26 Oct 90 01:36:46 GMT
References: <1990Oct19.232725.4421@amd.com> <2780@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <2592@cirrusl.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 15

In article <2592@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
|The real problem with Zilog was that it wasn't able
|to deliver debugged chips in quantities, and perhaps that its marketing
|wasn't as good as that of Motorola.  The smart designers picked the
|68000, the dumb designers picked the 8086, and nobody picked the
|Z8000.  Some time later AMD switched to the 8086 camp, and the Intel vs
|AMD fiasco began later.)

You write this as though the Z8000 had died and then AMD went looking
for something else and picked the 8086. In fact, Intel came to
AMD seeking help because of IBM's demand for a viable, high volume
second source.

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