Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!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: <1990Oct26.013920.261@amd.com>
Date: 26 Oct 90 01:39:20 GMT
References: <2780@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Oct22.213529.21911@amd.com> <2787@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 14

In article <2787@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
|  IBM wanted to be sure that there was acceptance of their system, so
|they allowed it to be reasonably compatible with the best PC operating
|system of the time, CP/M. Many applications could be mechanically
|rewritten from 8080 assembler to 8088 assembler, and gotten running in a
|very short time.

Intel's own Andy Grove said they were "lucky" to get the IBM PC.
They did not have a sure design win just because of CP/M.


--
This article contains my opinions and does not represent the views
of the company.