Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!harvard!talcott!lotto
From: lotto@talcott.UUCP (Jerry Lotto)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? Not what you think
Message-ID: <544@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 12:22:29 EST
Article-I.D.: talcott.544
Posted: Fri Nov 22 12:22:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Nov-85 06:16:56 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> <4467@mordor.UUCP>
Organization: Harvard Univ. Chem. Dept.
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.micro:12811 net.arch:2151
Summary: The chip probably was NOT the issue


Who thinks that the 8088 was chosen for it's architecture?
I would be surprised if that was the main consideration.
The "task force" that designed the machine was concerned with
time to market. At that time, I doubt IBM would have seriously
entertained the possibility of establishing UNIX as a microcomputer
standard and they did not want to cut the profitability of their
minicomputer line with smaller compatible systems. The only thing
to do was to write a new op sys or take a little known existing
system and promote the heck out of it.
-- 

Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept.

 UUCP:  {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!lhasa!lotto
 ARPA:  lotto@harvard.EDU
 CSNET: lotto%harvard@csnet-relay