Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch Subject: Re: Intel and IBM Message-ID: <918@terak.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 12:13:30 EST Article-I.D.: terak.918 Posted: Wed Nov 20 12:13:30 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 06:53:10 EST References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> <6139@utzoo.UUCP> <426@ecn-pc.UUCP> <427@ecn-pc.UUCP> Organization: Calcomp Display Products Division, Scottsdale, AZ, USA Lines: 52 Xref: watmath net.micro:12825 net.arch:2160 > IBM chose Intel for business, not technical, reasons. Hold on a moment. There seems to be a common belief that International Business Machines management decided one day to build a Personal Computer, one which would take over the small computer world, and that they chose the 8088 as the CPU for that machine. It ain't so. A version of history which is closer to the truth: A small start-up company in Boca Raton, Florida decided that they wanted to get into the booming microcomputer market. They designed a machine based on an 8088. At that time, I doubt that they even *considered* a 68000 because a) the 68000 was a 16-bit CPU, meaning that they would need a 16-bit bus and 16-bit peripherals (if you don't think that this was important to them, then why didn't they use the 8086?); b) the 68000 cost many times more than the 8088; c) the Motorola folks believed (at that time) that 68000's shouldn't be used for measly little microcomputers, but rather for $50,000+ systems, and wouldn't supply samples or support to small outfits; d) the only compilers and operating systems available for the 68000 cost more *per copy* than the whole machine was going to sell for, and given Motorola's stance this wasn't likely to change soon. At about the same time, IBM management was deciding that they needed to have a new "bottom end" computer. Nothing fancy, they weren't really going to sell many -- it was just for image (the same way the 370/195 was for image). Customers like to see a "full spectrum" of computers available. IBM bought the Boca Raton start-up, and started selling the "PC". This was *not* what we think of as a PC today. It was a 16K, cassette-based computer. But contrary to IBM's plan to have a low-volume 16K cassette-based computer, a whole lot of businessmen bought the thing and found out that they could add disk drives and a lot of memory, and it could do some useful things. Software writers jumped in the fray, and PC sales took off. IBM deserves great credit in that they did not try to limit the PC's sales in order to protect their other products such as the Displaywriter. (If you think that this would be perfectly obvious, consider that IBM later purposely made the PCjr unexpandable and with a useless keyboard in order to protect the PC, and that Apple has done much to try to kill off the Apple ][ which they think is cutting into their ability to sell Macs). IBM never planned to build "the PC that took over the world." And they didn't pick the 8088. Don't blame/thank IBM for the commercial success of the Intel-based architecture; Motorola did it to themselves with their snooty attitude about the "proper" applications for the 68000. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug