Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 (Fortune 01.1b1); site graffiti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter
From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <435@graffiti.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Nov-85 23:02:09 EST
Article-I.D.: graffiti.435
Posted: Wed Nov 13 23:02:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Nov-85 05:34:32 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> <2353@ukma.UUCP> <6112@utzoo.UUCP> <420@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 19
Xref: linus net.micro:11474 net.arch:1893

> AW, COME ON HENRY! Although the the 8080/8088/8086/80186/80286 doesn't have a 
> sensuous organization like the 68000/68020, only a twit would say INTEL
> botched it considering the 10 to 1 ratio between Intel and Motorola shipped

I must be a twit. The success of Intel can be spelled in 3 letters: I, B,
and M. Any processor IBM chose would end up outselling the others 10:1 or
more simply because IBM has the premier marketing department.

> right.... Even MOTOROLA would admit that.  Now Henry, be nice to those poor
> INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,.........

Oh, you noticed. There is no way that I'm going to be nice to people
responsible, even indirectly, for making the IBM-PC the de-facto standard
microcomputer in the US. That's damning by faint praise if ever I heard it.
-- 
Name: Peter da Silva
Graphic: `-_-'
UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter
IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter