Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!sun!calma!radzy
From: radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <62@calma.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Nov-85 21:26:47 EST
Article-I.D.: calma.62
Posted: Sat Nov 16 21:26:47 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Nov-85 07:57:59 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp>
Reply-To: radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz)
Organization: GE/Calma Co., R&D Systems Engineering, Milpitas, CA
Lines: 37

In article <435@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>Any processor IBM chose would end up outselling the others 10:1

In article <6386@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>IBM is out to make money.  When they choose a device, they
>try to make the best choice they can.  So you have to say
>that  ...  the 8086 was the best choice AT THE TIME.

What you say is correct, but the inferences you make are
not.  IBM is out to make money.  This means that IBM will
make the best choice they can *FROM THE MARKETING POINT OF
VIEW*.  The technical issues come up *after* IBM has decided
what kind of product to make.

In this case, IBM chose to make an 8-bit system for cost
reasons before they chose the 8088.  That is the main reason
that I, at least, consider the IBM-PC a flop.  By the way,
the 68000 was out a short while before the 808x came out.
The reason IBM didn't chose that beast was that IBM was stuck
on an 8-bit system -- they didn't think people would be
willing to pay the extra $800 (or so) for a 16-bitter.

>So how come no one complains about the wimpy 6502 in Apple IIs? What is
>this selective myopia? I think you're all just a bunch of IBM-phobes.

Probably we are all "just a bunch of IBM-phobes", however,
you should consider the popularity of the IBM-PC v.s. the
popularity of the Apple II.  Then, you'll know why we aren't
complaining about the partial processor in the Apple II.  For
your information, if IBM had chosen the 6502, 6809, 8080,
8085, or a bunch of other losers, we would be griping just as
much (or more -- after all, those chips are far worse than
the 808x).
-- 
Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage
	calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA
	{ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy