Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 +MMDF+2.11; site ukc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!mcvax!ukc!mf1
From: mf1@ukc.UUCP (Michael Fischer)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? Not what you think Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <397@ukc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Nov-85 10:37:38 EST
Article-I.D.: ukc.397
Posted: Sat Nov 23 10:37:38 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 07:14:46 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp>
Reply-To: mf1@eagle.UUCP (Michael Fischer)
Organization: U of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UK
Lines: 10
Xref: watmath net.micro:12832 net.arch:2165

If one remembers, IBM didn't choose anything.  When the IBM micro
was announced, IBM officals were falling all over themselves to deny that
they would support the machine at all.

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I have my micro-mythology wrong, but I recall
that the IBM-PC was created by a friend of the son of the District Manager
of IBM in Boca Roca Florida, who managed to get IBM to reluctantly put 
their name on it as an experiment. Even if this "origin myth" is wrong,
the IBM-PC was an outside product sold to IBM.  IBM bought shares in Intel
somewhat later, after the machine sold.