Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!dennisg
From: dennisg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Dennis Griesser)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <2470@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 16:57:25 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2470
Posted: Wed Nov 20 16:57:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 07:33:02 EST
Reply-To: dennisg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Dennis Griesser)
Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.micro:12830 net.arch:2163

In article <6386@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>Now Peter, this is begging the question. Remember, 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 either IBM is a twit, which I won't accept for
>a company as successful as they are, or that the 8086 was the best
>choice AT THE TIME. Sure we have better choices now, but that's irrelevant.

A lousy argument.  In logic class, they called this the fallacy of "appeal
to authority".  It can be summarized "X said this, and X is always right,
so this must be true."

What I do not doubt is that IBM did indeed make the best choice.  However my
definition of "best" may not match yours or IBM's.

The fact is that IBM is out to make a lot of money.  In this case, the best
choice of a CPU is one that makes them the most money.  There are quite a few
trade-offs to be considered, including:  actual performance, customer
perception of the product, and manufacturing price.

I have no idea what factors were included in this decision or how they were
weighted.  But what would have happened if IBM had been offered a somewhat less
than state-of-the-art CPU, in quantity, for an absurdly low price?  Most of the
personal computers in the world might be running CP/M-80!
-- 
[Standard disclaimers apply.]