Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site polaris.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!polaris!josh From: josh@polaris.UUCP (Josh Knight) Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch Subject: Re: Intel and IBM (really history of IBM PC) Message-ID: <307@polaris.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 22:24:41 EST Article-I.D.: polaris.307 Posted: Sun Nov 24 22:24:41 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 08:04:32 EST References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> Reply-To: josh@polaris.UUCP (Josh Knight) Followup-To: net.micro Distribution: net Organization: IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, N.Y. Lines: 72 Keywords: IBM Intel Xref: watmath net.micro:12875 net.arch:2184 In article <918@terak.UUCP>, Doug Pardee (doug@terak.UUCP) writes > > IBM chose Intel for business, not technical, reasons. > > Hold on a moment. There seems to be a common belief that... > ... > A small start-up company in Boca Raton, Florida decided... > ... > At about the same time, IBM management was deciding that they needed to > have a new "bottom end" computer. ... > ... > 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... > ... > 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 ... > ... In article <397@ukc.UUCP>, Michael Fischer (mf1@ukc.UUCP) writes: > 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. ... > ... Both of these "histories" of the IBM PC are basically wrong. The development of the PC was internal to IBM, but done in an "Independent Business Unit". This is supposed to be as close to an independent company as possible, given that IBM provides all the financing and staff. The PC development effort was headed up by a long time (joined in 1959) IBMer, Philip D. Estridge. He was was killedin an airline crash last August (along with his wife and several other IBMers, the crash made the business section of the New York times), after he had left what had become IBM's Entry Systems Division to become IBM vice president for manufacturing. ESD (sometimes jokingly called Estridge Systems Division before his untimely death) is now a significant part of IBM's business, and now includes things that weren't part of the original PC effort. I don't know whether there is an "official" history of the development of the PC, but I'm pretty sure that the above "histories" bear no particular relation to reality. In article <790@umd5.UUCP> Ben Cranston (zben@umd5.UUCP) writes: > What makes you think technical considerations had *anything* to do with it? > Is our memory so short we forget the big cross-licensing agreement that IBM > and Intel signed ten years ago? Intel got access to all IBM's magnetic > bubble work (:-) and IBM got access to the 80xx design and masks. And I > think a hefty piece of Intel too. The acquisition of a significant fraction of Intel's outstanding stock (my memory is about 10% with an option to purchase more up to 30%, but I'm hardly sure about this) occurred substantially after the PC was established not, as suggested, "ten years ago". As usual, any opinions (expressed or implied) or errors are mine, not my employer's. -- Josh Knight, IBM T.J. Watson Research josh at YKTVMH on BITNET, josh.yktvmh@ibm-sj on CSnet, ...!philabs!polaris!josh