Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!esf00 From: esf00@amdahl.UUCP (Elliott S. Frank) Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch Subject: Re: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? Not what you think Re: 386 Family Products Message-ID: <2355@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 13:12:45 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.2355 Posted: Mon Dec 9 13:12:45 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 21:04:31 EST References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> <6139@utzoo.UUCP> <426@ecn-pc.UUCP> <959@homxb.UUCP> Organization: Society for Megalithic Iron Lines: 34 Xref: linus net.micro:11784 net.arch:2055 [...urp...] Some more history that seems to have gotten overlooked.... Long before the IBM PC hit your local Byte shop (remember them...?) I was involved in the design and implementation of a microprocessor based system. We ended up with an 8086 and a homebrew bus since 1) we could use the Intel (8085-based) MDS (the "blue box") for 8086 development and support. 2) the 8086 had software (specifically, a Pascal compiler and an assembler) that we could use. We were not (then) concerned with software quality. The concern was having tools available for the development engineers to use. 3) the 8086 could use 8080/8085/Z-80 (8-bit!!!) peripheral chips. 4) we could get everything (software, development support tools, etc.) in the timeframe that we needed to support our [very aggressive] product schedule. At the time, the 68000 did not have e v e r y t h i n g available. By the time the IBM PC hit the streets, the 8086 and 8086 tools had been proven in a large number of embedded 16-bit microprocessor products. The 8088 was the 8086 with the 8-bit peripheral/16-bit processor bus problem "solved". The IBM PC represented the packaging of the most common solution available at the time. Elliott S Frank ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!esf00 (408) 746-6384 [the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's]