Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site steinmetz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000?
Message-ID: <337@steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 15:11:40 EST
Article-I.D.: steinmet.337
Posted: Tue Dec 10 15:11:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Dec-85 20:32:02 EST
References: <25@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen)
Organization: GE CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 11
Summary: 


One of the good *technical* reasons for the choice of the 8088 over the 68000
has not been posted (here, at least). That is code size. The 68k uses 2 bytes
for everything, while the 8088 uses 1 byte for most instructions. Due to the
cost of (a) memory, and (b) disk at the time the machine was designed, I have
to feel that this was a reasonable decision.
-- 
	billD	(..seismo!rochester!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen)
		(davidsen@GE-CRD.ARPA)

"It seemed like a good idea at the time..."