Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site orsvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!orsvax1!drew
From: drew@orsvax1.UUCP (Drew Lucy)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.followup
Subject: Re: Time for a change (Really why Intel stays in business)
Message-ID: <279@orsvax1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Jun-86 09:26:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: orsvax1.279
Posted: Fri Jun  6 09:26:10 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Jun-86 03:46:10 EDT
References: <27600001@okstate.UUCP> <425@quad1.UUCP>
Organization: ORS Automation, Inc., Princeton, NJ
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.micro:14790 net.followup:6561

>     In my opinion, the PC-XT-AT steps came too quick to be anything but a 
> 'Grab the business world by their check books' marketing ploy.  At the time
> of the release of the PC, the 80286 was available, and could have been used.
> But, no there was too much money to be made if IBM used the XT as the first
> step up, and then the AT.
 

I was Product Manager at Intel at the time of the IBM PC's introduction. 
Believe me, the i80286 was not even close to being available at that time, let
alone back when the PC was being designed. I don't know why IBM selected the
8086 family of CPUs but, I'd guess they did it for the same reasons that the 
vast majority of companies chose Intel over Motorola. Back in 1981 and 1982,
when these choices were being made, Motorola did not have their CPU support
chip act together. Intel got most of their design wins by getting the 
customer's hardware engineers on their side. The hardware guys then dragged 
the programmers along kicking and screaming. Intel also made a superior
marketing effort. Anybody out there ever here of Operation CRUSH? Anyway, by
the time Motorola got their support chips on the market, it was too late. Too
large a commitment to 8086 had already been made.

							Drew Lucy