Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!sun!wdl1!kimery
From: kimery@wdl1.UUCP (Sam Kimery)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 386 PC vs Sun
Message-ID: <1550003@wdl1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 14:17:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: wdl1.1550003
Posted: Wed Oct  1 14:17:09 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 10:27:33 EDT
References: <4104@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Lines: 28

/ wdl1:net.micro / caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) /  2:24 pm  Sep 29, 1986 /
In article <2586@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes:
:	Yes but  it's worse the the 68000 took so long to come out. While
:the teams designing the 68k were backstabbing each other Intel had
:chips. I like the 68k (have one) IBM *would* have used them had they
:been out in time. 

::If the stories of the IBM PC's short design cycle are anywhere near true,
::the 68k was definitely available when the PC design was started.
::
::I suspect IBM chose the 8088 to save some money on chepaer chips and an 8 bit
::bus, and because Bill Gates had told them a ten times jump in memory size would
::be sufficient to differentiate the IBM PC from the 8-bit machines of the time.

The story I heard was that Intel approached IBM with a computer design
and managed to sell IBM the desigh for the PC.  The design time for the
PC was MUCH smaller than ANY other project at IBM.  This makes the story
even easier to believe.

			Sam Kimery
			kimery@ford-wdl1
			sun!wdl1!kimery
			
	"This is all hearsay and in no way resembles an offical statement"
	
	Merry Feast of the Pig.