Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!amdcad!sun!imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Isaac_K_Rabinovitch
From: Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: What Intel had that nobody else did when PC was designed
Message-ID: <595@cup.portal.com>
Date: Wed, 12-Aug-87 21:44:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: cup.595
Posted: Wed Aug 12 21:44:39 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 07:44:02 EDT
References: <234@etn-rad.UUCP> <4680001@hprndli.HP> <3233@zen.berkeley.edu> <294@octopus.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 15
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.1472


pete@octopus.uucp says:
>(a bunch of reasons why IBM was never interested in CP/M compatibility)

Actually, IBM offered *three* OSs with the first PCs, including CP/M.  But
MS-DOS was half the price of the other two.  What clinched it for MS-DOS
was all those applications developers writing for it.

I get the impression that IBM didn't even think about system software when
they were planning the PC.  Legend has it that they didn't start looking
until a few months before release, that Digital Research didn't return their
calls, and that Bill Gates didn't even buy Seattle DOS (which was then just
a CP/M clone) until after he'd promised IBM an OS.

IBM is like the proverberial Grizzly Bear.  Grandpa, why is there Grizzly
Bear sleeping on your front porch.  Son, you ask it, I'm not gonna.