Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!amdahl!dlb!Eridani!LBI!bobc
From: bobc@LBI.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Intel Microprocessors
Message-ID: <79@LBI.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Aug-87 12:29:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: LBI.79
Posted: Fri Aug 14 12:29:27 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Aug-87 21:48:46 EDT
References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM> <399@aucs.UUCP> <3225@cucca.columbia.edu> <892@looking.UUCP>
Organization: LBI, San Jose, CA.
Lines: 37
Summary: FLAME ON

In article <892@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> 
> You folks astound me.  What world do you live in?
> 
> In the real world, there are lots of other constraints in choosing a
> chip than what the architecture looks like to software.
> 
> The appearance of the architecture is important, but it's only one of
> several constraints.  It is for the other constraints that IBM selected the
> 8088, and I have yet to see a serious argument as to how they could have
> selected the 68000 at the time.
> -- 
> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

	Users are constantly told to evaluate their needs, find out which
software packages meet those requirements, and buy the machine that runs
the software.

	Clearly then it is users who dictate market conditions for
choice of software.

	Clearly it is programmers, who generate the software, to dictate 
what the hardware should architecture should and should not provide.

	The one headache we could all have lived without, is segment registers,
and nothing Intel can say or do will ever change that fact.

	In fact IBM chose Intel because they were a good takeover target
at the time. Not because Intel had any handle on the marketplace at large.

	In one fell swoop, IBM released an inferior  machine that became a
standard , and saved Intel from going broke. Aren't we forever greatful
to BIG BLUE.

Oh BIG BLUE if only you would have known the Frankinstein you created!

..!dlb!ERidani!LBI!bobc