Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!parcvax!burton
From: burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Philip M. Burton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Intel Microprocessors
Message-ID: <432@parcvax.Xerox.COM>
Date: Mon, 17-Aug-87 01:10:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: parcvax.432
Posted: Mon Aug 17 01:10:53 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Aug-87 06:38:36 EDT
References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM> <399@aucs.UUCP> <3225@cucca.columbia.edu> <892@looking.UUCP> <79@LBI.UUCP>
Reply-To: burton@parcvax.xerox.com.UUCP (Philip M. Burton)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Lines: 26

In article <79@LBI.UUCP> bobc@LBI.UUCP (Robert Cain) writes:
>> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
>
>	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.

No, that's all horsepucky, at least for the successful programmers.  They
write to the architecture, but to the installed base and sales figures.

Programmers always have and always will write to IBM because of its installed
base, and its ability to penetrate a market.  (Remember the "PC" market in
1981.  Z80 was IT, and it ran CP/M.  Is either a factor today?)

Programmers MAY write to other systems if the above conditions can be met.
So, we have programmers writing for Mac's and Amigas.  But who writes for
the Coleco Adam or the Microsoft MSX system, or even for UNIX (sorry, no
flames, I love UNIX, but there's lots more application software for PC's
running DOS than running UNIX.)

-- 
Philip Burton
Xerox Corporation    408 737 4635
 ... usual disclaimers apply ...