Xref: utzoo comp.sys.m68k:692 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10985
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utai!tjhorton
From: tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: The New Chips
Message-ID: <4232@utai.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jan 88 05:39:41 GMT
References: <4746@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1430@husc2.UUCP> <4227@utai.UUCP> <462@picuxa.UUCP>
Reply-To: tjhorton@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton)
Distribution: na
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 28
Keywords: Intel IBM
Summary: 

In article <462@picuxa.UUCP> gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) writes:
>In article <4227@utai.UUCP>, tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes:
>> IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel.
>			          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Where do you people come from.

IBM.  I've worked for various different operations within the company.

>IBM did _not_ own Intel.

I don't have the exact figures.  I know they bought heavily into Intel.  If
the 20% that has been mentioned is correct, it's a lot more than I own of any
large semiconductor company.  I've been led to believe they owned much more.
And IBM, by NO means, runs without politics.

>It was simply that Intel provided a complete chipset for a personal computer
>whereas most other companies only supplied individual chips (i.e. CPU).

I've designed cards to work in the PC, and I never saw anything special in it.
I'd have to look at the old databooks, but I think you are qualitatively wrong.

My other point was that they could easily have gotten their hands on pre-
production specs for the 80286.  When I was at Bell Northern, we did it
several times (even with Intel, I might add).

Look inside the original PC.  You could have picked a few friends and designed
something better in maybe 3 months.