Xref: utzoo comp.misc:1790 comp.sys.m68k:705 comp.sys.mac:11750 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11174
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!beta!hc!ames!ll-xn!delaney
From: delaney@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (John Delaney)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: The New Chips
Message-ID: <889@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>
Date: 28 Jan 88 15:50:23 GMT
References: <4746@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1430@husc2.UUCP> <883@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> <40222@sun.uucp>
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA
Lines: 21
Summary: IBM interfered with Intel's technical direction

In article <40222@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes:
> Not that Intel did
> anything particularly special for them that I could see. (I worked there
> beteen 83-85.). 

I have heard otherwise from one top technical type at Intel. A project he
was running was killed and others he tried to started were stillborn because
of interference by IBM. He ended up being ordered to stop certain activities
by an executive of IBM, not by Intel's management. I for one am glad to see
IBM out of Intel.

As for my original remark and some comments one it, let me say I knew IBM
firts bought into INTEL after it became a major user of Intel CPUs. But it
is hard to believe that their continuing commitment thereafter was purely
technical in motivation. The question now that IBM has sold out its share
of Intel is whether IBM will continue a high level of commitment to Intel
CPUs, go with another vendor, or user IBM-developed and manufactured CPUs.
I would bet on the last. After all, IBM has some of the best manufacturing
and packaging technology in the world in-house.

John