Xref: utzoo comp.misc:1900 comp.sys.m68k:755 comp.sys.mac:12582 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11801
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!flatline!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: The New Chips
Message-ID: <1446@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 88 19:22:27 GMT
References: <4746@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1430@husc2.UUCP> <4227@utai.UUCP> <462@picuxa.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 14
Keywords: Intel IBM

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 did _not_ own Intel.

For that matter IBM didn't design the IBM-PC. It burst fully fleshed from Zeus'
head... uh... Seattle Computer Products.

Anyone have the complete story on how the IBM-PC really came about. The
original hardware and DOS came from the aforementioned company (modulo typos),
but how close was the original IBM-PC to its predecessor?
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.