Xref: utzoo comp.sys.m68k:724 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11361 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!chinet!dag From: dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: The New Chips Message-ID: <2193@chinet.UUCP> Date: 2 Feb 88 18:27:41 GMT References: <4746@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1430@husc2.UUCP> <4227@utai.UUCP> <462@picuxa.UUCP> <4232@utai.UUCP> Reply-To: dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc Distribution: na Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix Lines: 43 Keywords: Intel IBM Summary: A little history lesson/Please move this out of the 68k newsgroup All this talk about IBM using Intel because they owned Intel is absurd! This is from memory, and much may be apocriphal (spelling?), from the time when I was working for a competitor of IBM's and both they and we had not released a personal computer (I'm not counting the IBM 5100.) I believe that IBM was working on what they considered to be a far better personal computer but felt that they had to get into the market ASAP so they would have a presence before their super-duper machine was ready. They looked around and found a small company in {Texas, florida, Arizona, New Mexico, someplace} which was selling a board with an 8088, memory, serial ports, etc. and had CPM/86 running on it. IBM purchased this board/design/company(?) and modified it, adding or modifying the expansion slots (they may not have done this...) and adding the keyboard and video. They created a package around this board with a power supply and did a few other things, then marketed the machine, believing that they would only sell a few thousand in the first year, when their own, much better, non-Intel based machine would be ready. They were shocked at the response to the IBM-PC. It became a monster. There were then stuck with it and the Intel chips. Period. At the same time, DEC introduced a PC based around the 808[86] and an 8085 (or was it a Z80) which ran both CPM/86 and CPM/80, was faster, had higher disk density, was much more reliable, had better video than the monochrome adaptor but was not expandable. This killed it. The open buss architecture of the IBM-PC was not, I believe, IBM's doing, but they benefited from it greatly. The reason that IBM stays with the Intel chips now is simply that the upgrade path must be maintained. If IBM were to introduce a new machine which ran none of the binaries from the machine that it was to replace, they would sell very, very few of them at first. Now, with this all said and done, please move this discussion out of the 68k newsgroup. It's taking over! -- Nobody at the place where I work Daniel A. Glasser knows anything about my opinions ...!ihnp4!chinet!dag my postings, or me for that matter! ...!ihnp4!mwc!dag ...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dag One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night.