Xref: utzoo comp.misc:1856 comp.sys.m68k:735 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11486
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!gatech!uflorida!codas!mtune!whuts!picuxa!gp
From: gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: The New Chips
Message-ID: <475@picuxa.UUCP>
Date: 5 Feb 88 20:46:53 GMT
References: <4746@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1430@husc2.UUCP> <4227@utai.UUCP> <2129@pdn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Parsippany NJ
Lines: 19
Keywords: Intel IBM
Summary: once again...

In article <2129@pdn.UUCP>, larry@pdn.UUCP (Larry Swift) writes:
> 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.
> 
> You're both right.  IBM did not own a majority of Intel, but owned (owns?)
> a significant block of Intel's stock.

We are not both right.  IBM began using the Intel stuff before they had any
(financial) interest in Intel.  After a while, IBM bought about 10 percent of
Intel stock.  Since then, I believe (although I'm not sure) that IBM has sold
some or all of it's Intel stock.



Greg Pasquariello
ihnp4!picuxa!Tinman!gpasq