Xref: utzoo comp.sys.m68k:777 comp.sys.ibm.pc:12237
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!orca!tekecs!frip!andrew
From: andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: No 68k in IBM PC
Message-ID: <9783@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Date: 22 Feb 88 16:49:45 GMT
References: <4227@utai.UUCP> <1029@edge.UUCP> <2167@tekred.TEK.COM> <3138@phri.UUCP> <1094@oakhill.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@tekecs.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon
Lines: 16

[]

	"The 68000 didn't end up in the IBM pc, much as we would have
	liked to have had it, because, as someone correctly pointed
	out: it wasnt available in the time frame that IBM needed and
	they thought that the 6809 didnt have enough performance."

I think the explanations I heard during the PC's introduction were more
telling: the 8088 assembler is close to source code compatible with the
8080, so a large body of CP/M software could be quickly ported to the
PC.  There was quite a bit of established 8-bit software in 1981 (e.g.,
Wordstar, dBASE, the Microsoft languages) which popped up in 8088 code
very quickly ... usually with the same quirks and bugs.

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew)       [UUCP]
                        (andrew%tekecs.tek.com@relay.cs.net)   [ARPA]