Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:19260 comp.sys.mac:20456
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!oberon!eve.usc.edu!mlinar
From: mlinar@eve.usc.edu (Mitch Mlinar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: A plot against IBM?
Message-ID: <12213@oberon.USC.EDU>
Date: 17 Sep 88 03:03:51 GMT
References: <3959@bsu-cs.UUCP> <6281@xanth.cs.odu.edu>
Sender: news@oberon.USC.EDU
Reply-To: mlinar@eve.usc.edu (Mitch Mlinar)
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 20

In article <6281@xanth.cs.odu.edu> rlb@cs.odu.edu (Robert Lee Bailey) writes:
>
>I don't know about Compaq and the others, but, Tandy just released a
>PS/2 compatible and according to what I've read, Tandy was licensed by
>IBM to do so.  Since its unlikely that Tandy would release a new
>micro-channel machine and then say they won't support its architecture,
>I wouldn't put too much faith in that rumor.
>

It is not a rumor.  It is fact and has already happened with the bus standard
signing up nearly 40 companies including AST Research, Compaq, Tandy, Intel,
Zenith, etc.

The standard is just that.  It does not say what you can/cannot do with other
machines you have (which in the case of Tandy was done long before this
standard - why toss out an existing product?).  It just says that this is a
bus standard that you won't have to pay IBM to license and are assured that
if you put something out in non-MCA, there is an predefined architecture that
is supported by others.

-Mitch