Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zds-ux!gerry
From: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IBM PC prehistory
Message-ID: <73@zds-ux.UUCP>
Date: 28 Dec 89 23:19:44 GMT
References: <21559@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <76700097@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1957@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <47076@sgi.sgi.com>
Reply-To: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Organization: Zenith Data Systems
Lines: 22

In article <47076@sgi.sgi.com> bruceh@brushwud.sgi.com (Bruce R. Holloway) writes:
>In article <1957@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes:
>>   Since I don't have access to IBM thinking at that time I can't say
>> your last statement is wrong, but since small memory parts were
>> available at that time (and cheaply), it would be easy to make smaller
>> expansion boards. I doubt that IBM was worried about how SMALL they
>> could go.

>I didn't mean that IBM cared about implementing memory with 4Kx8's or
>'374's or whatever, only that back when 64Kx8 or 256Kx8 of DRAM was
>still somewhat expensive, it would be a significant economic advantage
>to be able to buy only that much, instead of having to spring for 64Kx16
>or 256Kx16.  Still speculation on my part--I never worked for 'em.

Only that at the time, 64kx1 DRAM's were pretty new, and the original
PC's were socketted for 16kx1 chips, so the memory increment argument
does not work.

I don't know why, but there was a significant price differential between
8088's and 8086's.

Gerry Gleason