Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ibmchs!auschs!awdprime!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron
From: ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IBM PC prehistory
Keywords: IBM bought stake much later and has since sold it!
Message-ID: <1255@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jan 90 20:08:18 GMT
References: <5946@alvin.mcnc.org> <1546@aber-cs.UUCP> <33896@mips.mips.COM> <21559@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP
Reply-To: @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron
Organization: IBM-Austin, AWD
Lines: 19

In article <5946@alvin.mcnc.org>, mjt@mcnc.org (Michael Tighe) writes:
|>In article <21559@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> seeger@manatee.cis.ufl.edu 
|>(F. L. Charles Seeger III) writes:
|>> I think that IBM choose Intel for largely business reasons...
|>At the time, IBM owned a large percentage of Intel stock (> 20%). Because
|>of this, It is unlikely they would have gone to another chip maker.

I wasn't part of IBM back then, but I do know that the stake in
Intel(~19%+ option to buy more?) was purchased at a much later date,
so the real reason appears to have been cost. The 8088 was the
cheapest thing with 16-bit internal registers that was available in
quantity at the time.

					Ron

+-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+
+------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+
+ Ronald S. Woan  (IBM VNET)WOAN AT AUSTIN, (AUSTIN)ron@woan.austin.ibm.com +
+ outside of IBM       @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron +