Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!decwrl!nsc!amos
From: amos@nsc.nsc.com (Amos Shapir)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IBM PC prehistory
Message-ID: <13504@nsc.nsc.com>
Date: 9 Jan 90 00:01:29 GMT
References: <1546@aber-cs.UUCP> <33896@mips.mips.COM> <21559@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <1989Dec30.235854.14254@world.std.com> <10131@microsoft.UUCP> <250@dg.dg.com> <129994@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: National Semiconductor,  Santa Clara
Lines: 22

In article <129994@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> kenobi@sun.UUCP (Rick Kwan - Sun Intercon) writes:
>I have often wondered what would happen if IBM had chosen the 68000
>instead of 8088/8086, and tailored a their own simple OS to run on
>it?
...
>    1.	68000/UNIX would have found it very difficult to sell against
>	a 68000/simple-IBM-OS.  (Not enough perceived product
>	differentiation.)

Quite the contrary - Unix made its way into the PC market *despite* the fact
that it needed 68k-like architecture, not *because* of it.  Its main
advantage over DOS is the sophisticated user interface; the fact that
it's hard to put UNIX on a 86-like architecture was an undesirable
side effect.  If IBM had chosen an architecture that was easier to
put UNIX on, there would have been a lot more hardware to spread UNIX
around on, and the domination of UNIX-based workstation would have started
much earlier.

-- 
	Amos Shapir				My other CPU is a NS32532
National Semiconductor, 2900 semiconductor Dr., Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090
amos@nsc.com or amos%taux01@nsc.com