Re: Stolen designs

In article <44905f8c$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, david@xxxxxxxxx says...
dagmargoodboat@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Keith wrote:
In article <59ru829m1p0u7iui8luip9tibt5sh4dq0c@xxxxxxx>,
gfretwell@xxxxxxx says...
On 13 Jun 2006 21:08:21 +0200, David <david@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:19:01 GMT, mzenier@xxxxxxxxxx (Mark Zenier)
wrote:


Microsoft was a half a dozen guys eating Pizza in Albuquerque, and
IBM was in full "we invent everything we need" mode back when the 8086
was cooked up.
It always seemed to me that both Microsoft and Intel were out of the
mainstream of computing, which is why we wound up locked into the
bizarre, short-sighted kluges we have today. If IBM had picked the 68K
and Digital Research...

John


The IBM engineers wanted the 68k - it was vastly better suited for the
job. But some suit decided the 68k was too expensive, and the 8088 was
cheaper. It didn't matter that it was old-fashioned and a poor design
even when it was made, since they didn't plan on selling more than a few
thousand machines anyway. The original PC was just a marketing
experiment, to help find out what the market really needed - then they
would re-design it with a sensible choice of processor.
The strange thing is IBM had plenty of 68k experience. It was the
engine in a lot of IBM custom built test equipment and the Personal
Terminal (an 80s version of the blackberry) that every field guy
carried was 68k based.
Intel was selected for business reasons, not technical ones, nor
price.

--
Keith

Yes, the "business reasons" being that Motorola wasn't
delivering--and kept slipping--the debut of the 68008. I was designing
an RTU (Remote Terminal Unit) at exactly that time, and was forced to
the 8088--against my will and preference--for the same reason.

James Arthur


Failure to deliver is a valid technical reason - the IBM decision to
pick the 8088 was not for such important reasons. A main part of it was
price, but there were probably other "political" reasons too. The
technical guys did not want a 68008 either - they wanted a 68000 with
the full 16-bit databus.

It doesn't mater squat what the geeks wanted. They weren't getting
Moto. Price had nothing to do with it.

--
Keith
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Non-GPL export of invalidate_mmap_range
    ... > I don't understand why IBM is pushing this dubious change right now, ... on technical grounds. ... Just as it is reasonable for the filesystem to be ... is sufficient grounds, but for real-world reasons:) ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: IBM discoveries Charge Back...
    ... my understanding that while it is true that IBM has not had anything to ... Tom Kelman ... I don't wish to second guess their reasons but IIRC the reason of cost in & storage of such data is expensive. ...
    (bit.listserv.ibm-main)
  • Re: Formal requests (was Installing/Updating SVC)
    ... is a member of SHARE have read access to the database. ... The reasons ... are simple and yet it would benefit IBM and SHARE members alike. ... For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, ...
    (bit.listserv.ibm-main)
  • Re: Stolen designs
    ... IBM was in full "we invent everything we need" mode back when the 8086 ... Intel was selected for business reasons, not technical ones, nor ... an RTU (Remote Terminal Unit) at exactly that time, ... A main part of it was price, but there were probably other "political" reasons too. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Raining Data Financials Unreliable
    ... If you were an IT Manager, and had chosen an IBM product, which IBM then ... Dealer Management Service Ltd ... fluffy big-blue IBM feel.... ... Please don't let any of my reasons put anybody off. ...
    (comp.databases.pick)