Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!ur-tut!aptr
From: aptr@ur-tut (The Wumpus)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: NuBus
Message-ID: <2255@ur-tut.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jul 88 22:39:30 GMT
References: <26.22CD76D1@ankh.UUCP>
Reply-To: aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (The Wumpus)
Organization: Univ. of Rochester Computing Center
Lines: 41

In article <26.22CD76D1@ankh.UUCP> Frank_Hill@ankh.UUCP (Frank Hill) writes:
>
>  The TI NuBus, already adopted by Apple, would provide an 
>ideal buss architecture and allow the manufacture of boards with an 
>incredibly large potential market base....


I can see it now.  IBM brings out a 80386 based machine using the
NuBus, a mouse, keyboard, two 3.5 inch drives, and a high resolution
color monitor.  What does Apple do?  It sues IBM over the
look-and-feel of the Mac II claiming that it was the first to
introduce a PC with a mouse, a keyboard, 2 3.5" drives, a color
monitor, and the NuBus, and that it holds the copyrights on all
machines with similar equipment :-)

Actually, I understand the reason that IBM moved to a new bus system,
but I still don't know why they had to create yet another standard.
There are many good bus systems that work for high speed computers
with multiprocessing capability.  Among these are such systems as the
NuBus, the VME Bus, and the MultiBus.

Another question that deserves consideration is why did IBM ever come
up with the orginal bus system in the PCs and the one in the AT.  At
the time of the PC's creation, there was already a very widely
accepted bus standard, the S-100 bus.  Even today, S-100 bus systems
can still be found.  When IBM introduced the AT bus, they completely
ignored the 16 bit bus developed by Olivetti.  The Olivetti bus system
for its M24 (AT&T 6300, Xerox 6064) kept the standard PC style 8-bit
bus, but extended it to a full 16 bits.  Olivetti also was the first
to tackle the problem of 16 bit writes to an 8bit bus.  They solved
the problem by sending data out in high order-low order format like it
is stored in code, IBM chose the other method.

So, am I really suprised that when it came time to move up to a better
bus system that IBM chose to once again to create their own system? No.

-- 
The Wumpus        UUCP:   {cmcl2!decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!aptr
                  BITNET: aptrccss@uorvm
		  Internet: aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu
Disclaimer: "Who? When? Me? It was the Booze!"  - M. Binkley