Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdahl!drivax!socha
From: socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (7-x6628))
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microprocessors
Message-ID: <2769@drivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Nov-87 13:52:15 EST
Article-I.D.: drivax.2769
Posted: Mon Nov 30 13:52:15 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Dec-87 04:42:13 EST
References: <2175@tekig5.TEK.COM> <1026@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <2530@calmasd.GE.COM> <1818@epiwrl.EPI.COM> <1921@chinet.UUCP>
Reply-To: socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (7-x6628))
Organization: Digital Research, Monterey, CA
Lines: 24
Keywords: Intel, Motorola
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.mac:10475 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10652

[RE: the recent flames (OOPS:-) discussion about why IBM picked the 8088 and not
the 68000 for the IBM-PC.
	Many reasons were given including the one below.]

In article <1921@chinet.UUCP> ignatz@chinet.UUCP (Dave Ihnat) writes:
>Actually, I also remember that they came out with the 68000, but the
>support chips--most especially, the MMU--didn't come out until later,
>thus crippling its initial penetration of the market...
>			Dave Ihnat

OK, there are at least 3 Motorolans on the net in the MAC group
that I know of who were are Motorola when IBM came around asking about
the future IBM-PC.  They would know the timing.
They would have first hand knowledge about why/when Motorola didn't sell
IBM on the 68000  (or 6809 for that matter.  It's timing was almost right.)

Now, my knowledge is second hand. So I would rather they do it.

OK you SuperConductor's   Say IT!


-- 
UUCP:...!amdahl!drivax!socha                                      WAT Iron'75
"Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler."  A. Einstein