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