Rod Coleman's personal history of founding, building & running SAGE
bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca
Mon Jan 4 11:40:15 CST 2021
On 1/4/2021 10:26 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 at 17:42, Bill Degnan <billdegnan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> A fully provisioned IBM PC / XT in 1981-4 was pretty expensive too, that's why 8-bit machines continued to sell well into the later 80's. 16-bit was overkill for most home needs. Apple would not have survived the 80's without their 8-bit machine sales, and Commodore, Atari, Tandy....
> Definitely true.
> And one thing that interests me is the double factoid:
>  The companies that threw away their 8-bit line and did something
> totally new for their 16-bit lines generally did better, and attempts
> at backwards-compatibility failed
>  For Intel/MICROS~1, who somehow managed to smoothly transition
> from 8/16 → true 16-bit → 32-bit → 64-bit → multi-CPU →
> multi-core/multi-CPU, across multiple expansion buses, memory
> architectures and more...
I say IBM is the winner here. IBM 7030 Stretch gave IBM a design based
on 8 bit bytes, that followed with the IBM 360. Salesman love bytes
because now your 4K of memory (36/48 bits) is 32KB of IBM memory and
time sharing because you can FAKE the need for real memory.
Ben Fan of 36 bits but not the PDP 10.
More information about the cctech