It didn't hurt that when IBM decide to go with the 8088 they bought
something like 12.5% of Intel's stock.
On 11/16/2024 7:37 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 11/16/24 16:24, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
So, Intel went with the "quick fix"
rather than the long-term good.
Okay, I vass dere and know what we were being told
by Intel marketing in
the late 70s. The 8086 was not intended to be the eventual migration
target for larger-scale applications. Similar claims can be made for
the 80186--it was mostly intended for embedded applications.
The thing that was supposed to be the architecture to hang one's hat on
was the iAPX432. Intel's "Clean Slate" which was a horrible flop.
Another "clean slate" was the i860; my i860 reference manual has a
statement by BillG saying that MS intended to develop for that platform.
It seems that every time that Intel tries to do development from a
tabula rasa, they get burned. Witness Itanium/IA64.
The thing that saved Intel's bacon on several occasions was their
liberal licensing. Would we even have had the IBM 5150 if there weren't
a pile of second sources for the 8088? My early 5150 had an AMD CPU in it.
--Chuck