Is there no end - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

15 Dec 2001

In a message dated 12/15/2001 7:18:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
jhellige(a)earthlink.net writes:

<< >That is just right.  Airc, IBM would'nt buy Intel's processor for the
IBM
...
 PC unless Intel had multiple sources. This was to
ensure supply to IBM if
Intel's plants were overridden by bugs, damages by an infusion of dust (or
aluminum powder.....;-)).  AMD at least (and I think Seimens and NEC as
well) was contracted to produce the 8088 cpu.  AMD was given all info
needed to clone the chips.

This relationship continued through the 80286 and 80386 processors, but
became very strained as AMD was making 386's cheaper and imho better than
the intel products by modifying the Intel designs.  Intel and AMD ended up
in court over the 80486 chip ; intel claiming that the contract between it
and AMD did not include information or production of this CPU.  AMD was
eventually forced to produce a 'clean room' 80486 design but because of
the delays caused by the litigation they had plenty of time to do it.  
    AMD's faster coprocessors also caused quite a problem if I 
 remember correctly.  Harris also pushed the 286 faster than any of 
 the other sources.  I remember PC Magazine running an article 
 comparing  various 286 machines with a headline that mimicked the 
 Corvair's 'Unsafe at any speed' headline. >>

I've always liked AMD stuff. My first PC I got myself was an AMD 386 dx40. I 
couldnt decide whether to get a 486-25 and didnt quite understand the sx/dx 
issue. Ran OS/2 great on 8 meg. Later, I found that the AMD 486 dx2/80 was 
cheaper than Intel's 66 so I got that and never any problems with it. 

--  

Kwanzaa is NOT a real holiday.