On 10/05/2017 03:46 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 10/05/2017 04:22 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: > >> Funny the market knew of the 386 in the fall of '85 but it would be >> three years before I'd see >> one in the field. Disks and CPUs lagged the introductions by years due >> to cost. > It was hard to rationalize the extra cost of a 16MHz 80386 when there > was little software or performance gain over a fast 80286 box when > running MS-DOS--the dominant OS of the day. > > I recall an Intel engineer opining on the subject. "We give you a > 32-bit advanced architecture CPU and you p*ss it away running DOS." > > Compatibility is a tough mistress. > > --Chuck
Moore's law only worked for hardware, software lagged typically two years behind. Of course when we did get something else Venix and winders winders was the winner and a poor one at that. Allison
