Why did those processors not catch on? It seems to me that hardware people had a “if we build it, they will come” mentality and hoped other companies would adopt it and actually write software to make it useful.
Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 16, 2024, at 17:38, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > 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 > >
