Because the majority of buyers were businesses. - they nearly always
choose the low risk, low reward option.

Only people with vision look forward.


On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 01:56 Wayne S via cctalk, <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to