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 > > > > >
