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