From: bill_h Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.folklore.computers,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch Subject: IBM and the 8086/8088 Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 19:57:56 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 43 Message-ID: <37AE43B4.D30@sunsouthwest.com> References: <7o9j58$mme$1@lnews.actcom.co.il> <7of5d1$udl$2@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <37AB9866.7BB7@infi.net> <37AD9D25.6973@sunsouthwest.com> <7okpkp$11b1@enews3.newsguy.com> Reply-To: bill_h@sunsouthwest.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!remarQ73!rQdQ!supernews.com!remarQ.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail I suggest you read this part again: > >No, they didn't. The 8088 was marketed in 1979, about a year after > >the 8086 (1978). The IBM PC was breadboarded in summer/fall 1980 > >and introduced in August, 1981. > > So how can you say "No, they didn't."? The timing suggests that > they did! 1978 8086 on the market in quantity 1979 8088 on the market in quantity 1980 IBM *begins* breadboarding at least *three* desktop configurations: at least one based on the Displaywriter (using an 8086)(New York I think); the PC, from Boca Raton; and one other that someone from IBM reported about in this newsgroup a couple years ago (he had0 worked in Austin, TX, I seem to recall. There are reports of a wire-wrapped prototype, and several software development platforms based on S-100 cards (by this time a half dozen people were building 8086/8088 S-100 cards). Cromemco, for example, put an 8088 on a board that also included an 8085. BEFORE the PC. 1981 IBM unveils the PC in August By the time IBM began to seriously look at the personal computer market both the Intel 8086 and 8088 were already in existence and being sold. There's no way IBM had any influence on the Intel chips. None whatever. My memory may be bad and the places where the machines worked on mixed up. ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.folklore.computers,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch Subject: Re: IBM and the 8086/8088 References: <7o9j58$mme$1@lnews.actcom.co.il> <37AD9D25.6973@sunsouthwest.com> <7okpkp$11b1@enews3.newsguy.com> <37AE43B4.D30@sunsouthwest.com> <7olopk$6ld@enews5.newsguy.com> X-Disclaimer: Everything I write is false. Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 09 Aug 1999 02:40:19 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 9 Aug 1999 02:58:10 -0800, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.sgi.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com floyd@ptialaska.net (Floyd Davidson) writes: > Do you believe that IBM didn't talk to Intel until or after they > started bread-boarding? I would suggest they were signing > non-disclosure agreements _long_ before that! They didn't start > bread-boarding until the chips they agreed upon were available to > them on their terms. Non-disclosure agreements? The 8088 was available in production quantities on the open market for more than 18 months before the PC project even started. This isn't conjecture, it's documented fact. IBM wouldn't have *chosen* the 8088 if it was still in the sampling and NDA stage of development. The PC was a skunkworks project, and they had to design in what was available *now*, not what the semiconductor vendors were promising for the future. That's one of the major reasons why the 8088 was in fact chosen. ###### From: floyd@ptialaska.net (Floyd Davidson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.folklore.computers,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch Subject: Re: IBM and the 8086/8088 Date: 9 Aug 1999 05:26:12 GMT Organization: __________ Lines: 50 Message-ID: <7olopk$6ld@enews5.newsguy.com> References: <7o9j58$mme$1@lnews.actcom.co.il> <37AD9D25.6973@sunsouthwest.com> <7okpkp$11b1@enews3.newsguy.com> <37AE43B4.D30@sunsouthwest.com> Reply-To: floyd@ptialaska.net NNTP-Posting-Host: p-754.newsdawg.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!nntp.abs.net!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!floyd bill_h wrote: >I suggest you read this part again: It still says the same thing. >> >No, they didn't. The 8088 was marketed in 1979, about a year after >> >the 8086 (1978). The IBM PC was breadboarded in summer/fall 1980 >> >and introduced in August, 1981. >> >> So how can you say "No, they didn't."? The timing suggests that >> they did! > >1978 8086 on the market in quantity > >1979 8088 on the market in quantity > >1980 IBM *begins* breadboarding at least *three* desktop >configurations: ... >By the time IBM began to seriously look at the personal computer market >both the Intel 8086 and 8088 were already in existence and being sold. > >There's no way IBM had any influence on the Intel chips. None whatever. > >My memory may be bad and the places where the machines worked on mixed >up. Do you believe that IBM didn't talk to Intel until or after they started bread-boarding? I would suggest they were signing non-disclosure agreements _long_ before that! They didn't start bread-boarding until the chips they agreed upon were available to them on their terms. The question is only what were those terms, not whether IBM influenced Intel. Did they instigate an 8 bit version? I doubt it, but the timing says it could have been. Did they insist upon a guarantee of a minimum production quantity? There is no doubt that they did. And also that they had prior negotiations about both current and continued backwards compatibility. Those discussions undoubtedly took place before the project was OK'd and certainly before a cpu choice was finalized. Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@barrow.com Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ###### From: floyd@ptialaska.net (Floyd Davidson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.folklore.computers,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch Subject: Re: IBM and the 8086/8088 Date: 9 Aug 1999 11:19:42 GMT Organization: __________ Lines: 32 Message-ID: <7omdge$1a7p@enews2.newsguy.com> References: <7o9j58$mme$1@lnews.actcom.co.il> <37AE43B4.D30@sunsouthwest.com> <7olopk$6ld@enews5.newsguy.com> Reply-To: floyd@ptialaska.net NNTP-Posting-Host: p-818.newsdawg.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!floyd Eric Smith wrote: >floyd@ptialaska.net (Floyd Davidson) writes: >> Do you believe that IBM didn't talk to Intel until or after they >> started bread-boarding? I would suggest they were signing >> non-disclosure agreements _long_ before that! They didn't start >> bread-boarding until the chips they agreed upon were available to >> them on their terms. > >Non-disclosure agreements? The 8088 was available in production quantities on >the open market for more than 18 months before the PC project even started. >This isn't conjecture, it's documented fact. > >IBM wouldn't have *chosen* the 8088 if it was still in the sampling and NDA >stage of development. The PC was a skunkworks project, and they had to design >in what was available *now*, not what the semiconductor vendors were promising >for the future. That's one of the major reasons why the 8088 was in fact >chosen. Fine, 18 months is long enough to claim that it is not related. But that is NOT what was said previously. Saying one occurance was in 1979 and the next was in 1980 does not disassociate them. Saying there was an 18 month separation does. (You did notice that I *never* claimed there actually was a connction, only that the dates given didn't disprove it.) Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@barrow.com Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)