Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: 8088, why in PC (was Re: 8086 Segmentation) Date: 29 Nov 2000 20:31:21 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 76 Message-ID: <6u4s0qmv7a.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <8v9pbs$meb@netaxs.com> <3A1944E5.CD36F083@cisco.com> <8vc9nt$5sn$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A19CD72.54EB1262@ev1.net> <8vcgvv$c0c$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A1B54B2.396F6411@cmc.com> <3A1BF718.23537308@cmc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 975526287 2421 10.0.3.2 (29 Nov 2000 19:31:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Nov 2000 19:31:27 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:69799 "Doctor Memory" writes: > "Randall Hyde" wrote in message > news:B64156F0.57A1%rhyde@transdimension.com... > > All of this talk about Intel's segmentation being bad is amusing. > > "If it weren't for the IBM PC..." I always hear, "history would > > have been so much better." > > > > Ever wonder *why* IBM chose the 8088 rather than the 68K? > > Two reasons: eight-bit peripheral support (which the 68K lacked > > at the time, the 68008 was still a ways off) and code density. > > I thought a big part of it was that they already had a system build around > the 8085, and it was possible to leverage a large part of that design (and > parts inventory). Obviously time for yet another retransmit of this my post about this. Direct from the horses mount, can't get any better. ---------------- From: Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam) Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Why IBM chose Intel Date: 13 Jan 1998 23:59:59 +0100 According to Byte magazine, September 1990, The Creation of the IBM PC, by David J Bradley (one of its designers), page 416 [shortened by me]: 1. The 64K-Byte address limit had to be overcome 2. The processor and its peripherals had to be available immediately 3. We couldn't afford a long learning period, had to use technology we were familiar with 4. There had to be both an OS and applications available for the processor We narrowed our decision down to the Intel. The Boca Raton engineers were familiar with these processors. A bonus we got from chosing Intel was the numeric coprocessor. Bradley himself came from the System/23 (Datamaster), 8085+Basic based. -------------- And also this later one: ------------- From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 24 May 2000 21:01:55 +0200 From Byte Sept 1990, Page 414ff: The Creation of the IBM PC, by David J Bradley (one of its designers) In August 1980, I had finished my work on what eas to become the IBM System/23 Datamaster ... ... was an 8085 based system ... ... we ran up against the limits of the 64k address space ... ... There were a number of reasons we chose the Intel 8088 ... : 1. The 64k limit had to be overcome 2. The processor and its peripherals had to be available immediately 3. We couldn't afford a long learning period 4. There had to be both OS and Apps available We narrowed our decision down to the Intel 8086 or 8088. The Boca Raton engineers fer familiar with these ... ... We chose the 8088 for its 8 bit data bus. The smaller bus saved money in the areas of RAM, ROM and logic fo ran simple system. ------------- So now this question will be not mentionen again for at least 1 yea^H^H^Hmonth. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic ###### From: Bruce Tomlin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: 8088, why in PC (was Re: 8086 Segmentation) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:25:09 -0600 Organization: San Antonio, TX Lines: 7 Message-ID: References: <8v9pbs$meb@netaxs.com> <3A1944E5.CD36F083@cisco.com> <8vc9nt$5sn$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A19CD72.54EB1262@ev1.net> <8vcgvv$c0c$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A1B54B2.396F6411@cmc.com> <3A1BF718.23537308@cmc.com> <6u4s0qmv7a.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: nukunuku.fanboy.net X-Trace: news.jump.net 975550988 23881 207.8.48.140 (30 Nov 2000 02:23:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.jump.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:23:08 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.ifi.unizh.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!news-feeds.jump.net!news2!bruceNS+usenet2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:69851 In article <6u4s0qmv7a.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin wrote: > 2. The processor and its peripherals had to be available immediately Well, that certainly goes along with the "Motorola wouldn't commit to an availability deadline and Intel would" story that I heard.