bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) (04/21/88)
John P. Nelson of GenRad writes: >I still don't see why IBM/Microsoft couldn't have based OS/2 on the >80386 instead. Intel announced their P9 (80386 in a 80286 compatible >package) pretty early in the game: IBM could have supported their >AT base by insisting that customers upgrade their processor before >upgrading their operating system. IBM fears the 386 chip, knowing that it could kill their 36's, 38's etc. and possibly even their small mainframes ( e.g. one of the new Mylex 386s with one of the new multi gigabyte optical disks; don't laugh too hard). They have therefore tried to discourage it's use by charging $10000 for their own 386 machine, as usual hoping nobody will notice all the people out there selling 386 machines for $2000. Ted Holden HTE
hlison@bbn.com (Herb Lison) (04/28/88)
In article <101@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes: > >IBM fears the 386 chip, knowing that it could kill their 36's, 38's >etc. and possibly even their small mainframes ( e.g. one of the new >Mylex 386s with one of the new multi gigabyte optical disks; don't laugh >too hard). They have therefore tried to discourage it's use by charging >$10000 for their own 386 machine, as usual hoping nobody will notice all >the people out there selling 386 machines for $2000. > There is a lot of truth to this. At my last job we developed a version of ANS MUMPS for the PC that supported 24 concurrent users on a Compaq386 (using the Arnet Smartport boards for terminal support). Normally to get that level of performance customers had to purchase a PDP-11/44 or a VAX 11/750 at substantially greater cost. For example, a large configuration on the Compaq, including 300 Mb SCSI disk, tape backup and 3 Arnet Smarport boards was under 15,000. Compared with a VAX or PDP-11/44 at more than 50,000 the 386 system is a tremendous bargain. Multi-user systems based on 386 technology are going to make a big dent in the mini- computer marketplace. Watch out DEC! Watch out Big Blue! Herb Lison