kenobi%lightsabre@Sun.COM (Rick Kwan - Sun Intercon) (01/16/90)
In article <256@dg.dg.com> uunet!dg!rec (Robert Cousins) writes: >In article <129994@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> kenobi@sun.UUCP (Rick Kwan - Sun Intercon) writes: >>I have often wondered what would happen if IBM had chosen the 68000 >>instead of 8088/8086, and tailored a their own simple OS to run on >>it? I think IBM could very easily have produced such a thing. They >>certainly had the expertise. >> >> Rick Kwan >> Sun Microsystems - Intercontinental Operations >> kenobi@sun.com > >Well, IBM did make a 68k based machine, the IBM 9000 from IBM Instruments. >If memory serves me correctly, it was written up in BYTE at approximately >the same time as the PC was becoming popular. Does anyone care to >throw in more info? I saw that article. It was a lab machine running UNIX. (You could call it a PC, if you consider an expensive lab computer to be a PC.) At the time of the article, I did wonder why IBM did not do a variation of it as a business PC. On hindsight, there are several guesses: 1. it was a different part of IBM; in fact, it was a recently acquired subsidiary. 2. cost of parts. (Discussed extensively in this newsgroup.) 3. it was in a very different from the one that the IBM PC was targeted at (lab/industrial vs. small business), and thus had very different requirements. That tends to color marketing perceptions. 4. It redesign effort to transform it into a business computer was probably only a little less than starting from scratch. But this is speculation. Comments are welcome from anyone who was in IBM Instruments at the time. Rick Kwan Sun Microsystems - Intercontinental Operations kenobi@sun.com "Travellin' through hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy." --Han Solo