Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (27203)	6/8/1998 4:34:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33344

Paul, Thanks for the detail response. IBM did not pick Intel's name out of a hat. I didn't say IBM picked Intel out of the hat. I just said that if IBM didn't pick Intel, Intel would not be where it is today. You make it sound like Intel was the only rational decision. I don't have enough information to dispute that. Even if Intel was the only rational choice, it doesn't mean that IBM had to pick Intel. IBM has made more than a fair share of not so rational decisions. Right now, I don't remember the specs of 68000 vs. 8086/8088, but at the time I was comparing the architectures, I remember that the 68000 had a lot cleaner, elegant design. If IBM fully considered software development implications, the amount of human energy that would have to be spent over time around the "Kludgy" 8086 CPU compared to 68000, maybe they would have made a different decision. Also, if the Boca Raton team were not given as much independence, maybe IBM would have designed their own CPU. I don't the fact that Intel got a major break is something to be ashamed of. It happened and Intel took the full advantage of it. You don't want to sound like Oprah's husband, giving lectures on how to be successful, when the major reason he is successful is because he married Oprah. Joe

To: Paul Engel who wrote (27203)	6/8/1998 3:40:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33344

"Intel forced the three companies to share valuable patents they held that could otherwise have led to the development of competing microprocessors" From the FTC statement. biz.yahoo.com Paul, It sounds like the tip of the iceberg. Can you spell AT&T? Scumbria