By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), August 23, 2013 4:53 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
rwessel (robertwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 22, 2013 7:06 pm wrote:
>
> AFAIK, IBM had no 801 implementations at that time that would have been remotely cost-competitive with
> the 808x or 68K. Nor was the 801 ISA all that great, character handling was the usual early RISC mess
> (although perhaps a little better than other). It would have required a 32-bit memory subsystem too.
Besides, in the big organization, relying on outside contractor is often far better way to deliver at time, or deliver at all, than relying on [unfinished] by-product of development of other division.
According to my understanding, 801 was not developed as micro for personal computers or workstations. Its developers had far more ambitious goal of replacing main mainfraim CPUs. Sorta first attempt of eclipz. Or, may be, not first, just one in a series of many?
So, if I was responsible for a new, politically powerless personal computing division, I'd certainly try to avoid any trace of dependency on 801.
>
> AFAIK, IBM had no 801 implementations at that time that would have been remotely cost-competitive with
> the 808x or 68K. Nor was the 801 ISA all that great, character handling was the usual early RISC mess
> (although perhaps a little better than other). It would have required a 32-bit memory subsystem too.
Besides, in the big organization, relying on outside contractor is often far better way to deliver at time, or deliver at all, than relying on [unfinished] by-product of development of other division.
According to my understanding, 801 was not developed as micro for personal computers or workstations. Its developers had far more ambitious goal of replacing main mainfraim CPUs. Sorta first attempt of eclipz. Or, may be, not first, just one in a series of many?
So, if I was responsible for a new, politically powerless personal computing division, I'd certainly try to avoid any trace of dependency on 801.
