David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on January 11, 2020 7:45 am wrote:
> Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org) on January 11, 2020 6:29 am wrote:
> >
> > However, 8086 was introduced one year earlier, when the only alternative that would not be
> > at least one order of magnitude more expensive would have been something like DEC PDP-11.
> >
> > The method used by DEC PDP-11 to extend the address space from 16 bit to 22 bit was
> > much less convenient than the segmentation of 8086 or of 80286, so at introduction
> > nobody criticized 8086 for its segmentation, because it was progress anyway.
> >
> > Only next year, after MC68000 was announced, bringing hope for having soon linear
> > addressing up to 32 bit, i.e. for having a VAX equivalent at much lower prices, only
> > then everybody began to see the newly announced Z8000 as already obsolete.
> >
> > By that time, 8086 was already in the hands of customers, who developed products
> > with it and also Intel was able to reduce the 8086 price in 1979, when Zilog
> > and Motorola announced their products, to less than Zilog could afford.
>
> The way I remember it, IBM asked Motorola for a 68000 with an 8-bit external bus like the 8088
> and Motorola turned them down only to realize their mistake later by which time it was too late.
> The 8086, 8088, and 68000 were available in 1979 while the 68008 became available in 1982. That
> sort of arrogance is the Motorola I remember but references online give other reasons:

AFAIK Motorola didn't refuse it out of arrogance.
They just hadn't given it priority before IBM's request and had no chance of developing it in time to meet IBM's schedule.