>That is just right. Airc, IBM would'nt buy Intel's processor for the IBM
>PC unless Intel had multiple sources. This was to ensure supply to IBM if
>Intel's plants were overridden by bugs, damages by an infusion of dust (or
>aluminum powder.....;-)). AMD at least (and I think Seimens and NEC as
>well) was contracted to produce the 8088 cpu. AMD was given all info
>needed to clone the chips.
>
>This relationship continued through the 80286 and 80386 processors, but
>became very strained as AMD was making 386's cheaper and imho better than
>the intel products by modifying the Intel designs. Intel and AMD ended up
>in court over the 80486 chip ; intel claiming that the contract between it
>and AMD did not include information or production of this CPU. AMD was
>eventually forced to produce a 'clean room' 80486 design but because of
>the delays caused by the litigation they had plenty of time to do it.
AMD's faster coprocessors also caused quite a problem if I
remember correctly. Harris also pushed the 286 faster than any of
the other sources. I remember PC Magazine running an article
comparing various 286 machines with a headline that mimicked the
Corvair's 'Unsafe at any speed' headline.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
Received on Sat Dec 15 2001 - 18:00:07 GMT