🚀 go-pugleaf

John P. Nelson of GenRad writes:
 
>I still don't see why IBM/Microsoft couldn't have based OS/2 on the
>80386 instead.  Intel announced their P9 (80386 in a 80286 compatible
>package) pretty early in the game:  IBM could have supported their
>AT base by insisting that customers upgrade their processor before
>upgrading their operating system.
 
IBM fears the 386 chip, knowing that it could kill their 36's, 38's
etc. and possibly even their small mainframes ( e.g. one of the new
Mylex 386s with one of the new multi gigabyte optical disks; don't laugh
too hard).  They have therefore tried to discourage it's use by charging
$10000 for their own 386 machine, as usual hoping nobody will notice all
the people out there selling 386 machines for $2000.
 
 
Ted Holden
HTE