3 ms·

Well, off the top of my head, and unlikely to be the only association.. IBM licensed the 286 for the IBM PC/AT. Acorn wanted to use the 286 for the Archimedes,

by serf 12y ago

Well, off the top of my head, and unlikely to be the only association.. IBM licensed the 286 for the IBM PC/AT. Acorn wanted to use the 286 for the Archimedes, but Intel would not allow licensing. This forced Acorn to create their own processor, resulting in the first RISC based consumer PC. Perhaps that snowballs into our current tech environment.

jacquesm 12y ago
Exactly, that's why I picked ARM. So that line does not trace back to IBM in any way, besides, Intel isn't IBM.
- serf 12y ago
  So that line does not trace back to IBM in any way, besides, Intel isn't IBM. eh.. sorta.[0]. IBM had significant stake in Intel during the time period we're talking about, and that whole period was filled with anti-trust talk, which turned into actual anti-trust fire a few years later in the 90s. I may not have been blunt enough in my other comment, but I was alluding to the idea that IBM and Intel may have been involved in anti-competitive behavior against Acorn, which caused them to innovate in such a way that created the systems we enjoy today (modern mobile). The idea that the pressures on the company spawned innovation. [0]: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-08-29/business/fi-1393_1_intel-corp-shares http://articles.latimes.com/1987-08-29/business/fi-1393_1_in...
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    'Was the cause of a complete redevelopment' is the polar opposite of 'can be traced back to' whatever ugly dealings IBM and Intel may have had (which doesn't surprise me one bit).