Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems

[Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de>]

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:15:10AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:

>> For the others: they where either on board from the start (like HP),
>> where already dead (like DEC/Compaq) or slipping into the embedded
>> market (like MIPS).

> MIPS had its chance to become the unified architecture for high-end
> workstations [1]. Until it was bought up by Silicon Graphics (SGI).
> Which, on the one hand was bitterly needed by MIPS, because they
> needed that cash injection, and by SGI, because they depended on the
> MIPS architecture.

> On the other hand, though, all other workstation developers, in fierce
> competition with SGI, didn't want /that/ dependency and went to look
> for/make other architectures (Power, Alpha, PA, you name it).

> So on the one hand, we might have, these days, been running on MIPS;
> on that other hand, we wouldn't have ARM, and -- who knows, soon,
> Risc-V. And Linus Torvalds wouldn't have had this cool stint at
> Transmeta. But that is a totally different kettle of fish. 

Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k
CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be in
competition with the mainframes the PC was supposed to interface with
primarily.

If this rumor is true and IBM had acted differently, the PC ecosystem
today would also look quite differently.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.