Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: the 286, Byte ordering
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 00:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <memo.20250106003505.20984p@jgd.cix.co.uk>
References: <vlervh$174vb$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jgd@cix.co.uk
Injection-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 01:35:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7eeda7b9f5ce8dff75b9144c5ad19061";
	logging-data="1358515"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+EpJWMdzqL6mhvsab7VvpsIF0p0Z0GgsE="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:buauzfE9TUqwqGkTDCljG6VkdjM=
X-Clacks-Overhead-header: GNU Terry Pratchett
Bytes: 1400

In article <vlervh$174vb$1@dont-email.me>, terje.mathisen@tmsw.no (Terje
Mathisen) wrote:

> I do believe that IBM did seriously consider the risk of making the 
> PC too good, so that it would compete directly with their low-end 
> systems (8100?).

I recall reading back in the 1980s that the PC was intended to be
incapable of competing with the System/36 minis, and the previous
System/34 and /32 machines. It rather failed at that. 

John