The “cheaper to make” was the part that made it pretty good for its day.
No it didn’t, it was so slow it wasn’t faster than 8 bit CP/M systems at the time. The original PC had very little advantage from being 16 bit, and everybody else went directly from 8 to 32 bit. But IBM was bigger than everybody else combined back then, and their support and the arrival of cheaper clones, made it an industry standard disregarding the platform was horrible, but because it was well supported.
And with that performance advantage, why is it x86 continued to advance selling more and more units eventually becoming the standard for desktop and server computing? Market penetration.
I already wrote that Intel was protected by the Wintel monopoly, later when mobile became a much bigger market, that monopoly did NOT help Intel, And Intel spend as much as Arms entire revenue on pushing Atom for an entire decade, and even had the production advantage back then. And despite that Intel was not able to compete against Arm, on platforms like Android that actually had X86 compatibility.
Most of those architectures you mention were workstation, server, or mainframe class
No, Arm was in desktop, but the company did not have the clout to compete.
Motorola was in Macintosh, Atari and Amiga.
PowerPC was in Macintosh and Playstation 3.
That the others were workstation and server does not change that among them all, Intel was inferior in every way.
I don’t understand how you can argue a point that X86 was ever any good, have you ever tried programming assembly on it and on any of the competitors?
Have you ever compared systems from back then on how well they actually worked? For sure the PC was awful. AND MS-DOS was the worst OS in existence at the time.
With Microsoft copying CP/M but removing security features, that has made MS-DOS and Windows the least protected and easiest systems to infects with viruses, causing a decades long nightmare.
Have you ever compared systems from back then on how well they actually worked? For sure the PC was awful. AND MS-DOS was the worst OS in existence at the time.
Yes, I lived through that period and have firsthand experience.
Most of those architectures you mention were workstation, server, or mainframe class
No
I think you missed the part of my post where I called out PPC 601 and Moto 68000 in desktops. PPC was also in workstation and server grade machines including IBM iSeries Midrange systems.
I don’t understand how you can argue a point that X86 was ever any good, have you ever tried programming assembly on it and on any of the competitors?
You’re still arguing technical superiority, when that isn’t the primary factor for folks that bought computers. Consumers didn’t want to throw away their entire computer and software library when going to the next iteration of a company’s product. PC Clones made PC computing affordable. Commodore with its Amiga fought against its only clone Atari ST. Apple quickly squashed any Mac clone makers. These companies got greedy because they wanted to sell hardware at a premium price and control their entire ecosystems, just like they before on prior platforms. They starved their pipeline of younger/poorer customers that would eventually be able to afford the premium products. PC had no such issue and won the computing war of the 80s and 90s.
No it didn’t, it was so slow it wasn’t faster than 8 bit CP/M systems at the time. The original PC had very little advantage from being 16 bit, and everybody else went directly from 8 to 32 bit. But IBM was bigger than everybody else combined back then, and their support and the arrival of cheaper clones, made it an industry standard disregarding the platform was horrible, but because it was well supported.
I already wrote that Intel was protected by the Wintel monopoly, later when mobile became a much bigger market, that monopoly did NOT help Intel, And Intel spend as much as Arms entire revenue on pushing Atom for an entire decade, and even had the production advantage back then. And despite that Intel was not able to compete against Arm, on platforms like Android that actually had X86 compatibility.
No, Arm was in desktop, but the company did not have the clout to compete.
Motorola was in Macintosh, Atari and Amiga.
PowerPC was in Macintosh and Playstation 3.
That the others were workstation and server does not change that among them all, Intel was inferior in every way.
I don’t understand how you can argue a point that X86 was ever any good, have you ever tried programming assembly on it and on any of the competitors?
Have you ever compared systems from back then on how well they actually worked? For sure the PC was awful. AND MS-DOS was the worst OS in existence at the time.
With Microsoft copying CP/M but removing security features, that has made MS-DOS and Windows the least protected and easiest systems to infects with viruses, causing a decades long nightmare.
Yes, I lived through that period and have firsthand experience.
I think you missed the part of my post where I called out PPC 601 and Moto 68000 in desktops. PPC was also in workstation and server grade machines including IBM iSeries Midrange systems.
You’re still arguing technical superiority, when that isn’t the primary factor for folks that bought computers. Consumers didn’t want to throw away their entire computer and software library when going to the next iteration of a company’s product. PC Clones made PC computing affordable. Commodore with its Amiga fought against its only clone Atari ST. Apple quickly squashed any Mac clone makers. These companies got greedy because they wanted to sell hardware at a premium price and control their entire ecosystems, just like they before on prior platforms. They starved their pipeline of younger/poorer customers that would eventually be able to afford the premium products. PC had no such issue and won the computing war of the 80s and 90s.