[usual long rambling tangents]
Microsoft was not a big player in any of that until 1981.
They had no major input in OEMs decisions of processor until 1980?
Although their earliest product was a BASIC for 8080, they tried to
branch out into more platforms of BASIC. They wrote the BASIC for the
TRS80 (Z80, which was based on 8080), they also wrote Applesoft BASIC (6502).
They did eventually make some hardware, most notably the Z80 Softcard for
the ApplelII, and later, mice.
Tim Paterson was developing computers based on 8086 at Seattle Computer
Products. He wrote a "placeholder" OS called "Quick and Dirty OS" to use
while waiting for the overdue CP/M-86.
When IBM decided to "take over" home/personal computers, they looked at
the 8086. They chose 8088, which I liken to an "8086 cut back, to make
an 8 bit version of 8086", because the computer could be designed and
built cheaply, as if it were 8 bit.
[insert whole long CP/M - MS-DOS/PC-DOS history]
Microsoft providing the OS created a long-term working association.
The popularity of the 5150 PC created an unbelievable market for
clones, imitations, similar, etc. running MS-DOS. And caused Microsoft to
become what it is.
In contrast, Jobs locked in the Mac, so that hardly anybody could build an
imitation.
IBM used the "8 bit version of 8086". But not an 8086.
They used an 8086 in the Displaywriter (1980?)
Later, they went to 80286 (5170 PC/AT).
Around 1985-1986?, IBM came out with a "whole new line" of computers
("PS/2") In 1987? They made the PS/2 model 25 and the PS/2 model 30 which
used 8086. I've heard that the PC/JX (Japanese market) had an 8086.
I don't know of any other IBM devices with 8086, although 8088 and 8086
overlapped in design so much that that conflation is excusable.
Intel was the biggest in processors;
IBM dominated PC design;
Microsoft had a virtual monopoly on Operating system.
UCSD Pascal never really caught on, for several reasons.
DRI's CP/M-86, "Concurrent CP/M-86", and later "Concurrent PC-DOS" and
DR-DOS were welcome alternative choices, although never big enough to
seriously challenge Microsoft.
Microsoft trademarked "MS-DOS", IBM did NOT trademark "PC" (and it would
have been absurd to try), and IBM DID NOT trademark "PC-DOS", declaring
"PC/Personal Computer" and "PC-DOS to be a "desctiptive terms, not
really names"!
So, although it created confusion, particularly assumed affiliation with
PC-DOS (IBM specific version of MS-DOS), DRI, IBM, and Microsoft did not
end up in court. Over "Comcurrent PC-DOS". Another factor was that
MS-DOS was based on CP/M (not copied nor plagiarized, but indisputably
based on it), so IBM and Microsoft were loathe to fight with DRI over the trademark.
so, Intel, IBM, and Microsoft did a lot of business together and relied on
each other, but they never managed to create a cartel.
So, IBM's dominance of the market made the 8088 extremely poplular, and
many companies eventually branched out creating variants, some of which
used 8086. A small number of 80186, then lots of 80286, 80386, 80486, and
then other chip manufacturers got in on the action. Nec made the V20,
V30; AMD, Cyrix, etc. After the 80486, Cyrix came out with a fancy 80486 that
they called the 80586, . . . The consensus was that you "can't trademark
a number" (?? How about the Oldsmobile 88, Oldsmobile 442, etc?) So Intel
chose to go to a name, instead. They came up with "Pentium". I heard
that that was the winner of an in-house contest; what were the losers?
Even so, there were possible problems that they didn't think of: Asahi
Pentax was acquired by Honeywell. Honeywell, who made some computers,
could have come out with a "Pentaxium" processor (and contracted with a
chip maker) with enough prior usage claim to be protected.
But, it also gave the other chip makers impetus to come out with their own
variation, rather trying to exactly copy Intel
Some people think of Intel, IBM, and Microsoft as being a cartel, but they
never got it together enough to organize anything like that.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred [email protected]
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
What role does the duopoly, Intel/Microsoft, play in the success of the
earlier years of the 8086? When choice is restricted sometimes the best
isn't the most successful!
Happy computing,
Murray 🙂
