Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!oucsace!bwhite From: bwhite@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bill White) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?)) Summary: Do Suns use 680XX's? Message-ID: <1638@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> Date: 2 Aug 90 05:08:59 GMT References: <32281@cup.portal.com> <4093@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <32327@cup.portal.com> Organization: Ohio U, home of the mighty Hocking River! Lines: 49 In article <32327@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >Replying to John Bruno's points... > >Commodore has been doing OK using 680XX chips... > >Apple has released some pretty impressive, if pricey, 680XX machines... > >Atari has just about vaporized us all with their 680XX pipedreams... > >The point is that it really doesn't MATTER what CPU a product runs, if >it's a success commercially... Incidentally, I think I heard somewhere that some SUN computers use 680XX chips. Is this correct? If so, I think this would be a definite example of a 680XX being used "correctly". Keep in mind there's a big difference between the 680XX series and the 80X86 series; one of them is that the 680XX chips design went towards generalized operations, microcode, etc., while the 80X86 (at least the early ones) used primarily non-microcode, more specific operations. I've done limited assembly for the 68020 and the 80286, and more extensive work on 68000 and 8086 (so I can't really say about the 386 or 486). But I do know I found the 680XX environment much more coherent and easier to work in. Furthermore, it struck me how improvements in the 680XX series were primarily enhancements of existing microcode, plus addition of protected mode operations and that sort of thing, while it seems like the 80X86 series has undergone more radical changes. Which is a problem when you lock yourself into a hardware-specific series of operations, rather than using a more generalized microcode system. Sure, the latter takes more design in order to gain the same speed, but frankly I'd bet that development on a 68040 (is that the newest one?) would be a lot more familiar and a lot easier to me than development on a 80486. Mind you, I'm not saying anything about the machines. I bought an Atari ST because it fit my needs (still does). If I'd needed an IBM, I would have bought one. One of my requirements for buying was a Motorola microprocessor. At the time, I was very disappointed with the Intel series, but I had consistently seen quality from Motorola (even though it often went unimplemented; take the 6809 for example, which was several registers and years ahead of the current standard 6502). Take all this with a grain of salt. I just program on them, I don't make them, so I'm probably wrong on a few points here. >"Big Blue" is in the "Big Black" while Atari Corp is in the "Big Toilet",. >not because of any choice of microprocessor CPU... Have to agree there; but then again, Atari has done quite well in the European market. > >BobR