Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!phil
From: phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos)
Newsgroups: net.micro.6809
Subject: Re: CoCo III - Still a Rumor?
Message-ID: <832@osiris.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Jun-86 10:45:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: osiris.832
Posted: Wed Jun 18 10:45:57 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jun-86 09:33:47 EDT
References: <115@safari.UUCP> <3500152@uokvax.UUCP> <1242@lsuc.UUCP> <372@ucdavis.UUCP> <1246@lsuc.UUCP>
Organization: Johns Hopkins Hospital
Lines: 26

(Actually a reply to Mark Nagel, whose article I never saw save as
excerpted by Jim Omura - now watch it arrive here tomorrow!)

> In article <372@ucdavis.UUCP> ecs160s045@ucdavis.UUCP (Mark Nagel) writes:
> 
> >  I also don't see how you can call the 6809 instruction
> >set orthogonal as compared to the 68000.  The 68000 is a superset of the
> >PDP-11 which is by far more orthogonal than the 6809.
>

Yes, the PDP-11 instruction set is very nicely orthogonal.  However,
that does *not* mean that making the 68k instruction set a superset
of it made it just as (or even more) orthogonal.  In fact, the 68k
instruction set has many non-orthogonal "extensions" which make it,
to my mind, less orthogonal than the PDP-11, and certainly not the
32-bit-PDP-11-extension I was expecting from all the advance hype.
I was happy to stick with my MACRO-11.


Phil Kos
The Johns Hopkins Hospital
Baltimore, MD


"Sound of the thunder with the rain pouring down
And it looks like the old man's getting on." - Robert Hunter