Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!reed!iscuva!jimc
From: jimc@iscuva.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 386 PC vs Sun
Message-ID: <264@iscuva.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 14:09:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: iscuva.264
Posted: Mon Oct  6 14:09:15 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Oct-86 23:35:05 EDT
References: <1028@tekigm2.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimc@iscuva.UUCP (Jim Cathey)
Organization: ISC Systems Corporation, Spokane, Wa.
Lines: 33

In article <1028@tekigm2.UUCP> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
>Someone (read some biased UNIX lover) wrote the following......
>
>>   Yeah, maybe.  But it's still got the same braindamaged instruction set and
>>   register complement as the 80286, 80186, 8086, 8080, 8008.  In otherwords
>>   it is a 32 bit high speed microcontroller chip.  Intel *STILL* hasn't
>>   learned how to make *COMPUTERS*.  (I doubt they ever will)
>
>He must not remember the early developement of the 68000 processors.....
>
>They WERE designed with downward compatibility to the 6809, and 6800 uP's. So
>why is Intel braindamaged, and Motorola not ? Some gift of God ? Of course,

Huh?  I don't see how the 68000 family is compatible with the 6800
series, they have different architectures (accumulator-based vs general
register), different register sets, different object code...  As I
recall, Mot specifically stated early on that they were scrapping
compatiblity in favor of a better architecture.  The only
compatibilities I see are the '68' in the part number, and the fact
that they share the same type of status register, and the *hardware*
compatiblity the 68000 has with the old peripheral chips.  

Get it right.
-- 

+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC Systems Corp.
! II      CC     !  Spokane, WA
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: ihnp4!tektronix!reed!iscuva!jimc
! II      CCCCCC !  (509)927-5757
+----------------+
			"With excitement like this, who is needing enemas?"