Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!yale!husc6!think!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!reality1!james
From: james@reality1.UUCP (james)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 386 PC vs Sun
Message-ID: <29@reality1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Oct-86 16:51:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: reality1.29
Posted: Mon Oct 13 16:51:40 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 00:03:14 EDT
References: <4104@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1038@gilbbs.UUCP> <2586@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: Reality Computer Systems, Austin TX
Lines: 17

In article <2586@watdcsu.UUCP>, magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes:
> Note that the 68k ref. manual states that the 68k
> was designed with the 6809 in mind --- so as with Intel for GOOD
> market reasons.

The connection between the 6809 and 68000 was minor.  No effort was made to keep
the few bad features of the 6809 in the 68000, whereas the 8088 kept most of
the problems of the 8080.  The 6809 has an extremely powerful instruction set,
one that Intel has only now matched with the 80386.  I suppose that the
arguement can be made that the 68000 is only a 6809 with larger registers, more
of them, and a few additional addressing modes and variants of all of the
above.  In this sense Intel made more progress with 6809->68000 than Intel did
with 8080->8088, but the bottom line is that with the 68000 you don't have all
those little quirks that the 8088 has that tells you that it is a direct
descendant of a more primitive processor.
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen    ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james    "Live Free or Die"