Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!cae780!tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!pwv
From: pwv@fluke.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: 68008 stuff (was Re: byte order: etc...)
Message-ID: <336@milo.tc.fluke.COM>
Date: Fri, 23-Jan-87 17:47:21 EST
Article-I.D.: milo.336
Posted: Fri Jan 23 17:47:21 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Jan-87 11:53:59 EST
References: <760@orcisi.UUCP> <1011@cuuxb.UUCP> <753@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> <980@gould9.UUCP> <755@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> <2899@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath comp.arch:233 comp.sys.m68k:153

>In article <755@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
>>Anyway, I've actually used both 68000 and 68008 processors, and can assure
>>you that they are pretty much compatible. ....
>
In article <2899@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> jkg@gitpyr.UUCP (Jim Greenlee) writes:
>My understanding of why this was done was to ensure that the 68008 would
>be COMPLETELY software compatible with the 68000, .....

Actually, I remember hearing from a Motorola "Technical" guy when the 68000
had just come out that the 68000 and the 68008 used the same die!  The only
difference was in chip bond-out.

-- 

   Pat Vilbrandt       John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.        Everett, Washington USA
UUCP: { ihnp4!uw-beaver, ucbvax!lbl-csam, allegra, ssc-vax }!fluke!pwv
ARPA: fluke!pwv@uw-beaver.ARPA