Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Recent Motorola ad seen in Byte
Message-ID: <656@desint.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Apr-87 00:59:56 EST
Article-I.D.: desint.656
Posted: Fri Apr 24 00:59:56 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Apr-87 19:28:48 EST
References: <932@intsc.UUCP> <3441@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> <615@mipos3.UUCP>
Reply-To: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Interrupt Technology Corp., Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 17

In article <615@mipos3.UUCP> kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) writes:

> of course, if Mot stopped making all of those 680?0 processors compatible with
> the 6800, I guess that you might have an argument.  What is that I hear you
> say?  The 68000 isn't compatible with the 6800?  Gee, I guess Intel will
> just have to call back all the 80?86s that run 8080 code, which is exactly
> 0 of them.

Without an 8080 manual handy, I can't really easily check to see if the
386 is binary-compatible with the 8080.  But it certainly is
assembly-compatible, and I can't help noting that there are so-called
"short forms" of instructions that look suspiciously like the opcodes
of the 8080 set.  By contrast, try writing "LDX" on a 68000.  Doesn't work.

Why is it that Intel employees are so confused about their own products?
-- 
	Geoff Kuenning   geoff@ITcorp.com   {hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoff