Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cfa!ward
From: ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Ward)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: Fast 68000s?
Message-ID: <761@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6-Nov-87 11:55:56 EST
Article-I.D.: cfa.761
Posted: Fri Nov  6 11:55:56 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 14:49:02 EST
References: <7487@dartvax.UUCP> <2118@lsuc.UUCP>
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics
Lines: 64
Summary: narrow, short-sighted personal views and improving the perspective

In article <2118@lsuc.UUCP>, jimomura@lsuc.UUCP writes:
> In article <7487@dartvax.UUCP> stevel@dartvax.UUCP (Steve Ligett) writes:
> >Why are there no 68000s faster than 12.5 MHz?
> >
> >I'd love to have a 20MHz 68000.
> >
> 
>      I disagree.  I'd rather see the 68000 completely phased out
> in favour of lower cost versions of the 68010, 68020 and 68030.
...(some text was here)...
>      Price aside, the 68000 is a pointless anachronism.
> Get rid of it!  Then again, the real point is regarding the
> 68010 -- Motorola, Hitachi, whomever else, Get the Price Down!
> 
> Cheers! -- Jim O.
> 
> ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
> Byte Information eXchange: jimomura

I hope that you really don't mean to imply that the world should dump
the 68000 and go to its progeny of one flavor or another simply because
you think it is "anachronistic."  In fact, you seem to imply that the
manufacturers should dump the 68000 and in compensation simply make
the 68010, etc. cheaper.

The customers should drive whether a part or product is discontinued
by voting with their pocket book.  As long as the part is in demand it
should be made.  What would your arbitrary cutoff do to company XYZ that
embeds a 68K in its controller product, making hundreds or thousands a
month?  The product works fine - why fix what is not broken?  The 68K
works fine in its assigned embedded tasks and its software is bug free,
being made via masked CMOS ROM.  Going to a 68010 might just break
the ROM, simply because the start-up code and (possibly) stack code
needs to changed a bit. Remaking a masked ROM is big bucks, and it would
be for no other reason than the inability to obtain the 68K part.  Also,
the 68010 is not available in CMOS and this could be critical, too.

I have just tried to point out that one should be aware that the market
requirements, needs, and wants always go beyond the narrow views of
one person.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of 68K parts go into
embedded (read non-personal computer and non-minicomputer) applications.

I would love to see a version of the 68K with extended relative
addressing and other enhancements, including faster parts (Mostek has
a 16MHZ NMOS part).  Still, many need a pin-compatible, COMPLETELY
software compatible part, and preferably CMOS.  I suspect the real
solution for your area of interest is in the lowering of prices for the
the 680X0/6888X parts.  There will continue to be many areas of
industrial and scientific embedded applications for the 68K part for a
long time to come.  I have such applications, and many of them simply
do not require the 680X0 in any form.  I need CMOS, and a 10MHZ 68K
has all the speed and power I need.  Coversely, if I can avoid it,I
do not need the extra complication and cost of PGA packaging.

I suspect you really didn't mean to imply such a harsh fate in such
an arbitrary and short-sighted fashion for the 68K, but so often the
news reader is presented only such "off the cuff" views.  Hopefully
commercial hardware and software vendors do not take the net too
seriously, or at least with a few kilos of salt.

Regards,   Steven Ward
           Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory