Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k Subject: Re: Fast 68000s? Message-ID: <2145@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Nov-87 21:58:53 EST Article-I.D.: lsuc.2145 Posted: Mon Nov 9 21:58:53 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Nov-87 06:18:38 EST References: <7487@dartvax.UUCP> <2118@lsuc.UUCP> <761@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Organization: Consultant, Toronto Lines: 106 Summary: Still more. In article <761@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Ward) writes: >In article <2118@lsuc.UUCP>, jimomura@lsuc.UUCP writes: >> 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! >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. Sure I mean it. :-) >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 If the parts were priced equally, then I think the customers *would* vote with their pocket books, and the smarted companies would go for the 68010 over the 68000 -- if the price was equal. The main reason 68000 is used in *new* products is because it's cheaper (and you're point about CMOS as well -- if there were a CMOS 68010 at the same price as 68000 CMOS, again the 68010 would outsell 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 Uh. Didn't you just say this company makes "hundreds or thousands" of units per month? If this is so, the cost of redoing the custom ROM would be spread out over the same "hundreds or thousands". It's pretty cheap really. Also, you have this strange believe that there's a huge problem changing 68000 code to 68010 code. There generally isn't. This is especially true if OS-9 was used to develop the code. Not *just* OS-9, but at least OS-9 is a good example. >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. Don't worry, Motorola's been on the Net long enough to know better than to listen to just one person. In fact, it's been speculated exactly how many people it does take to move the Big M (:-). Well, I still prefer the products of the Big M over the Big I's. But wouldn't you like to see 68010's drop to the price of 68000's, just for the chance to see what the market does, of course. (Sorry for the blank lines. They seem to be necessary.) Cheers! -- Jim O. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura