Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ssbell!mcmi!unocss!ho@fergvax.unl.edu
From: ho@fergvax.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Was - Re: Xerox sues Apple!!! Now processor wars.
Message-ID: <1360@unocss..unl.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 89 17:40:42 GMT
References: <899@lzaz.ATT.COM>
Sender: root@unocss..unl.edu
Reply-To: ho@fergvax.unl.edu
Lines: 23

From article <899@lzaz.ATT.COM>, by bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (Bruce Szablak):
> In article <3368@rti.UUCP>, bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes:
>> On the other hand, this certainly doesn't mean that all software for
>> the 68k is great or that all software for the 80x86 is bad.
> 
> More importantly, will my 68000 software run on a 68020, 68030, 68040 etc?
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no... The real significance of the Intel chips are
> that they are upwardly compatible.

THIS IS NOT A FLAME.  Ah, now that the disclaimer's out of the way...

Is this because of the processor chip itself, or an incompatible platform?
Are there actually 68000 instructions that don't work the same on an 030,
or is it just that the Mac {SE, II, SE/30} has a different structure which
is (usually) shielded from ("polite") applications through the System 
software?

I don't know.  I'm just asking.  It does seem odd to create an incompatible
chip.  Makes me wonder what the marketing department at Motorola is up to.
---
	... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska
Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu		USnail:  115 Nebraska Union
BITnet:   cosx001@UNLCDC3			 Lincoln, NE 68588-0461