danm@tekig5.TEK.COM (Daniel Milliron) (11/18/87)
I have had experience programming early Intel processors, but am not real familiar with the 80x86 or 680x0. Everything I have heard says "Motorola is better" but no one ever says why. Could someone who knows why (or why not) please email me an explanation? I will summarize for the net. I should be reachable via "danm@tektronix". Thanks, Dan Milliron
hoff@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Tom Hoff) (11/18/87)
In article <2175@tekig5.TEK.COM> danm@tekig5.TEK.COM (Daniel Milliron) writes: >I have had experience programming early Intel processors, but am not real >familiar with the 80x86 or 680x0. Everything I have heard says "Motorola is >better" but no one ever says why. Could someone who knows why (or why not) Blowtorch ready... Here we go again - another "My microprocessor is better than yours!" battle. Why even bother asking? If you have an application for a microprocessor, then YOU should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each availiable uP and then YOU will know which one is better for YOUR application. No matter what anyone thinks about a particular uP, IBM PC's still use Intel and MAC's still use Motorola. Obviously, IBM thinks Intel is better and Apple thinks Motorola is better. Why don't you ask THEM why??? Blowtorch off. Now I feel better... --Tom -- Tom Hoff (...!hplabs!hp-sdd!hoff) "Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer not a spokesman!"
howard@cpocd2.UUCP (11/19/87)
In article <2175@tekig5.TEK.COM> danm@tekig5.TEK.COM (Daniel Milliron) writes: >I have had experience programming early Intel processors, but am not real >familiar with the 80x86 or 680x0. Everything I have heard says "Motorola is >better" but no one ever says why. Could someone who knows why (or why not) >please email me an explanation? I will summarize for the net. I should be >reachable via "danm@tektronix". Thanks, This topic is more appropriate for comp.arch, where it has been beat senseless (but not, alas, to death) for several months. In particular, many major flaws in the Byte "benchmark" of the 80386 versus the 68030 were dissected there in detail. There's really no need to rehash this topic in newsgroups where more heat and less light are likely to prevail. -- Howard A. Landman {oliveb,hplabs}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard howard%cpocd2.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET 80386: A half-decent architecture. Guess which half!
jnp@calmasd.UUCP (11/19/87)
(Tom Hoff) writes: > (Daniel Milliron) writes: > >Everything I have heard says "Motorola is > >better" but no one ever says why. Could someone who knows why (or why not) > > Obviously, IBM thinks Intel is better and Apple thinks Motorola > is better. Why don't you ask THEM why??? When the IBM PC was being designed the Intel 8088/6 was already available in trial quantities - it was available in production quantities before the PC hit the streets. Motorola's 68000 wasn't yet that far along at the time - so it never was really a candidate. The fact is that IBM *DOES* use the 68000 - in their XT/370 and AT/370 - in fact there are 2 in there - 1 is standard and the other is a modification/special 68000 - the 8088 and 80286's are used as I/O processors when these machines are in 370 mode. Question: Does IBM still make/sell the xt/at/370? -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM
parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) (11/22/87)
In article <2530@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >(Tom Hoff) writes: >When the IBM PC was being designed the Intel 8088/6 was already available in >trial quantities - it was available in production quantities before the PC >hit the streets. Motorola's 68000 wasn't yet that far along at the time - >so it never was really a candidate. > Is that right? I'm pretty sure that my lab had some Sun workstations (first model) before IBM PCs hit the street. I could be wrong.
carroll@snail.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/23/87)
As an assembler hacker, I prefer the '86 family; it lets me get down and dirty, and my code is usually much faster than on a 68K. On the other hand, my friends who do compiler work wish Intel would fall off into an tar pit somewhere. The 68K is much easier to build a code- generator for. So, which is better depends very much on your definition of better. What are you going to be doing with it?
dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) (11/25/87)
In article <1818@epiwrl.EPI.COM> parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) writes: >In article <2530@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >>(Tom Hoff) writes: >>When the IBM PC was being designed the Intel 8088/6 was already available in >>trial quantities - it was available in production quantities before the PC >>hit the streets. Motorola's 68000 wasn't yet that far along at the time - >>so it never was really a candidate. >> >Is that right? I'm pretty sure that my lab had some Sun workstations >(first model) before IBM PCs hit the street. I could be wrong. I don't know about that, but I was working at Fortune when the PC was released and they'd been selling (or at least trying to :-) 68000 unix boxes for some time. The reasoning I'd heard was that IBM was able to get Intel to commit to selling "only" to IBM for some period in order to let IBM get a foothold in the market. Motorola was less than willing to do so because they already had vendors selling the things. -- David W. Berry dwb@well.uucp dwb@Delphi dwb@apple.com 973-5168@408.MaBell Disclaimer: Apple doesn't even know I have an opinion and certainly wouldn't want if they did.
ignatz@chinet.UUCP (Dave Ihnat) (11/29/87)
Actually, I also remember that they came out with the 68000, but the support chips--most especially, the MMU--didn't come out until later, thus crippling its initial penetration of the market... -- Dave Ihnat ihnp4!homebru!ignatz || ihnp4!chinet!ignatz (w) (312) 882-4673
socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (7-x6628)) (11/30/87)
[RE: the recent flames (OOPS:-) discussion about why IBM picked the 8088 and not the 68000 for the IBM-PC. Many reasons were given including the one below.] In article <1921@chinet.UUCP> ignatz@chinet.UUCP (Dave Ihnat) writes: >Actually, I also remember that they came out with the 68000, but the >support chips--most especially, the MMU--didn't come out until later, >thus crippling its initial penetration of the market... > Dave Ihnat OK, there are at least 3 Motorolans on the net in the MAC group that I know of who were are Motorola when IBM came around asking about the future IBM-PC. They would know the timing. They would have first hand knowledge about why/when Motorola didn't sell IBM on the 68000 (or 6809 for that matter. It's timing was almost right.) Now, my knowledge is second hand. So I would rather they do it. OK you SuperConductor's Say IT! -- UUCP:...!amdahl!drivax!socha WAT Iron'75 "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." A. Einstein