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
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (11/20/87)
:use Motorola. Obviously, IBM thinks Intel is better and Apple thinks Motorola :is better. Why don't you ask THEM why??? No. IBM is more concerned with compatibility. Once they made the decision to go with Intel, that was it. In fact, they originally intended to go with the 68000, but at the time Motorola couldn't provide the volume needed. Smaller companies have more freedom to change because they have a smaller customer base (and don't deal with as much red tape) -Matt
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.
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
sbb@esquire.UUCP (12/03/87)
In article <2769@drivax.UUCP> socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (7-x6628)) writes: >OK, there are at least 3 Motorolans on the net in the MAC group >that I know of who were at 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.) Do we even know for sure that IBM ever knocked on Motorola's door? Remember that back in the good old days of IMSAI boxes and Z80/8080 based computers IBM was a newcomer and their priority had to be solving the chicken and egg problem of no software = no hardware sales = no software. The easiest way to do this was to go with a chip like the 8088 which made porting from the Z80 world relatively painless. For years MicroPro was able to sell an "IBM PC compatible" version of WordStar which, as we all know, was nothing more than a direct port of their venerable Z80 classic. And WordStar wasn't the only program written in assembler, of course. In those days it was much more common than it is now (also why WordStar used to be able to run in 48k and now needs 10x that amount), and vendors (like MicroPro) wouldn't have had such an easy migration path if IBM had gone with the 68000. The rest, I'm sad to say, is history. The very things we all flame Intel for (tortured, segmented architecture, n-year backward compatibility, "virtual 8086" modes, etc.) are part of what has made them (and IBM) so successful. Sort of ironic, huh? -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." ...!seismo!cmcl2!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (7-x6628)) (12/08/87)
In article <240@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >In article <2769@drivax.UUCP> socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (7-x6628)) writes: >>OK, there are at least 3 Motorolans on the net in the MAC group >>that I know of who were at Motorola when IBM came around asking about >>the future IBM-PC. They would know the timing. >Do we even know for sure that IBM ever knocked on Motorola's door? YES! (but I didn't say it :-) >The rest, I'm sad to say, is history. The very things we all flame Intel for >(tortured, segmented architecture, n-year backward compatibility, "virtual >8086" modes, etc.) are part of what has made them (and IBM) so successful. >Sort of ironic, huh? TRIVIA TIME! Did you know that the Intel 80386 architecture based on the 286, 186, 8086, 8080 was originally based on the Intel 8008. This machine was architected basically over a weekend in Maryland for a company in San Antonio Texas! And, put in silicon by Intel because the company was their #1 RAM (shift register that is!) purchaser at the time. It was 1 year late and then not used by that company. They had an MSI version working. It was called the Datapoint 2200. Introduced in '71 I think. The best part: The machine was to be an intelligent (programmable) terminal emulator (glass TTY). It could be real simple so, why do the STACK ORIENTED Architecture (a real computer) which was designed at the same time. Think of it, if that one was chosen, you'd be programming in RPN! :-) -- UUCP:...!amdahl!drivax!socha WAT Iron'75 "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." A. Einstein
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (12/11/87)
In article <2804@drivax.UUCP> socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (7-x6628)) writes: > >Did you know that the Intel 80386 architecture based on the 286, 186, 8086, >8080 was originally based on the Intel 8008. >This machine was architected basically over a weekend in Maryland for a >company in San Antonio Texas! And, put in silicon by Intel because the company >was their #1 RAM (shift register that is!) purchaser at the time. >It was 1 year late and then not used by that company. They had an MSI version >working. It was called the Datapoint 2200. Introduced in '71 I think. Well, you got the name of the company Intel designed their first micro- processor for right, anyway. It wasn't the 8008, though. That was Intel's own design, done after they saw some of the potential inherent in a general-purpose controller design. The design for Datapoint, which piqued Intel's interest, was the 4004, an entirely different kettle of fish than the 8008. And saying that the 8080, and, through it, the 80386, was 'the same' as the 8008 is rather like saying that a Vax is 'the same' as the original PDP-11. Obviously a relative, but hardly equivalent. Followups have been redirected to comp.sys.intel, by the way - this is a little beyond general Macintosh interests, I think... -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa | Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (7-x6628)) (12/17/87)
In article <430@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: >In article <2804@drivax.UUCP> socha@drivax.UUCP (Henri J. Socha (7-x6628)) writes: >>Did you know that the Intel 80386 architecture based on the ... 8008. >>... It was called the Datapoint 2200. Introduced in '71 I think. >... The design for Datapoint, ... was the 4004, ... > an entirely different kettle of fish than the 8008. ^^^^^^^^^ I beg to differ. The 4004 was done for Busicom a Japanese calculator manufacturer. >Followups have been redirected to comp.sys.intel My reply and quotes proving the point are there. -- UUCP:...!amdahl!drivax!socha WAT Iron'75 "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." A. Einstein