stevel@dartvax.UUCP (Steve Ligett) (10/27/87)
Why are there no 68000s faster than 12.5 MHz?
Is it a marketing decision, or an engineering
one? Does the 68HC000 use the same CMOS tech-
nology as the 68020?
I'd love to have a 20MHz 68000.
--
Steve Ligett stevel@dartmouth.edu or
(decvax harvard ihnp4 linus true)!dartvax!steveldaveh@cbmvax.UUCP (10/29/87)
in article <7487@dartvax.UUCP>, stevel@dartvax.UUCP (Steve Ligett) says: > > Why are there no 68000s faster than 12.5 MHz? Thompson makes a 16MHz 68000. > Is it a marketing decision, or an engineering one? Does the 68HC000 use the > same CMOS technology as the 68020? Probably both. The NMOS 68000 can't likely be pushed any faster. The CMOS 68000 is newer, and hasn't likely been pushed that far. But why would Motorola let you settle for a 20MHz 68000 at $15.00, when they can sell you a 20MHz 68020 for $300.00? > Steve Ligett stevel@dartmouth.edu or > (decvax harvard ihnp4 linus true)!dartvax!stevel -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|caip|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh "The B2000 Guy" PLINK : D-DAVE H BIX : hazy "Computers are what happen when you give up sleeping" - Iggy the Cat
normt@ihlpa.UUCP (10/30/87)
In article <7487@dartvax.UUCP>, stevel@dartvax.UUCP (Steve Ligett) writes: > Why are there no 68000s faster than 12.5 MHz? > Is it a marketing decision, or an engineering one? > I'd love to have a 20MHz 68000. > Steve Ligett stevel@dartmouth.edu or There are some available, we are using an at least 17Mhz part, which we are getting from Signetics. They are not able to market a "68000" faster than 12.5Mhz because of the licencing agrement with Motorola. They can (and did) sell us some special chips (different number) which have all the functions of the 68000 and operate at much higher rates. I'm not sure how willing they are to do this in orders of 1's and 2's. Norm Tiedemann Room IH 2G-331 ihnp4!ihlpa!normt AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL 60566
normt@ihlpa.ATT.COM (N. R Tiedemann) (10/30/87)
In article <6085@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, normt@ihlpa.ATT.COM (N. R Tiedemann) writes: > > There are some available, we are using an at least 17Mhz part, which we > are getting from Signetics. They are not able to market a "68000" faster OOPS, We are getting them from Hitachi not Signetics. Silly ME. Norm Tiedemann Room IH 2G-331 ihnp4!ihlpa!normt AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL 60566
motsea@amc.UUCP (Motorola Seattle ) (10/30/87)
In article <2649@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >in article <7487@dartvax.UUCP>, stevel@dartvax.UUCP (Steve Ligett) says: >> >> Why are there no 68000s faster than 12.5 MHz? > >Thompson makes a 16MHz 68000. A close look at the specs is appropriate in this case. You be the judge... >> Is it a marketing decision, or an engineering one? Does the 68HC000 use the >> same CMOS technology as the 68020? >Probably both. The NMOS 68000 can't likely be pushed any faster. The Motorola realizes the NMOS can't efficiently be pushed past 12.5 MHz, which is why we don't offer such a device. IF a sufficiently large market were to exist [or perhaps develops]for a 16 MHz 68k, the device that would be offered would be the CMOS version. It is mostly marketing decision... >Motorola let you settle for a 20MHz 68000 at $15.00, when they can sell you >a 20MHz 68020 for $300.00? 20MHz 68k's aren't likely, regardless of the cost, which would be more than $15, to be sure... >> Steve Ligett stevel@dartmouth.edu or >> (decvax harvard ihnp4 linus true)!dartvax!stevel >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|caip|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh > "The B2000 Guy" PLINK : D-DAVE H BIX : hazy > "Computers are what happen when you give up sleeping" - Iggy the Cat ...mark konopacky fae motorola seattle email: ...uw-beaver!tikal!motsea!mark [I am fortunate to use Applied Micro's system for news...] << Standard Disclaimer >>
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (10/31/87)
In article <7487@dartvax.UUCP> stevel@dartvax.UUCP (Steve Ligett) writes: >Why are there no 68000s faster than 12.5 MHz? >Is it a marketing decision, or an engineering >one? Does the 68HC000 use the same CMOS tech- >nology as the 68020? > >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. These are better processors and in the case of the 68010, pin compatible. Even so, I'd like to see register relative addressing extended in futher 68K family product to range the full 32 bit address range (I've heard the reasons against it and my answer is simply that it's *still* a good idea). 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. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
rwa@auvax.UUCP (Ross Alexander) (11/03/87)
In article <2118@lsuc.UUCP>, jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > In article <7487@dartvax.UUCP> stevel@dartvax.UUCP (Steve Ligett) writes: ... > >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. > These are better processors and in the case of the 68010, pin > compatible. Well, pin compatability is one thing, but some of us are using brain-damaged software and OS's that get all f****d up when presented with 68010 exception frames and so on (Atari shall not be mentioned to protect the guilty). But I still would like my toy box to go faster. What's a fellow to do? Your answer is: go whistle. I would like a more positive response from a vendor, perhaps a 24 MHz 68000 ;-) Ross Alexander, Athabasca University, ...!ihnp4!alberta!auvax!rwa
ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Ward) (11/06/87)
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
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (11/10/87)
In article <384@auvax.UUCP> rwa@auvax.UUCP (Ross Alexander) writes: >In article <2118@lsuc.UUCP>, jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >... >> I disagree. I'd rather see the 68000 completely phased out >> in favour of lower cost versions of the 68010, 68020 and 68030. >> These are better processors and in the case of the 68010, pin >> compatible. >Well, pin compatability is one thing, but some of us are using brain-damaged >software and OS's that get all f****d up when presented with 68010 exception >frames and so on (Atari shall not be mentioned to protect the guilty). Yeah, but don't blame me for that. I keep telling people to use OS-9. You know what? Under OS-9 you can write "generic" 68K family software. You can also write processor specific software where it's clearly advantageous, but I run a number of programs on my 68020 machine and 68000 machine interchange- ably. Besides, for the most part, the software isn't usually that hard to fix. I few minutes with a text processor and a recompile are often all that's needed. And heck, you want to build up *more* non-portable software and lock yourself into an outdated processor even worse, or do you want to make start into a clean future now? Cheers! -- Jim O. >But I still would like my toy box to go faster. What's a fellow to do? Your >answer is: go whistle. I would like a more positive response from a vendor, >perhaps a 24 MHz 68000 ;-) You could do what I did. Buy a better computer to hook up to your "toy" computer. I run a CoCo3, Atari ST and QT-20X. That's 6809, 68000 and 68020. All 3 run OS-9 in various forms by the way and as noted, in the case of the ST and QT-20X I can even write programs to run on both interchangeably. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (11/10/87)
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
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (11/13/87)
> You could do what I did. Buy a better computer to hook up > to your "toy" computer. I run a CoCo3, Atari ST and QT-20X. > That's 6809, 68000 and 68020. All 3 run OS-9 in various forms > by the way and as noted, in the case of the ST and QT-20X I > can even write programs to run on both interchangeably. Okay, it sounds like OS-9 has some nice features. But isn't it a VCIF (voice crying in the wilderness) compared to many of the other current OSes when it comes to the number of people actually using it, and therefore the support available? Maybe I have the wrong impression... Richard