Roger Merchberger wrote:
Rumor has it that Chuck Guzis may have mentioned these
words:
[good info snippety]
I really was a booster for the 68K--and
programmed for it. But no
one ever represented that there was a simple and straightforward way
to translate x80 assembly to 68K code, nor was it clear if it was
going to be simple to use x80 peripherals with the 68K.
That's not a fair comparison, tho - a fair comparison would be "a simple
and straightforward way to translate 6800/6809 assembly to 68K code".
Intel certainly didn't provide a 6800->x86 translator, did they? ;-)
You missed Chuck's point. There was a TON of CP/M software in use
already. Maybe from where you sit the 6809 was a hot property, but by
comparison to CP/M it was a drop in the bucket (I know, I know, cp/m
sucks compared to OS/9, but that is irrelevant here).
By having a way to port CP/M apps to the x86, there was an instant,
large software base. Had intel somehow managed to make a 6809->68K
translator, it wouldn't have helped sell the putative 68k PC.