17 May
2007
17 May
'07
3:38 p.m.
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? ;-)
I don't really blame the guys in Boca Raton for
choosing the 8088.
There was software for it, but you keep costs down with an 8-bit bus
and use commonly-available peripheral chips. Had the the 68K been
chosen (and it was a strong rumor, particularly after the IBM 68K-
based lab computer was announced before the 5150), it might never
have been as successful.
It would've - because the reason the PC was successful despite it's
technological inferiority was due to it's being rammed [Microsoft Vista
Style(TM)] of every major corporation that had IBM "big iron." After they
were installed in most offices, the trickle-down effect of needing to work
at home, so you had to have a compatible machine at home.
Had IBM "invented" the Mac & MacOS and used the same "marketing
strategy,"
we wouldn't have to worry about hating Vista & Bill Gates would still only
be a millionaire.
It really wouldn't have made a lot of difference to me - I'd have just
spent my years whining about OS-9's superiority to MacOS instead of OS-9's
superiority to MS-DOS/Winders. ;-)
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
zmerch at 30below.com
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!