Rumor has it that Jim Battle may have mentioned these words:
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.
Not completely; but I seem to be viewing this thread in a very different
manner than others here, and that might be due to my skewed view of
reality, as it were... ;-)
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).
My main point for that part of the thread is that making a source-code
translator from different processor families that would be even "mostly
successful" would be at least 1, probably 2 orders of magnitude more
difficult, IMHO, and would probably have never existed, even if it were
possible.
Cross compilers or no, installed software base or no, the PC as a home or
personal platform wasn't popular in the slightest until the PC attained
"critical mass" in the business world and it started making sense to have a
compatible platform at home... and IMHO, that wouldn't have happened if IBM
hadn't forced all their bigger shops to migrate their desktop machines to PCs.
When I was in college ('85 until I quit in '88), *it didn't pay* to own a
PC. Most of my classes utilized either 1) time on the System/36, 2) time on
a Heathkit 3400A trainer (with source assembled on an HP 64000 machine with
a 6800 pod) or if you were in the robotics classes, in the Apple ][ lab.
IMHO, The PC didn't become ubiquitous until the above happened, and IMHO,
it doesn't matter what CPU it was based on.... IMHO.
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.
Very true, but what I'm saying is had IBM settled on the 68K, built the
software base for it, and once it hit critical mass for reasons I stated
above, it still would have become the dominant platform. Maybe not as
quickly or completely, but it would've still happened... and had that
happened without MicroSoft as "the only player in town" I think computing
as a whole would be much farther ahead than it is now. This from a guy
who's particularly big fan of their much older products.
[[ Did I mention IMHO? ;-) ]]
So who's gonna buy a wholly offtopic yet o-so-kewl new Amiga when they're
out? ;-)
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!