AVR-Chat

Thomas Keller wrote:

[===]

>    Bull puckey!   I was a recipient of a pre-produciton sample of an
> MC68000  microprocessoir at about the same time that Apple Computer
> received their pre-production samples.  I was so impressed with the
> archi8tecture (which wasn't perfect, but was so far advanced over the
> x86 crap as to be totally amazing) that my nick on the intra-state
> computer chat system we had on the California State University and
> College staste-wdie timesharing computers was "68000Micronut."  When
> Apple began hinting around about their new design, and let it be known
> it was to be based on the 68K, I was thirlled.  Unitl I saw the design
> and architecture of the machine.  What a loser!

Gotta toss in my two cents worth.  Back when the 68000 and the 8086 were 
coming out, I had to decide on which part to use in a product my company 
was working on.  I had the both manuals on my desk; the Motorola one was 
fairly slender compared to the Intel one.  (like 100 pages vs 350 pages 
IIRC).  At first, I thought the Moto manual was either a preliminary or 
that they left something out, but on study, I discovered that the 
slender Moto manual contained 100% of the information I needed to apply 
the 68000 in a circuit and also to write demo code for my boss.  Whereas 
the intel manual left stuff out that I had to get from _another_ Intel book.

Oh, let's not forget the flat addressing space and the (almost) 
orthogonal instruction set that Moto used compared to Intel's 
segment:offset bullshit and baroque instruction set.  Think 8080 on 
steroids.  (I don't think Intel knows how to make a decent instruction set.)

At any rate, my bosses did the smart thing for once and went with the 
68000 and the product was a success.  Although I no longer work there, I 
understand they are using the 68000's successors (Coldfire, I think they 
call it).

erikc