[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sat, 17 May 2014, Tom wrote:
On 17/05/14 06:35, Martinus Scriblerus wrote:oh the 68000 - if we'd had that rather than the 8088 in the damn IBM PC we wouldnt still be in the 1980's with software!On 15 May 2014 20:57, Tom <madtom1999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:http://bbc.godbolt.org/?disc=elite.ssd# Kewl! Tom te tom te tomThank you. I once knew someone who had a Unicorn - BBC Micro with 68000 2nd processor running System III Unix.
The processor was irelevant at the time. e.g. Apple used the 68000 after the 6502 (and variants) and look where they are today. (not using the 68000 for starters)
There was CP/M 68K and several micros using the 68000 - Atari AT, Amiga and others.
There was several 68000 Unixes - Bleasdale, Sun, and who knows who else.Edinburgh university developed a 68000 based computer system too. Where's that?
Acorn also had the 16032 co-processor for the Beeb - I had one! (What a waste of time that was), and look at this:
https://projects.drogon.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/phoebe.jpgLooks like a PC, has PCI slots, but is powered by ARM and ran RISC-OS. What happened to that?
So don't blame the processor - blame the people and companys behind them all, and blame us for just buying into it all at the time. (Or the governments for allowing themselves to be lobbyd by others when they didn't know any better)
I think MS (to their credit?) is the only company to stick to the same processor for their main product line in all that time though. An just think, inside every 80x86 there is a tiny little 8085 struggling to get out...
Gordon -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq