CompuServe Messages

>>It's the same thing or even worse with the motorola processors 68000, 68020+68851+68881, 68030+68882, and 68040. So what's the point ? No way, are you going just by names? There a a few differences between the chips. And they were design to be downward compatible. The 68010->68040 were extremely similar for programming. The biggest difference was the jump from 68000 to 68010 were virtual memory was added (allowing 4 gig, 68000 can only go to 16Meg). The 68020 can run a 68882 & the 68030 can be coupled with a 68881. And I do not know any program that would run in a 68881 and not in a 68882. The 68882 is just a better math coprocessor. The 68851 was (sorta) incorporated in the 68030. The chips are downward compatible. The only time you get in trouble is when you have BAD programming practices. In contrast I have programmed assembly in 8088 🙁 And is the worst nightmare you can imaging and it was very different with the 80286 on. You trullu have to learn different stuff. Nothing like any other processor I had to programmed. The main reason the PC was stuck in 8086 mode was entirely Intels screw-up. Is more MicroS**t screwup with DOS than Intel's. DOS is the problem and Intel made patches around the 80286 and 80386 to attempt to enhance it. In the 80386 and beyond they did great stuff to go around MS-Junk's (and all programs that ran on it), and 80386 is very different than 8088 (or 8086, 80186 or 82086). Apple had similar problems way back around 1986 with the OS supporting only 4 Megs (although the M68000 could address 16 Meg) but they bit the bullet and fixed the problem for good in the next release of the OS. Eduard Joseph