Nice PC-museum..

[Jim Battle]

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.  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).

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.