Talk:Motorola 68000 series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Motorola 68000 family)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).
 

IBM Compatable??[edit]

"During the 1980s and early 1990s, when the 68000 was widely used in desktop computers, it mainly competed against Intel's x86 architecture, which to this day — other than a small minority of Transmeta VLIW processors — remains the only architecture used in IBM Compatible PCs. Generation 1 68000 CPUs primarily competed against the 16-bit 8086/8088 and 80286."

What is this about? It doesn't seem correct. Which m68k systems were IBM compatible PCs? Many m68k systems I can think of are personal computers, but not 'IBM Compatible PCs', I think. If we include other kinds of 'PCs' there doesn't seem to be anything notable left to talk about since there where many different PC architectures other than m68k and x86. If the claim is instead that some software to emulate x86 made it 'IBM PC Compatible' then: this seems to be the wrong way to say it and it has nothing to do with the m68k line of CPUs. It would only relevant to some computer vendor's historical marketing claim not to m68k generally. Emulators for x86 exist for nearly every platform today of course. ...But maybe I am misunderstanding the intended claim here? Since I don't actually understand what specific kind of PC we are talking about here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.106.24 (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What it's about is the x86 architecture; the "which to this day" clause refers to "Intel's x86 architecture". Guy Harris (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I get it now. This seemed to imply to me that m68k was used in an 'IBM Compatible PC' (because of the way Transmeta was mentioned). I see now the point is rather it was an important architecture in PCs of that era. It still sounds a bit like there were no other major PC architectures (Z-80, ARM, and Power come to mind here), but certainly I could see arguing a case for m68k being one of the more important in this period of time and class of computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.106.24 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"Modern" Desktop Computers[edit]

I have a problem with this statement: "Although no modern desktop computers are based on the 68k," well, couldn't the Amiga be considered modern? Its last manafacture date is 1994/95 but the computers are still in use today (see the amount of Amiga sites still on the internet -- I can't external link obviously) so doesn't that make it a "modern" machine? How do we define "modern"?

Well, the Classic Amiga 68k platform is not supported by it's parent company (Amiga inc), and it's as you say no longer manufactured nor sold and commercial 68k software is pretty much non-existant. So I'm having a hard time calling it modern myself. 85.19.140.9 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If one were to define "modern" as meaning "currently manufactured and sold", one would have to say that "the International Space Station is not modern", while "the horse and buggy is modern".
Could we improve this article by avoiding the ambiguous word "modern", replacing
Although no modern desktop computers are based on the 68000, derivative processors are still widely used ...
with
Although the last desktop computers based on the 68000 were produced in <insert appropriate year here>, derivative processors are still widely used ..."
 ? --DavidCary (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)