Re: Why still using Apple II?

["Alex Freed" <alexf@mirrow.com>]

> > that Steve Worniak chose not to purchase Intel 8080 CPU for Apple II
family
> > because he could not be able to afford expensive CPU so he chose 6502
CPU.
> > I assume that Apple Computer, Inc made a bigger mistake to choose 68000
CPU
> > and PowerPC CPU for Macintosh.

> Very sad?
>
> For performance reasons, the 65xx *was* more powerful then the 8080. (
> now the 8085, that would be debatable, except it was not out yet when
> the decision had to be made. ) AND it was cheaper.. So that mere motals
> could have one..


While is is debatable if 6502 was any faster/better/cooler than an 8080,
there is absolutely no question
that 68000 was light-years ahead of 8088. Just consider 32 bit registers,
4GB address space and a much better
instruction set.
I have been joking for years that had IBM used 68000, the programmers
wouldn't get paid as much.

Now 386 was the first "real" CPU from Intel that allowed true multitasking.
Intel had an embeded CPU i960 that
had an architecture much closer to 68000 than to other Intel's processors.
The ONLY reason for the x86 line
to exist was backwards compatibiliy due to the installed base of the PCs.
Now of course it is the volume of PC clone sales that makes the price of x86
reasonable.

-Alex.