Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage Subject: Re: Floppies Date: 18 Sep 2025 20:27:04 GMT Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <9fjemlxbio.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <6jefmlxb6j.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <10884l7$173em$1@dont-email.me> <1089ge2$1fvl9$8@dont-email.me> <10a68ql$16tjt$1@dont-email.me> <68c6bbc5$0$402$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <10a6rp4$1d082$5@dont-email.me> <2d9jplxvcn.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <10a6t8d$1d082$8@dont-email.me> <4cnjplxbgm.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <101fck52laaigefq5tubi6i7b0qpccmuic@4ax.com> <9DOdncYo-vBzE1r1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <10a8mbc$1q6g1$8@dont-email.me> <10aflaa$3hppa$5@dont-email.me> <10agg24$3nvbq$4@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 7H9Rx2tEeKdYXFibhgG+AQh7LGScMKfluZSi66IkJE5V4P3/5/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:/Q/lx9c5Vm7pa+XtdYvXSMuRf9I= sha256:Km7AATumoVLu8TBeJk/PJbX9GiXyxd0CBMecr33VYSc= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:74492 alt.usage.english:1128393 On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 09:32:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 18/09/2025 04:55, rbowman wrote: >> Yeah, I wasn't happy about IBM's choices but at least it was the end of >> the Wild West era. > > Indeed. Really a 68000 might have been a better choice. > > But as you say, it brought a much needed - if flawed - standard.. Motorola's ability to produce 68008s was questionable. Motorola also had a bad rep of hanging you out to dry if they got an order for millions of devices from the automotive industry. You have to take in account the early '80s. The nation was recovering from the inflationary years after Nixon's wage and price controls unraveled. It wasn't uncommon for suppliers to quote deliveries of over a year. You designed around what you could get. Besides IBM had used the 8085 for the System 23 successor to the PAL processor in the 5120 so there was a familiarity with Intel.