Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,openwatcom.users.c_cpp,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 16:46:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <10el7q0$hqi$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <hhq63802k7f@news7.newsguy.com> <dRoOQ.1421028$xYr1.1123604@fx14.iad> <10edc6e$3q1si$1@dont-email.me> <10edcbg$lrh1$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 16:46:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="18258"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:232072 openwatcom.users.c_cpp:3674 comp.lang.c:395122

In article <10edcbg$lrh1$1@dont-email.me>,
geodandw  <geodandw@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/4/25 12:12, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 04/11/2025 15:20, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
>>>> On 2025-11-03, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/3/25 13:24, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When I saw this subject line, I thought it was some necroposting to
>>>> threads from 1990.
>>>>
>>>> Someone still cared about segmented x86 shit in 2010 (even if 32 bit)?
>>>
>>> There are still people on the internet who swear that the 286 is
>>> better than sliced bread and refuse to recognize that modern
>>> architectures are superior.
>> 
>> I can still hear them down the hall.
>> 
>> ST!
>> .......................................................Amiga!
>> ST!
>> .......................................................Amiga!
> 
>The 68000 was a very nice processor for its time. It's too bad IBM 
>didn't use it in the PC.

They wanted to.  IBM had a close relationship with Motorola, and
they even had engineering samples in Westchester.  The problem
was that 68k was a skunkworks project inside of Moto, which was
pushing the 6809 as the Next Big Thing.  So when IBM was talking
to Moto sales about using 68k for the PC, Moto was pushing them
(not so gently) towards the 6809 and telling them 68k was just a
research project with no future.

IBM was smart enough to know that the 6809 was going to be a
non-starter (a firmly 8-bit micro when 16-bit CPUs were becoming
mainstream), and the 8088 met their specs for the 5150, so they
went with Intel instead.  By the time it was clear that the 68k
was going to be Moto's flagship CPU going forward, it was too
late for inclusion in the PC.

And here we are.

	- Dan C.