Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,openwatcom.users.c_cpp,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ Date: 5 Nov 2025 00:13:01 GMT Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <80otshFelcU2@mid.individual.net> <20100323120956.0cd015a1@maxa> <10e8edu$2bc04$6@dont-email.me> <10eb31q$34thk$7@dont-email.me> <10ebdki$387ml$1@dont-email.me> <20251103162451.184@kylheku.com> <10edc6e$3q1si$1@dont-email.me> <10edcbg$lrh1$1@dont-email.me> <10edu55$3vith$3@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net JNLH6ja7W//qcLkLX667+w4uSzscaZCcVvvlxPjS5PsM4KNtpW Cancel-Lock: sha1:bo86bJR/mfMNdR8JflRLzuXvpjs= sha256:kTlVC+aupX7Ygm2zD9pEGSJ++hIldHWdZt87uslX4Yk= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:232057 openwatcom.users.c_cpp:3667 comp.lang.c:395098 On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 22:19:17 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 12:15:27 -0500, geodandw wrote: > >> The 68000 was a very nice processor for its time. It's too bad IBM >> didn't use it in the PC. > > Might have been a cost issue (more pins, more cost). iirc the 68008 wasn't available in quantity at the time. Motorola had a bad rep of getting distracted when huge orders were placed for some of their other offerings. IBM was also engaged in a pissing contest with Exxon, who owned Zilog, so the Z8000 was a non-starter. Cost definitely was an issue and 8-bit peripherals were cheap. They may have had some left over from the System 23 which used an 8085 :)