Re: 68020

From	Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>
Newsgroups	sci.electronics.design
Subject	Re: 68020
Date	2026-04-23 17:25 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<70e5ff2f-15e9-e369-4e51-052b17c87eec@electrooptical.net> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <fea35fc6-fdf0-21d4-8413-035fb7ce6aca@electrooptical.net> <2ba1ukt4ha4a11drfk5ht1s6qfrcok6auc@4ax.com> <j902ukpsd0j93fk6f7ig2gkdhk7q82q8m1@4ax.com> <4432ukhq3n5h0b7qm7rrcljv66c17bv9d7@4ax.com> <10sdgd3$356k7$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2026-04-23 12:12, Buzz McCool wrote:
> On 4/16/2026 9:31 AM, john larkin wrote:
>> 68K was a 32-bit machine but the 68332 didn't have floats. And it was
>> slow, a 16 MHz CISC processor.
>>
>> But it was a joy to code in assembler.
> 
> I had the same feelings of joy programming the 68020 in assembly language.
> It had a symmetrical and complete set of op-codes unlike what I had used 
> before.
> 
> This was after suffering through the contortions of programming the 8085,
> Z-80 and Z-80 variants (HD64180, Z80180) and in my recollection, the truly
> awful 8051.
> 
> Back then I thought a 16Mhz 68020 was quite fast.

My favorite scope has a 68020 in it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

AI�s Math Tricks Don�t Work for Scientific Computing - Low-precision number formats don�t suit many simulations joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-04-15 18:33 -0400
  Re: AI’s Math Tricks Don’t Work for Scientific Computing - Low-precision number formats don’t suit many simulations Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-15 20:17 -0400
    reply john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-16 02:18 -0700
      Re: reply joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-04-16 11:36 -0400
        Re: reply john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-16 09:31 -0700
          Re: reply joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-04-16 14:49 -0400
            Re: reply john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-16 18:25 -0700
              Re: reply joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-04-17 11:52 -0400
          Re: 68020 Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-23 09:12 -0700
            Re: 68020 Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-23 17:25 -0400
            Re: 68020 Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-23 15:39 -0700
              Re: 68020 Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> - 2026-04-24 09:40 +0100
                Re: 68020 Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-24 02:26 -0700
                Re: 68020 john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-24 10:03 -0700
      Re: reply Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-04-16 19:14 +0000
      Re: reply bitrex <user@example.net> - 2026-04-16 16:46 -0400
    Re: AI’s Math Tricks Don’t Work for Scientific Computing - Low-precision number formats don’t suit many simulations Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> - 2026-04-16 10:45 +0100
      Re: AI�s Math Tricks Don�t Work for Scientific Computing - Low-precision number formats don�t suit many simulations joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-04-16 18:38 -0400
  Re: AIs Math Tricks Dont Work for Scientific Computing - Low-precision number formats dont suit many simulations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-15 18:29 -0700
  Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-04-16 06:43 +0000
    Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-16 21:28 +1000
    Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> - 2026-04-16 13:06 +0100
      Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-16 06:34 -0700
      Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-04-16 11:44 -0400
        Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-16 08:59 -0700
          Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-04-16 14:51 -0400
            Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-16 14:29 -0700
              Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 23:44 +0100
                Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-04-16 19:00 -0400
                Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-16 16:48 -0700
                Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-16 16:41 -0700
              Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-04-17 19:56 +0000
                Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-17 16:24 -0700
                Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 18:06 -0700
                Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-04-18 19:29 +0000
                Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-18 15:10 -0700
          Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Arie de Muijnck <noreply@ademu.nl> - 2026-04-17 02:01 +0200
            Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-16 17:30 -0700
      Re: Low precision number formats do not suit many simulations Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-17 15:53 -0400
  test test john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-16 02:16 -0700
    Re: test test john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-16 07:45 -0700
      Re: test test Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-04-16 15:59 +0000
        Re: test test Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-04-16 19:24 +0000
      Re: test test joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-04-16 12:09 -0400

csiph-web