• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Microprocessor Wars!

Microprocessor Wars!

  • Total voters
    16
A

atari2600a

Veteran Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,267
Location
Schwarzeneggerville, CA
Choose your microprocessor! The polls are open, & the wars are on!

EDIT: Hm, probably should've put the Z80 higher up before I posted this...
 
Last edited:
My obvious answer should be the 68K, since it was light-years ahead of any of it's contemporary competitors. InRealLife, I have to say the Z80, because the i8080 is the only cpu I even come close to understanding, and the Z80 is hard & software compatible, while being simpler to interface to (or so I'm told), even though I don't fully grok all of it's advanced features.

--T
 
Indeed, the 68000 was extremely powerful when it came out, but I went w/ the 6502 because it was extremely powerful for only $25! Plus, there have been many computers & videogame systems that used it.
 
Mine is the 68k, cause it seems like it can go into anything and work. And the atari bok Ihave is actually understandable. And there's a Linux for it!
 
Not that I'm complaining, but a few more or less obscure CPUs were left out from the poll. I'm thinking about TMS 9900, Motorola 6800/09, RCA 1802, GI CP1610 and so on. Those are just off the top of my head, and don't include mainframes, early RISC architectures or stuff like that. I'm not sure if the number of options in a poll is limited, but generally "Other" is a good idea to add if you want everyone to be able to vote properly.

Enough chit-chat, the answer to this poll is easy: 6502.
 
torn between 68000, and 6502, 68000 because of the lovely orthogonal instruction set and the smooth operation, 6502 because it was just made to do the job. went with the 6502, because it was quirk free & I knew it better.

The Intel or Zilog processors are HORRIBLE like an old ford cortina with wide-boy bolt-ons, nothing fits properly & it's a mess. it's time the architecture was binned. I guess that's wha the ill fated Crusoe attempted to do, by weaning people gently off the intel-dependency.
 
I second the motion that we're missing the 6809. ;) Lacking that, it was a tough choice between the other nicely-orthogonal 68k and the 6502. The 6502 being more appropriately simple and vintage, and just as ubiquitous, I ended up selecting that...
 
I don't know why I never was hooked on the 68K. I mean, I've taken programming courses (and got credits!) in 68K assembly code, using one of the most favored 68K programming/reference books. I have the desk full of Amiga computers and a Macintosh in the closet. It was not until I had taken the 68K course that I really took off programming 6502. Probabaly it has to do with general accessibility of the system as a whole; I knew more about the VIC/64 architecture than I know about the Amiga and I never felt for learning it. Also, the Amiga had decent Pascal and later C compilers so moving into assembly code was not as urgent for me.
 
Had to say 486, 1. For the amount of $$.$$ it put in my pockets back then and 2. for the $$.$$ it put in my pockets back then,,:D
 
For me, it's the Mighty 486 DX! Just look at all the incarnations of a 486 based PC there can be out there....

1989 - 486 DX-33, 8MB of RAM, DOS 5.0 w/ Windows 3.0
1992 - 486 DX2-66, 16MB of RAM, DOS 6.0 w/ Windows 3.1
1994 - 486 DX4-100, 32MB of RAM, DOS 6.22 w/ Windows For Workgroups 3.11
2000 - AMD 5x86 486/133, 128MB of RAM, Windows 98 SE

I don't think there was a single Intel based CPU with that long of a shelf life on the modern desktop market, or that could at least be used that long running the latest (or darn close to it) software.

And if you have a Turbo Switch, it'll cover most, if not all of the 286 and XT ground at least well enough to be useful for old programs from my experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top