3 ms·
And yet, it performed 16-bit operations internally. It's awesome that the interface for the 68k was 32-bit oriented, it made it future-proofed for later iterati
by deaddodo 3y ago
And yet, it performed 16-bit operations internally. It's awesome that the interface for the 68k was 32-bit oriented, it made it future-proofed for later iterations. The 68000 still only did fused 16-bit operations and is thus (by the most important metric) a 16-bit processor. For the same reason an ARM operating on THUMB instructions is still a 32-bit processor.
Nothing is "clear cut" when you intentionally obfuscate it.
- vidarh 3y agoIt was not obfuscated to any of us who used them at the time. Apply whatever purity tests you want, but the reality is that a lot of people used these labels different to how you're using them, and when you insist on ignoring that you're the one engaged in obfuscation.
- deaddodo 3y ago> used these labels different to how you're using them, and when you insist on ignoring that you're the one engaged in obfuscation. Obfuscation is using a clear and consistent metric instead of the one that is most convenient for marketing a product? So not only do we disagree on the meaning of "32-bit", we also disagree on the meaning of a well defined Engish term. But sure, feel free to call humans quadrupeds because sometimes they crawl.