Why was the Sega Genesis marketed as a 16-bit console?If the Sega Genesis/MegaDrive could be overclocked so easily, why couldn't the SNES?
Chemmacros scheme translation
The eyes have it
What should the arbiter and what should have I done in this case?
Why only the fundamental frequency component is said to give useful power?
Implement Homestuck's Catenative Doomsday Dice Cascader
Using a found spellbook as a Sorcerer-Wizard multiclass
Hottest Possible Hydrogen-Fusing Stars
Smooth switching between 12 V batteries, with a toggle switch
Passing multiple files through stdin (over ssh)
What's the name of this light airplane?
Preventing Employees from either switching to Competitors or Opening Their Own Business
Find duplicated column value in CSV
Find the Factorial From the Given Prime Relationship
What's up with this leaf?
How do I write "Show, Don't Tell" as a person with Asperger Syndrome?
Interview not reimboursed if offer is made but not accepted
BGP multihome issue
What is the actual quality of machine translations?
Can an Aarakocra use a shield while flying?
Why would future John risk sending back a T-800 to save his younger self?
How to chain Python function calls so the behaviour is as follows
Is open-sourcing the code of a webapp not recommended?
What does the term "railed" mean in signal processing?
Trapping Rain Water
Why was the Sega Genesis marketed as a 16-bit console?
If the Sega Genesis/MegaDrive could be overclocked so easily, why couldn't the SNES?
The Sega Genesis / Mega Drive's main CPU, the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor. Couldn't Sega have marketed the console as a 32-bit device? Or is there a technical distinction about how the 68000 was used in the Genesis that makes the system, as a whole, 16-bit?
My best guesses are that it has something to do with word size (the 68000 can address bytes, 16-bit words, or 32-bit long words) or the size of the buses inside the console. Still, I would think that Sega's marketing team would've chosen the most beneficial number when looking at the technical specs.
sega-genesis terminology
New contributor
add a comment |
The Sega Genesis / Mega Drive's main CPU, the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor. Couldn't Sega have marketed the console as a 32-bit device? Or is there a technical distinction about how the 68000 was used in the Genesis that makes the system, as a whole, 16-bit?
My best guesses are that it has something to do with word size (the 68000 can address bytes, 16-bit words, or 32-bit long words) or the size of the buses inside the console. Still, I would think that Sega's marketing team would've chosen the most beneficial number when looking at the technical specs.
sega-genesis terminology
New contributor
add a comment |
The Sega Genesis / Mega Drive's main CPU, the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor. Couldn't Sega have marketed the console as a 32-bit device? Or is there a technical distinction about how the 68000 was used in the Genesis that makes the system, as a whole, 16-bit?
My best guesses are that it has something to do with word size (the 68000 can address bytes, 16-bit words, or 32-bit long words) or the size of the buses inside the console. Still, I would think that Sega's marketing team would've chosen the most beneficial number when looking at the technical specs.
sega-genesis terminology
New contributor
The Sega Genesis / Mega Drive's main CPU, the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor. Couldn't Sega have marketed the console as a 32-bit device? Or is there a technical distinction about how the 68000 was used in the Genesis that makes the system, as a whole, 16-bit?
My best guesses are that it has something to do with word size (the 68000 can address bytes, 16-bit words, or 32-bit long words) or the size of the buses inside the console. Still, I would think that Sega's marketing team would've chosen the most beneficial number when looking at the technical specs.
sega-genesis terminology
sega-genesis terminology
New contributor
New contributor
edited 8 hours ago
Joe Sewell
New contributor
asked 8 hours ago
Joe SewellJoe Sewell
1164
1164
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
... the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
As already written, Motorola itself said that it is a 16-bit processor.
And as far as I know, the reason is not the external 16-bit bus but the inner architecture of the 68000:
The 68000 only had a 16-bit ALU, which means that it could only perform 16-bit operations.
The CPU executed 32-bit instructions (like add.l
) by performing two 16-bit operations internally.
This 16-bit ALU is a major difference to CPUs like the 386SX that also only had an external 16-bit data bus but a real 32-bit ALU - and therefore were called 32-bit processors by the manufacturers.
2
Yes, I’ve always thought of bit-ness as determined by the ALU width (at least, that matches PC descriptions, with the 16-bit IBM PC and its 8088, 32-bit 386SXs, and the 32-bit Pentium with its 64-bit data bus). 32-bit on the 386SX was also associated with 32-bit protected mode, which the CPU was fully capable of handling.
– Stephen Kitt
4 hours ago
add a comment |
It's usually the width of the system data bus that determines the "bitted-ness" used to describe the system.
While the Motorola 68k CPU used as a component in the Sega system certainly has some internal 32-bit capabilities, most notably the width of the register page, and is designed for upward compatibility with full 32-bit CPUs (like the 68020), the reality is that the 68000 only possesses a 16-bit data bus. Likewise, the Genesis system data bus is also 16 bits.
Also, at the time of the introduction of the Genesis, it was very competitive with the technology in other game consoles. So, there was no need for Sega to try to bend the truth with some over-zealous marketing scheme attempting to brand their new console as 32-bit capable. Instead, and only later, did they get into a bit of technical hyperbole with their marketing of "Blast Processing" aimed at the SNES.
add a comment |
the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
I'd say 16 Bit - likewise Motorola did (*1).
The bitness of a processor is and always will be up for discussion, as various features may not operate at the same size. An 8088 can be (an has been) called an 8-bit CPU as well as 16-bit. Similar the 68000 with its 32-bit registers but 16-bit bus. Beside data bus and register size, the ALU can as well be used (*2). Last but not least operand size may be a valid criteria (*3).
Couldn't Sega have marketed the console as a 32-bit device?
Yes, the could - but there would have been no gain. At the time the Genesis was introduced (1988) there was no race for 'more bits' especially not in the general public. The prior generation wasn't marketed as 8-bit systems. That's a label that got only retroactive assigned when 16 Bit systems became popular and marketed as such.
It was about setting a undoubtedly new mark, making everything else look outdated. The second half of the 1980s was also the time when bitness was used to distinguish the 'new' and 'better' computers with the very same label. Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, as well as 286 PCs, where marketed as 16 Bit machines, so the label was already promoted and present in non-geek-minds (*4) as a sign for being the better choice. Hooking up to an established label is almost always better than trying to build a brand from scratch with all new attributes.
Bottom line: Calling it 16-bit (which it undeniable is) was the best bet for Sega marketing.
Sidnote: Atari's attempt to sell the Jaguar in 1994 as 64-bit console might as well have worked less than expected for the same reason: Consumers just got used to consoled being called 16-bit and having 32-bit coming up. Jumping too far ahead doesn't work well.
*1 - The same way next to all manufacturers of 68000 machines did call their products 16-bit computers - or 16/32 as most.
*2 - Making the Z80 a 4-bit CPU :))
*3 - Thus the (16-bBit) Z8000 could be rightfully called a 64-bit CPU :))
*4 - Like always, dad has to pay for a new console and he needs as well a reason to crank out more paper slices than for some other game console - having Sonic didn't ring a bell.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Joe Sewell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f11210%2fwhy-was-the-sega-genesis-marketed-as-a-16-bit-console%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
... the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
As already written, Motorola itself said that it is a 16-bit processor.
And as far as I know, the reason is not the external 16-bit bus but the inner architecture of the 68000:
The 68000 only had a 16-bit ALU, which means that it could only perform 16-bit operations.
The CPU executed 32-bit instructions (like add.l
) by performing two 16-bit operations internally.
This 16-bit ALU is a major difference to CPUs like the 386SX that also only had an external 16-bit data bus but a real 32-bit ALU - and therefore were called 32-bit processors by the manufacturers.
2
Yes, I’ve always thought of bit-ness as determined by the ALU width (at least, that matches PC descriptions, with the 16-bit IBM PC and its 8088, 32-bit 386SXs, and the 32-bit Pentium with its 64-bit data bus). 32-bit on the 386SX was also associated with 32-bit protected mode, which the CPU was fully capable of handling.
– Stephen Kitt
4 hours ago
add a comment |
... the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
As already written, Motorola itself said that it is a 16-bit processor.
And as far as I know, the reason is not the external 16-bit bus but the inner architecture of the 68000:
The 68000 only had a 16-bit ALU, which means that it could only perform 16-bit operations.
The CPU executed 32-bit instructions (like add.l
) by performing two 16-bit operations internally.
This 16-bit ALU is a major difference to CPUs like the 386SX that also only had an external 16-bit data bus but a real 32-bit ALU - and therefore were called 32-bit processors by the manufacturers.
2
Yes, I’ve always thought of bit-ness as determined by the ALU width (at least, that matches PC descriptions, with the 16-bit IBM PC and its 8088, 32-bit 386SXs, and the 32-bit Pentium with its 64-bit data bus). 32-bit on the 386SX was also associated with 32-bit protected mode, which the CPU was fully capable of handling.
– Stephen Kitt
4 hours ago
add a comment |
... the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
As already written, Motorola itself said that it is a 16-bit processor.
And as far as I know, the reason is not the external 16-bit bus but the inner architecture of the 68000:
The 68000 only had a 16-bit ALU, which means that it could only perform 16-bit operations.
The CPU executed 32-bit instructions (like add.l
) by performing two 16-bit operations internally.
This 16-bit ALU is a major difference to CPUs like the 386SX that also only had an external 16-bit data bus but a real 32-bit ALU - and therefore were called 32-bit processors by the manufacturers.
... the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
As already written, Motorola itself said that it is a 16-bit processor.
And as far as I know, the reason is not the external 16-bit bus but the inner architecture of the 68000:
The 68000 only had a 16-bit ALU, which means that it could only perform 16-bit operations.
The CPU executed 32-bit instructions (like add.l
) by performing two 16-bit operations internally.
This 16-bit ALU is a major difference to CPUs like the 386SX that also only had an external 16-bit data bus but a real 32-bit ALU - and therefore were called 32-bit processors by the manufacturers.
answered 7 hours ago
Martin RosenauMartin Rosenau
945137
945137
2
Yes, I’ve always thought of bit-ness as determined by the ALU width (at least, that matches PC descriptions, with the 16-bit IBM PC and its 8088, 32-bit 386SXs, and the 32-bit Pentium with its 64-bit data bus). 32-bit on the 386SX was also associated with 32-bit protected mode, which the CPU was fully capable of handling.
– Stephen Kitt
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Yes, I’ve always thought of bit-ness as determined by the ALU width (at least, that matches PC descriptions, with the 16-bit IBM PC and its 8088, 32-bit 386SXs, and the 32-bit Pentium with its 64-bit data bus). 32-bit on the 386SX was also associated with 32-bit protected mode, which the CPU was fully capable of handling.
– Stephen Kitt
4 hours ago
2
2
Yes, I’ve always thought of bit-ness as determined by the ALU width (at least, that matches PC descriptions, with the 16-bit IBM PC and its 8088, 32-bit 386SXs, and the 32-bit Pentium with its 64-bit data bus). 32-bit on the 386SX was also associated with 32-bit protected mode, which the CPU was fully capable of handling.
– Stephen Kitt
4 hours ago
Yes, I’ve always thought of bit-ness as determined by the ALU width (at least, that matches PC descriptions, with the 16-bit IBM PC and its 8088, 32-bit 386SXs, and the 32-bit Pentium with its 64-bit data bus). 32-bit on the 386SX was also associated with 32-bit protected mode, which the CPU was fully capable of handling.
– Stephen Kitt
4 hours ago
add a comment |
It's usually the width of the system data bus that determines the "bitted-ness" used to describe the system.
While the Motorola 68k CPU used as a component in the Sega system certainly has some internal 32-bit capabilities, most notably the width of the register page, and is designed for upward compatibility with full 32-bit CPUs (like the 68020), the reality is that the 68000 only possesses a 16-bit data bus. Likewise, the Genesis system data bus is also 16 bits.
Also, at the time of the introduction of the Genesis, it was very competitive with the technology in other game consoles. So, there was no need for Sega to try to bend the truth with some over-zealous marketing scheme attempting to brand their new console as 32-bit capable. Instead, and only later, did they get into a bit of technical hyperbole with their marketing of "Blast Processing" aimed at the SNES.
add a comment |
It's usually the width of the system data bus that determines the "bitted-ness" used to describe the system.
While the Motorola 68k CPU used as a component in the Sega system certainly has some internal 32-bit capabilities, most notably the width of the register page, and is designed for upward compatibility with full 32-bit CPUs (like the 68020), the reality is that the 68000 only possesses a 16-bit data bus. Likewise, the Genesis system data bus is also 16 bits.
Also, at the time of the introduction of the Genesis, it was very competitive with the technology in other game consoles. So, there was no need for Sega to try to bend the truth with some over-zealous marketing scheme attempting to brand their new console as 32-bit capable. Instead, and only later, did they get into a bit of technical hyperbole with their marketing of "Blast Processing" aimed at the SNES.
add a comment |
It's usually the width of the system data bus that determines the "bitted-ness" used to describe the system.
While the Motorola 68k CPU used as a component in the Sega system certainly has some internal 32-bit capabilities, most notably the width of the register page, and is designed for upward compatibility with full 32-bit CPUs (like the 68020), the reality is that the 68000 only possesses a 16-bit data bus. Likewise, the Genesis system data bus is also 16 bits.
Also, at the time of the introduction of the Genesis, it was very competitive with the technology in other game consoles. So, there was no need for Sega to try to bend the truth with some over-zealous marketing scheme attempting to brand their new console as 32-bit capable. Instead, and only later, did they get into a bit of technical hyperbole with their marketing of "Blast Processing" aimed at the SNES.
It's usually the width of the system data bus that determines the "bitted-ness" used to describe the system.
While the Motorola 68k CPU used as a component in the Sega system certainly has some internal 32-bit capabilities, most notably the width of the register page, and is designed for upward compatibility with full 32-bit CPUs (like the 68020), the reality is that the 68000 only possesses a 16-bit data bus. Likewise, the Genesis system data bus is also 16 bits.
Also, at the time of the introduction of the Genesis, it was very competitive with the technology in other game consoles. So, there was no need for Sega to try to bend the truth with some over-zealous marketing scheme attempting to brand their new console as 32-bit capable. Instead, and only later, did they get into a bit of technical hyperbole with their marketing of "Blast Processing" aimed at the SNES.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Brian HBrian H
19.5k71171
19.5k71171
add a comment |
add a comment |
the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
I'd say 16 Bit - likewise Motorola did (*1).
The bitness of a processor is and always will be up for discussion, as various features may not operate at the same size. An 8088 can be (an has been) called an 8-bit CPU as well as 16-bit. Similar the 68000 with its 32-bit registers but 16-bit bus. Beside data bus and register size, the ALU can as well be used (*2). Last but not least operand size may be a valid criteria (*3).
Couldn't Sega have marketed the console as a 32-bit device?
Yes, the could - but there would have been no gain. At the time the Genesis was introduced (1988) there was no race for 'more bits' especially not in the general public. The prior generation wasn't marketed as 8-bit systems. That's a label that got only retroactive assigned when 16 Bit systems became popular and marketed as such.
It was about setting a undoubtedly new mark, making everything else look outdated. The second half of the 1980s was also the time when bitness was used to distinguish the 'new' and 'better' computers with the very same label. Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, as well as 286 PCs, where marketed as 16 Bit machines, so the label was already promoted and present in non-geek-minds (*4) as a sign for being the better choice. Hooking up to an established label is almost always better than trying to build a brand from scratch with all new attributes.
Bottom line: Calling it 16-bit (which it undeniable is) was the best bet for Sega marketing.
Sidnote: Atari's attempt to sell the Jaguar in 1994 as 64-bit console might as well have worked less than expected for the same reason: Consumers just got used to consoled being called 16-bit and having 32-bit coming up. Jumping too far ahead doesn't work well.
*1 - The same way next to all manufacturers of 68000 machines did call their products 16-bit computers - or 16/32 as most.
*2 - Making the Z80 a 4-bit CPU :))
*3 - Thus the (16-bBit) Z8000 could be rightfully called a 64-bit CPU :))
*4 - Like always, dad has to pay for a new console and he needs as well a reason to crank out more paper slices than for some other game console - having Sonic didn't ring a bell.
add a comment |
the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
I'd say 16 Bit - likewise Motorola did (*1).
The bitness of a processor is and always will be up for discussion, as various features may not operate at the same size. An 8088 can be (an has been) called an 8-bit CPU as well as 16-bit. Similar the 68000 with its 32-bit registers but 16-bit bus. Beside data bus and register size, the ALU can as well be used (*2). Last but not least operand size may be a valid criteria (*3).
Couldn't Sega have marketed the console as a 32-bit device?
Yes, the could - but there would have been no gain. At the time the Genesis was introduced (1988) there was no race for 'more bits' especially not in the general public. The prior generation wasn't marketed as 8-bit systems. That's a label that got only retroactive assigned when 16 Bit systems became popular and marketed as such.
It was about setting a undoubtedly new mark, making everything else look outdated. The second half of the 1980s was also the time when bitness was used to distinguish the 'new' and 'better' computers with the very same label. Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, as well as 286 PCs, where marketed as 16 Bit machines, so the label was already promoted and present in non-geek-minds (*4) as a sign for being the better choice. Hooking up to an established label is almost always better than trying to build a brand from scratch with all new attributes.
Bottom line: Calling it 16-bit (which it undeniable is) was the best bet for Sega marketing.
Sidnote: Atari's attempt to sell the Jaguar in 1994 as 64-bit console might as well have worked less than expected for the same reason: Consumers just got used to consoled being called 16-bit and having 32-bit coming up. Jumping too far ahead doesn't work well.
*1 - The same way next to all manufacturers of 68000 machines did call their products 16-bit computers - or 16/32 as most.
*2 - Making the Z80 a 4-bit CPU :))
*3 - Thus the (16-bBit) Z8000 could be rightfully called a 64-bit CPU :))
*4 - Like always, dad has to pay for a new console and he needs as well a reason to crank out more paper slices than for some other game console - having Sonic didn't ring a bell.
add a comment |
the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
I'd say 16 Bit - likewise Motorola did (*1).
The bitness of a processor is and always will be up for discussion, as various features may not operate at the same size. An 8088 can be (an has been) called an 8-bit CPU as well as 16-bit. Similar the 68000 with its 32-bit registers but 16-bit bus. Beside data bus and register size, the ALU can as well be used (*2). Last but not least operand size may be a valid criteria (*3).
Couldn't Sega have marketed the console as a 32-bit device?
Yes, the could - but there would have been no gain. At the time the Genesis was introduced (1988) there was no race for 'more bits' especially not in the general public. The prior generation wasn't marketed as 8-bit systems. That's a label that got only retroactive assigned when 16 Bit systems became popular and marketed as such.
It was about setting a undoubtedly new mark, making everything else look outdated. The second half of the 1980s was also the time when bitness was used to distinguish the 'new' and 'better' computers with the very same label. Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, as well as 286 PCs, where marketed as 16 Bit machines, so the label was already promoted and present in non-geek-minds (*4) as a sign for being the better choice. Hooking up to an established label is almost always better than trying to build a brand from scratch with all new attributes.
Bottom line: Calling it 16-bit (which it undeniable is) was the best bet for Sega marketing.
Sidnote: Atari's attempt to sell the Jaguar in 1994 as 64-bit console might as well have worked less than expected for the same reason: Consumers just got used to consoled being called 16-bit and having 32-bit coming up. Jumping too far ahead doesn't work well.
*1 - The same way next to all manufacturers of 68000 machines did call their products 16-bit computers - or 16/32 as most.
*2 - Making the Z80 a 4-bit CPU :))
*3 - Thus the (16-bBit) Z8000 could be rightfully called a 64-bit CPU :))
*4 - Like always, dad has to pay for a new console and he needs as well a reason to crank out more paper slices than for some other game console - having Sonic didn't ring a bell.
the Motorola 68000, was a 32-bit processor.
I'd say 16 Bit - likewise Motorola did (*1).
The bitness of a processor is and always will be up for discussion, as various features may not operate at the same size. An 8088 can be (an has been) called an 8-bit CPU as well as 16-bit. Similar the 68000 with its 32-bit registers but 16-bit bus. Beside data bus and register size, the ALU can as well be used (*2). Last but not least operand size may be a valid criteria (*3).
Couldn't Sega have marketed the console as a 32-bit device?
Yes, the could - but there would have been no gain. At the time the Genesis was introduced (1988) there was no race for 'more bits' especially not in the general public. The prior generation wasn't marketed as 8-bit systems. That's a label that got only retroactive assigned when 16 Bit systems became popular and marketed as such.
It was about setting a undoubtedly new mark, making everything else look outdated. The second half of the 1980s was also the time when bitness was used to distinguish the 'new' and 'better' computers with the very same label. Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, as well as 286 PCs, where marketed as 16 Bit machines, so the label was already promoted and present in non-geek-minds (*4) as a sign for being the better choice. Hooking up to an established label is almost always better than trying to build a brand from scratch with all new attributes.
Bottom line: Calling it 16-bit (which it undeniable is) was the best bet for Sega marketing.
Sidnote: Atari's attempt to sell the Jaguar in 1994 as 64-bit console might as well have worked less than expected for the same reason: Consumers just got used to consoled being called 16-bit and having 32-bit coming up. Jumping too far ahead doesn't work well.
*1 - The same way next to all manufacturers of 68000 machines did call their products 16-bit computers - or 16/32 as most.
*2 - Making the Z80 a 4-bit CPU :))
*3 - Thus the (16-bBit) Z8000 could be rightfully called a 64-bit CPU :))
*4 - Like always, dad has to pay for a new console and he needs as well a reason to crank out more paper slices than for some other game console - having Sonic didn't ring a bell.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
59.5k6147246
59.5k6147246
add a comment |
add a comment |
Joe Sewell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe Sewell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe Sewell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe Sewell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f11210%2fwhy-was-the-sega-genesis-marketed-as-a-16-bit-console%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown