Amiga CPU is similar to Mac CPU
Martijn van Buul
[ Crap ]
Brilliant, Einstein. Now, even the most silly "research" could have revealed
that both Amiga and the original Mac used a Motorola 68000.
And guess what? It's called the "CPU".
Now, just in case you want to have a similiar "discovery" next week: Take
a look at the Atari ST..
Flup-to: poster.
--
Martijn van Buul - Pi...@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
Kees J. Bot: The sum of CPU power and user brain power is a constant.
Alan Michelson
table here, you will notice the similar error messages:
MACINTOSH DS ERROR TABLE CPU TRAPS ON THE AMIGA
0 all's well! All's Well! 01
1 bus error Bus Error 02
2 address error Address Error 03
3 illegal instruction error Illegal Instruction 04
4 zero divide error Divide by Zero 05
5 check trap error CHK instruction 06
6 overflow trap error TRAPV (Overflow) 07
7 privilege violation error Privilege Violation 08
8 trace mode error Instruction Trace 09
9 line 1010 trap error Line A Emulation 0A
A line 1111 trap error Line F Emulation 0B
There seems to differ by one, in other words, Macintosh has a message 0
when everything is going well, while Amiga doesn't even have a message 0!
According to the almost extinct TI/99, error 0 is supposed to mean an
incorrect device specification, which is the letter or letters preceding the
colon. (B.T.W., if you try to load a protected program into "Level-1"
Basic, you do, in fact, get the error #0, since "Level-1" Basic does not
have a code for "Execute Only!")
Because you had to deal with device specifications, etc., the Texas
Instruments 99 wasn't as user-friendly as the Macintosh or Amiga. Texas
Instruments is famous for their pocket calculators, including the
programmable kind such as the TI-58 and the TI-59. Hewlett-Packard also
makes programmable calculators, though they used that strange Reverse
Polish Notation and also tend to be more reliable and more expensive
than TI. In fact, you can say that programmable calculators are pocket
COMPUTERS, such as the Tandy Radio Shack 100. (With a pocket computer,
you program with a language such as Basic, as opposed to programming
KEYSTROKES into a calculator.) Nowadays, we have handheld computing,
such as Sharp, Wizard, Palm Pilot, etc.
William Kendrick
> It seems that the Macintosh is similar to the Amiga.
The original Macintoshes and Commodore Amigas used the SAME CPU!
Ditto for Atari STs.
That's why the "error table" and "CPU traps" were similar!!! :)
In case you were curious, the Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit computers,
Commodore Vic-20, Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Apple II, Nintendo NES
and I believe Atari Lynx all had the same CPU... The 6502.
(Many other systems had that CPU, too!)
The Super Nintendo (SNES) and Apple IIGS had a 16-bit CPU which was
backward-compatible with the 6502 - the 65816 (I believe).
There's even a way to upgrade Atari 8-bits (and probably other 6502 systems)
to use the 16bit CPU. Not too much advantage to it, though, without
having some software that takes advantage of the 16bit instructions and
larger memory address space.
This isn't uncommon. What makes the architectures so different are
the underlying Operating System (MacOS vs. Amiga's OS vs. Atari ST "TOS")
and other hardware details (bus, video chip or card, sound chip or card,
peripheral connections, serial and parallel ports, etc.)
-bill!
Alan Michelson
>
> Brilliant, Einstein. Now, even the most silly "research" could have revealed
> that both Amiga and the original Mac used a Motorola 68000.
I knew that already. But why do the error numbers differ by one? It
seems that each manufacturer wants to number the list their own way!
> And guess what? It's called the "CPU".
I already said that it was a CPU! Didn't you read the "crap" that you deleted?
> Now, just in case you want to have a similiar "discovery" next week: Take
> a look at the Atari ST..
… which I believe has a graphical interface, too! Now, how do they
number their CPU traps?
Alan Michelson
>
> In comp.sys.handhelds Alan Michelson <z...@lafn.org> wrote:
> > It seems that the Macintosh is similar to the Amiga.
>
> The original Macintoshes and Commodore Amigas used the SAME CPU!
> Ditto for Atari STs.
>
> That's why the "error table" and "CPU traps" were similar!!! :)
I thought that these use the Motorola 68xxx CPU error traps.
> In case you were curious, the Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit computers,
> Commodore Vic-20, Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Apple II, Nintendo NES
> and I believe Atari Lynx all had the same CPU... The 6502.
> (Many other systems had that CPU, too!)
Many of these 8 bit systems use the Motorola 65xx. I thought that my
Commodore used Motorola 6510.
Wayne C. Morris
wrote:
> Martijn van Buul wrote:
> >
> > Brilliant, Einstein. Now, even the most silly "research" could have revealed
> > that both Amiga and the original Mac used a Motorola 68000.
>
> I knew that already. But why do the error numbers differ by one? It
> seems that each manufacturer wants to number the list their own way!
Because the Motorola 680x0 processor doesn't define numbers for those
errors. They're *exception vectors*, which are stored in the first 256
bytes of memory, 4 bytes each:
ADDRESS PURPOSE
--------- ------------------------
0000 0000 * reset: initial stack
0000 0004 * reset: initial vector
0000 0008 Bus error
0000 000C Address error
0000 0010 Illegal instruction
0000 0014 Divide by zero
0000 0018 CHK instruction
0000 001C TRAPV instruction
0000 0020 Privilege violation
0000 0024 Trace interrupt
0000 0028 Line 1010 emulator
0000 002C Line 1111 emulator
(* the first 8 bytes aren't really exception vectors -- they contain the
values used to initialize the stack pointer and program counter when the
CPU is reset.)
Apple and Commodore could have reported these exceptions by the memory
location of the vectors, but they didn't. Instead, they both decided
(independently of each other) to number the exceptions sequentially.
They also followed the popular programming practice of reserving the
value 0 to mean "this operation completed without any errors".
Apple decided to number the exceptions starting with 1 = the first
exception (bus error).
Commodore decided to number them by dividing the vector's memory
location by 4. The first exception vector is at memory address 8, so it
got assigned the error code 2.
Neither Apple's nor Commodore's numbering is "right" or "wrong"; they're
just different.
Martijn van Buul
>> In case you were curious, the Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit computers,
>> Commodore Vic-20, Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Apple II, Nintendo NES
>> and I believe Atari Lynx all had the same CPU... The 6502.
>> (Many other systems had that CPU, too!)
>
> Many of these 8 bit systems use the Motorola 65xx. I thought that my
> Commodore used Motorola 6510.
The 6510 is a 6502 with an on-chip I/O port. From a software point of
view, it's indistinguishable from a "real" 6502 - except for addresses
0000 and 0001 being occupied by said I/O port.
The 6510 was by MOS Technology, later Commodore Semiconductors Group, btw, not
Motorola. Motorola had nothing to do with the 6500-series, they had their
own 6800 series.
A bit of trivia:
(From http://www.floodgap.com/retrobits/ckb/secret/history.html)
" MOS Technology started in 1975 when chip engineer Chuck Peddle quit his job
at Motorola and went into business for himself. MOS, and Peddle, were the
brainchilds behind one of the major microprocessors of the 1980s: the
venerable 6502. A fast, inexpensive and reliable product of NMOS VLSI
manufacturing, the 6502 became the CPU for diverse machines during the
1980's. In addition to powering virtually all of the Commodore 8-bits
(usually in a modified version based on the 6510, a 6502 with an on-chip I/O
port), the 6502 and its later HMOS and CMOS successors powered many disparate
systems including the BBC Acorn, the Apple ][ series (the 16-bit 65816 powers
the IIgs and the CMD SuperCPU accelerator cartridge for the 64/128), the
Atari 8-bits and even the Nintendo systems up to the N64 (the NES used the
6502 and the SuperNES the 65816). Peddle developed its forerunner, the 6501,
in direct competition with Motorola's workhorse 6800, the very chip he had
been designing at Motorola, to the point where it was intended to be
pin-compatible. Motorola did not like the prospect of a drop-in replacement,
even one that wasn't machine code compatible, and successfully sued for
hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Combined with about 200
simultaneous R&D projects consuming their capital, MOS rapidly found itself
in financial trouble. Peddle accepted Tramiel's offer without delay.
"
Tramiel being the founding father of Commodore, and the "offer" being a bag
of money.
Just to annoy the Apple people a bit more:
(From the same site)
" While Commodore also made other acquisitions, including Los Angeles CMOS chip
manufacturer Frontier and LCD manufacturer MDSA, MOS Technology's buyout was
the one with the furthest reaching ramifications. While Tramiel killed most
of the outstanding projects immediately, he heeded Peddle's advice about the
6502 and kept it in development. Indeed, the chip already was being used in
computers: Steve Wozniak's Apple I prototype. Tramiel marched up with an
offer to buy Apple outright, but Wozniak wanted $15,000 more than Commodore
was willing to pay. Commodore declined. What a thought to realise that Apple
might have become a Commodore division for just a few thousand more!"
*gna*
Paul Gable
> > In case you were curious, the Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit computers,
> > Commodore Vic-20, Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Apple II, Nintendo NES
> > and I believe Atari Lynx all had the same CPU... The 6502.
> > (Many other systems had that CPU, too!)
>
> Many of these 8 bit systems use the Motorola 65xx. I thought that my
> Commodore used Motorola 6510.
You would be correct sir. The C64 does not use a 6502 but the 6510. I
should know as I have hundreds of them.
Paul
Paul Gable
> The 6510 is a 6502 with an on-chip I/O port. From a software point of
> view, it's indistinguishable from a "real" 6502 - except for addresses
> 0000 and 0001 being occupied by said I/O port.
Man,
Why don't I read all the posts before replying to otther posts. I stand
corrected. BTW, Cool trivia about Apple and Commodore almost being one
company. I wonder what the world would be right now if Apple had been a
Commodore subsidiary? THere probably never would have been an Amiga for
starters. Why bother making another 68000 based computer when you
already have the Mac? Perhaps Atari would have ended up buying Amiga and
there never would have been an ST, no loss in my opinion.
Paul
Mo
on it-
2600 Specifications:
CPU: 6507
RAM: 128 Bytes, in VLSI
ROM: 6K Max
CPU Clock: 1.19 MHz
Graphics Clock: 3.58 MHz
Slot Config: Rom Access Only
CPU Avail: Less than 50%
Atari Lynx :
CPU: 6507 RAM: 128 Bytes, in VLSI ROM: 4K max
Cpu Clock: 1,19 MHz
Graphics Clock: 1,19 MHz Slot
Config: Rom access only CPU Avail: less than 50%
Very interesting, looks like the lynx is the grandson of the 2600!
I know this is off topic, I just wanted to spare you the flaming from one of
them thar commie's.
Mo
"William Kendrick" <bi...@newbreedsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:w17h9.24222$Ik.5...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In comp.sys.handhelds Alan Michelson <z...@lafn.org> wrote:
> > It seems that the Macintosh is similar to the Amiga.
>>
Mo
6502's". That one got me in a lot of trouble a while back when I made that
statement on comp.sys.cbm - it turns out that the Commodore had a 6514 which
is a bastard cousin to the 6502. Those guys in the CBM group really need to
lighten up!
Mo
"William Kendrick" <bi...@newbreedsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:w17h9.24222$Ik.5...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Michael van Elst
>Be careful about that statement of "the commodores and Atari's both had
>6502's". That one got me in a lot of trouble a while back when I made that
>statement on comp.sys.cbm - it turns out that the Commodore had a 6514 which
>is a bastard cousin to the 6502. Those guys in the CBM group really need to
>lighten up!
If you really want to nitpick, it was a 6510 in the C64 but regular 6502s
in the other old Commodore boxes. The "bastard" included a 6bit I/O port
on the chip.
Martijn van Buul
> Be careful about that statement of "the commodores and Atari's both had
> 6502's". That one got me in a lot of trouble a while back when I made that
> statement on comp.sys.cbm - it turns out that the Commodore had a 6514 which
> is a bastard cousin to the 6502. Those guys in the CBM group really need to
> lighten up!
Odd. Must be a different comp.sys.cbm you've been posting to as the one
I'm reading.
Martijn (comp.sys.cbm regular)
William Kendrick
> Also I knew that didn't sound right about the 2600 so I looked up the specs
> on it-
>
> 2600 Specifications:
>
> CPU: 6507
> Atari Lynx :
> CPU: 6507 RAM: 128 Bytes, in VLSI ROM: 4K max
> I know this is off topic, I just wanted to spare you the flaming from one of
> them thar commie's.
Sorry ;)
6502, 6507... close enough.
Closer than Motorola 68000 and Intel 80486 ;)
Anyway - Regarding Lynx's relationship to 2600...
Actually, the 2600's design was fairly close (though MUCH more rudamentary)
to the Atari 8-bit systems (400, 800, XL, XE).
The Commodore Amiga was apparently designed by some of the same folks
(like the late Jay Miner). Notice similarities between the Atari 8-bit's
"Display List Interrupts" (DLIs) and the Amiga's "Copper" feature.
(I hope I'm getting the terms right :^) )
Some of the SAME people went on to work on the Lynx, or so I've heard.
The Lynx happens to have a similar mode to DLI and Copper, and in fact
was recently used to display 4096 colors simultaneously on the Atari Lynx!
(See Carl Forhan / Songbird Productions recent "photo gallery" cartridge.)
A few months back someone mentioned the Lynx's 16 colors could be changed
per 'scanline' on the LCD display, much like the way DLI's have been used
on the Atari 8-bit to simulate 256 and 4096 colors "anywhere" on the screen.
I cross-posted between alt.games.lynx and comp.sys.atari.8bit and within a
week or so, someone came out with the 4096-color demo for the Lynx!
Wow - is this getting off-topic or what?
Sorry!
-bill!
still a little loopy - had a liver biopsy today! :^/
Thomas Richter
Hi,
>> Very interesting, looks like the lynx is the grandson of the 2600!
>> I know this is off topic, I just wanted to spare you the flaming from one of
>> them thar commie's.
> Sorry ;)
> 6502, 6507... close enough.
No need to be sorry. A 6507 is just a 6502 with less address lines; hence,
it cannot address full 64K of memory without bank switching. Except that, they
are electrically equivalent, just the "case" is different. The 6502 was
manufactured by MOS semiconductors, later CBM Semiconductor Group after
Motorola tried to sue their pants off because the 6502 was more or less a
"6800" clone of sorts. The 6510 (as used in the C64) was an offspring of the
6502 manufactured as "CBM Semiconductor" rather than "MOS".
> Anyway - Regarding Lynx's relationship to 2600...
> Actually, the 2600's design was fairly close (though MUCH more rudamentary)
> to the Atari 8-bit systems (400, 800, XL, XE).
It uses the same custom chips.
> The Commodore Amiga was apparently designed by some of the same folks
> (like the late Jay Miner). Notice similarities between the Atari 8-bit's
> "Display List Interrupts" (DLIs) and the Amiga's "Copper" feature.
> (I hope I'm getting the terms right :^) )
You are. Actually, the way how the hardware custom chips are assigned to
various tasks is very likely between the two systems:
Antic: Display, Player Missile DMA Agnus: Display, Sound, Disk DMA
GTIA: Display generation, fire buttons Denise: Display generation,
Joystick control
Pokey: Sound generation, UART functions, Paula: Sound, UART
keyboard
PIA: Joysticks, MMU (bank switching), CIA: Keyboard,
serial port control lines Os bank switching,
serial control lines,
Floppy
Similarities are less surprising if you remember that both chips are designed
by the same guy, except for PIA/CIA which are fairly standard designs.
> The Lynx happens to have a similar mode to DLI and Copper, and in fact
> was recently used to display 4096 colors simultaneously on the Atari Lynx!
> (See Carl Forhan / Songbird Productions recent "photo gallery" cartridge.)
> A few months back someone mentioned the Lynx's 16 colors could be changed
> per 'scanline' on the LCD display, much like the way DLI's have been used
> on the Atari 8-bit to simulate 256 and 4096 colors "anywhere" on the screen.
> I cross-posted between alt.games.lynx and comp.sys.atari.8bit and within a
> week or so, someone came out with the 4096-color demo for the Lynx!
> Wow - is this getting off-topic or what?
Well, pretty much depends. I've both Jay-Minor systems at home. (-; Jay did
a really good job on these.
So long,
Thomas
Martijn van Buul
> CPU: 6507 RAM: 128 Bytes, in VLSI ROM: 4K max
> Cpu Clock: 1,19 MHz
> Graphics Clock: 1,19 MHz Slot
> Config: Rom access only CPU Avail: less than 50%
Bzzt.
Brian E. Doe
<LKxh9.167$l9.47...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> in
comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sy:
> Be careful about that statement of "the commodores and Atari's both had
> 6502's". That one got me in a lot of trouble a while back when I made that
> statement on comp.sys.cbm - it turns out that the Commodore had a 6514 which
> is a bastard cousin to the 6502. Those guys in the CBM group really need to
> lighten up!
The C-64 actually used a 6510, which is a 6502-compatible, developed in-house
by MOS.
--
Brian Team *AMIGA* NewsCoaster v1.53
Member "I Am Amiga" Fan Club
http://www.amiga-anywhere.com/shop.php?cat_id=22&prod_id=41
Remove spam trap and add .jp to end of address for e-mail
Graham Briggs
> Atari Lynx :
> CPU: 6507 RAM: 128 Bytes, in VLSI ROM: 4K max
> Cpu Clock: 1,19 MHz
> Graphics Clock: 1,19 MHz Slot
> Config: Rom access only CPU Avail: less than 50%
Erm, this is incorrect. The Lynx had two primary chips, Mikey and Suzy.
Mikey (16-bit custom CMOS chip running at 16MHz)
- MOS 65C02 processor running at up to 4MHz (~3.6MHz average)
8-bit CPU, 16-bit address space
- Sound engine
4 channel sound
8-bit DAC for each channel
(4 channels x 8-bits/channel = 32 bits commonly quoted)
Atari reports the range is "100Hz to above the range of human
hearing"; spectrum analysis shows the range may go as low as 32Hz.
Stereo with panning (mono for original Lynx)
- Video DMA driver for LCD display
4096 color (12-bit) palette
16 simultaneous colors (4 bits) from palette at one time
- System timers
- Interrupt controller
- UART (for ComLynx)
- 512 bytes of bootstrap and game-card loading ROM
Suzy (16-bit custom CMOS chip running at 16MHz)
- Blitter (bit-map block transfer) unit
- Graphics engine
Hardware drawing support
Unlimited number of high-speed sprites with collision detection
Hardware high-speed sprite scaling, distortion, and tilting effects
Hardware decoding of compressed sprite data
Hardware clipping and multi-directional scrolling
Variable frame rate (up to 75 frames/second)
160 x 102 "triad" standard resolution (16,320 addressable pixels)
(A triad is three LCD elements: red, green, and blue)
Capability of 480 x 102 artificially high resolution
- Math co-processor
Hardware 16-bit multiply and divide (32-bit answer)
Parallel processing of single multiply or divide instruction
The Lynx contains 64K (half a megabit) of 120ns DRAM. Game-cards
currently hold 128K (1 megabit) or 256K (2 megabits) of ROM, but there
is a capability of up to 1 megabyte (8 megabits) on one game-card. In
theory, this limit can be exceeded with extra bank-switching hardware in
the card. The first few hundred bytes of the game card is encrypted to
prevent unauthorized developers from writing Lynx software. This scheme
was introduced by Epyx as an effort to enforce game quality.
In some ways the hardware is more similar to the amiga than any other Atari
machine. Not surprising because the two creators were also part of the
original Amiga design team...
Graham
Ross Vumbaca
Thomas Richter wrote:
> Well, pretty much depends. I've both Jay-Minor systems at home. (-; Jay did
> a really good job on these.
Miner!
Regards,
Ross..
--
*TO E-MAIL ME: Reverse the order of the domain name in my e-mail address.*
Ross Vumbaca, a 'poor' Uni student at USyd.edu.au
http://members.optushome.com.au/rossv1
Flagship: Amiga 3000 (030/25), GVP Spectrum, C= A2065,
12Mb Fast/2Mb Chip, HD FDD, 9.1G-UW-SCSI (connected to A3000 SCSI),
Kickstart 3.1 (40.68), OS 3.9, Linux m68k 2.2 (Debian 2.2r0).
A pc.
--
Craig Kelley
> Be careful about that statement of "the commodores and Atari's both had
> 6502's". That one got me in a lot of trouble a while back when I made that
> statement on comp.sys.cbm - it turns out that the Commodore had a 6514 which
> is a bastard cousin to the 6502. Those guys in the CBM group really need to
> lighten up!
Um, the Pet had a honest-to-goodness 6502 in it... ;)
--
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu -- This document is rot26-encoded, and
protected from being read by the DMCA and all other WIPO treaty nations.
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Richard Kilpatrick
<bi...@newbreedsoftware.com> writes
>Anyway - Regarding Lynx's relationship to 2600...
>Actually, the 2600's design was fairly close (though MUCH more rudamentary)
>to the Atari 8-bit systems (400, 800, XL, XE).
2600, 5200/400/800/XL/XE, Amiga and Lynx were all designed by the same
basic crew... but the first ones were the only 'Atari' funded designs,
the Amiga being independent, the Lynx being funded by Epyx.
Richard
--
Classic Consoles: Atari Jaguar, NES, Atari Lynx II |\ _,,,---,,_
Philips NMS8250, Acorn Cambridge Workstation, BBC B+ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
Apples? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
Music? http://www.mp3.com/RichardKilpatrick/ '----''(_/--' `-'\_)Morticia
Angelo
"Brian E. Doe" <bdoe.sp...@msa.attmil.ne> wrote in message
news:9025116011234853.NC...@news.kadena.attmil.ne.jp...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 03:57:31 GMT, "Mo" ranted and raved about
> <LKxh9.167$l9.47...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> in
> comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sy:
>
> > Be careful about that statement of "the commodores and Atari's both had
> > 6502's". That one got me in a lot of trouble a while back when I made
that
> > statement on comp.sys.cbm - it turns out that the Commodore had a 6514
which
> > is a bastard cousin to the 6502. Those guys in the CBM group really need
to
> > lighten up!
>
> The C-64 actually used a 6510, which is a 6502-compatible, developed
in-house
> by MOS.
>
> --
> Brian Team *AMIGA* NewsCoaster v1.53
I have two C64's, the original C64 and it has a 6502 in it
and the C64-C which has a 6510 in it.
Jim
Alan Michelson
And what would have been of the NexT computer? By The Way, what kind of
CPU does the NexT computer use? I believe that Steve Jobs designed the
computer as the NexT computer after Mac!
David Evans
>
>And what would have been of the NexT computer? By The Way, what kind of
>CPU does the NexT computer use?
Released NeXT black hardware used the 68030 and later the 68040 (plus
things like the Intel i860 as a coprocessor on the NeXTdimension graphics
board.) Unreleased hardware used 88k CPUs.
--
David Evans (NeXTMail/MIME OK) dfe...@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca
PhD Student, Computer/Synth Junkie http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/
University of Waterloo "Default is the value selected by the composer
Ontario, Canada overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual
Alan Michelson
>
> Also I knew that didn't sound right about the 2600 so I looked up the specs
> on it-
>
> 2600 Specifications:
>
> CPU: 6507
> RAM: 128 Bytes, in VLSI
> ROM: 6K Max
> CPU Clock: 1.19 MHz
> Graphics Clock: 3.58 MHz
> Slot Config: Rom Access Only
> CPU Avail: Less than 50%
>
> Atari Lynx :
> CPU: 6507 RAM: 128 Bytes, in VLSI ROM: 4K max
> Cpu Clock: 1,19 MHz
> Graphics Clock: 1,19 MHz Slot
> Config: Rom access only CPU Avail: less than 50%
>
> Very interesting, looks like the lynx is the grandson of the 2600!
> I know this is off topic, I just wanted to spare you the flaming from one of
> them thar commie's.
> Mo
Now it's right on some new topics!
James Boswell
> CPU does the NexT computer use? I believe that Steve Jobs designed the
> computer as the NexT computer after Mac!
Motorola 68040 (perhaps the '030 as well ?)
-JB
Kelli Halliburton
news:I_Nh9.65989$Pf7.1...@news1.west.cox.net...
> I have two C64's, the original C64 and it has a 6502 in it
> and the C64-C which has a 6510 in it.
Wow. So many things require the special I/O port built into the 6510 (that
being what separates it from the 6502), that I'd be amazed to hear that your
"original C64" actually works.
Wildstar
same. Like the 6510.
Thank You.
"Alan Michelson" <z...@lafn.org> wrote in message
news:3D87E727...@lafn.org...
Angelo
"Kelli Halliburton" <kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote in message
news:KvQh9.842$UA6.39...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Like what? Haven't seen anything yet that doesn't run on the
original vice the later C version but the original C64 has a better
sounding SID. More fluid and not stairstepped like the SID in
my C64-C. Do SID's just age well like wine? ;-)
Jim
Brian E. Doe
<I_Nh9.65989$Pf7.1...@news1.west.cox.net> in
comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sy:
> I have two C64's, the original C64 and it has a 6502 in it
> and the C64-C which has a 6510 in it.
Hmmm... Both of my C-64's (beige, fat, rounded off case, grey-ish keys IIRC)
had 6510's. OTOH, my 1541's had 6502's.
--
Brian Team *AMIGA* NewsCoaster v1.53
Chris Brown
Angelo <james...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>I have two C64's, the original C64 and it has a 6502 in it
>and the C64-C which has a 6510 in it.
You are mistaken - the extra feature (i.e. the memory-mapped I/O port) of
the 6510 is essential for the most basic operation of the C64. The system
would quite simply not work with a 6502.
In particular, without that dataport, you only have access to 44K of RAM.
The standard C64 memory map has the BASIC ROM appearing at $A000 - $BFFF,
the I/O devices (VIC-II, SID, etc.) appearing at $D000-$DFFF and the KERNEL
ROM appearing at $E000 - $FFFF. RAM is "layered" under these, and it only
appears in the memory map thanks to the dataport of the 6510. You also need
to use the dataport to access the character ROM (4K), which could be mapped
in instead of the I/O.
I owned a C64 for many years prior to the introduction of the C64-C, and
programmed it in assembler. The CPU was always a 6510. Open up your
"original" C64 if you want and locate the CPU - it will have "6510" written
on it.
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);
/* \_,hris Brown -- All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */return 0;}
Sune Mika Salminen
> 6507 is a 6502 derivitive so it is a 6502 snce the instruction sets
> the same. Like the 6510.
> Thank You.
The 65xx series was also used in Arcade boards at the time. Atari's 720
Degrees and Asteroids ran on a 6502. The Z80 and the Motorola 68000 were
even more popular.
-Sune
Ralph Wade Phillips
"Alan Michelson" <z...@lafn.org> wrote in message
news:3D852417...@lafn.org...
> William Kendrick wrote:
> > In case you were curious, the Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit computers,
> > Commodore Vic-20, Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Apple II, Nintendo NES
> > and I believe Atari Lynx all had the same CPU... The 6502.
> > (Many other systems had that CPU, too!)
>
> Many of these 8 bit systems use the Motorola 65xx. I thought that my
> Commodore used Motorola 6510.
Actually - the C64 used a 6510, the VIC 20 another variant (the
6509?), the C128 was the 8502, which all were 6502 supersets.
For grins, the Apple /// used a 16bit processor built out of a 6502
and two 6522s (6520s? 6521? Forget which interface chip) ... weird.
RwP
Wildstar
"Sune Mika Salminen" <not_...@fakeantispamemail.dk> wrote in message
news:am9ubt$2h0$1...@news.cybercity.dk...
By that time, your talking about larger versions of a SEGA Genesis. While
the 65c816 was used by Nintendo.
It was quite a capable machine in itself. When dealing in 16 Bit arena. You
were dealing with 16 bit processors.
SuperNES was quite the popular machine as was the Nintendo. In Japan, SNES
was SuperFamicon. While NES was called Famicon in Japan meaning Family
Console. Then in Japan if you bought a console it was for the family more or
less than just the kids. Again in US, Kids played with consoles not Parents
(then again that was the stereotype image and that was only the hollywood
image that was given to Japan. It is true that Kids did play with these more
than the parents but thats because when Parents come home from work they
want to rest and watch TV more than play games. Kids want fun and
entertainment. They want to be happy. Hate school, want fun because they
want to do what ever that pleases them.
Dosius
Atari's arcade version of Tetris also ran on a 6502. The Super NES
console ran on a 65C816, which is a 65C02 derivative - other than the
Apple IIgs, the only system I know to use a C816.
Eric Haines
> and the C64-C which has a 6510 in it.
>
> Jim
Sorry, but my original C64 had a 6510 in it; all of them did. The
C64C is just a C64 in a different case to make it look more "modern"
and similar to the C128. Even the motherboard is exactly the same.
You could buy C64C cases for your "old" C64 if you wanted to give it a
cosmetic upgrade. Are you sure your "original C64" isn't a VIC-20?
;) That would explain the 6502....
--Eric
Pete
> 6507 is a 6502 derivitive so it is a 6502 snce the instruction
>sets the same. Like the 6510.
The 6507 is a cut down 6502.
IIRC they only brought enough address lines out to the outside world to
allow the processor to address 4K of memory. Otherwise (and from a
programmer's POV) they are pretty much identical.
TTFN - Pete.
Pete
>> Wow. So many things require the special I/O port built into
>>the 6510 (that being what separates it from the 6502), that
>>I'd be amazed to hear that your "original C64" actually works.
> Like what?....
Like everything....the integral I/O port is required at the most basic
hardware level.
Besides, although the 6502 and 6510 are binary code compatible, their
pinouts are somewhat different. You CANNOT replace a 6510 with a 6502 and
expect the system to function, it simply will not!
TTFN - Pete.
Wildstar
"Pete" <my....@wintermute.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ambber$4d1nv$2...@ID-15679.news.dfncis.de...
I thought so. Wasn't for sure what the numerclature precisely. I knew it was
a derivitive of the 6502. Even if its made by Commodore/MOS it is derived.
Well quite identical. Just take the last 4 address pins a break them on a
6502 and you got a 6507. Just at less then $2 a chip why the hell didn't
Atari stuck a full 6502.
Daniele Gratteri
news:3d88a...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
> Actually - the C64 used a 6510, the VIC 20 another variant (the
> 6509?), the C128 was the 8502, which all were 6502 supersets.
The VIC 20 uses the original 6502 like the PET/CBM series.
--
__ ____
/// Daniele Gratteri, Italian Commodore-Amiga user / ___|____
__ /// E-MAIL: daniele_...@inwind.it RITMO S75 | | |___/
\\\/// Nickname: FIAT1100D - ICQ: 53943994 FOREVER! | |___|___\
\/// URL: http://spazioinwind.libero.it/danielegratteri \____|
Thomas Richter
>> Actually - the C64 used a 6510, the VIC 20 another variant (the
>> 6509?), the C128 was the 8502, which all were 6502 supersets.
> The VIC 20 uses the original 6502 like the PET/CBM series.
As said, there's no difference between the 6509 and the 6502. They're
all the same microprocessor except that the number of address lines vary,
and the way how the CPU gets clocked from the outside. The interiour
electric is identical otherwise.
So long,
Thomas
Thomas Richter
> I thought so. Wasn't for sure what the numerclature precisely. I knew it was
> a derivitive of the 6502. Even if its made by Commodore/MOS it is derived.
> Well quite identical. Just take the last 4 address pins a break them on a
> 6502 and you got a 6507. Just at less then $2 a chip why the hell didn't
> Atari stuck a full 6502.
Very simple: Because there wasn't a need for. The 2600 console did not have
full 64K of memory, so why should the CPU address all this? The 6507 is maybe
some pence cheaper, and has less pins making the overall design a bit cheaper.
So long,
Thomas
Chris Brown
Pete <my....@wintermute.org.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
> >> Wow. So many things require the special I/O port built into
> >>the 6510 (that being what separates it from the 6502), that
> >>I'd be amazed to hear that your "original C64" actually works.
>
> > Like what?....
>
>Like everything....the integral I/O port is required at the most basic
>hardware level.
Specifically, it's needed to control whether ROM or RAM appears at various
locations within the address space.
Daniele Gratteri
news:amc287$6bb$1...@mamenchi.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE...
> As said, there's no difference between the 6509 and the 6502. They're
> all the same microprocessor except that the number of address lines vary,
> and the way how the CPU gets clocked from the outside. The interiour
> electric is identical otherwise.
I know, but it is an error to say that the VIC 20 has a 6509 inside when it
is a 6502 :-)
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards
> Atari's arcade version of Tetris also ran on a 6502. The Super NES
> console ran on a 65C816, which is a 65C02 derivative - other than the
> Apple IIgs, the only system I know to use a C816.
The 65C816 core has found new life as the central core in a _HOST_ of
very cheap ($1 and less) toy ICs. There are hundreds of thousands made
every day. You might be surprised how many 6502 and 65C816 cores are
in your kid's toybox...
Axell
> Just at less then $2 a chip why the hell didn't
> Atari stuck a full 6502.
[ Axell gives a stern look and rubs his thumb over his index and middle
finger repeatly. ]
Alex Taylor
> For grins, the Apple /// used a 16bit processor built out of a
6502
> and two 6522s (6520s? 6521? Forget which interface chip) ... weird.
I had an Apple /// that I took apart (and then broke it). I'm almost totally
sure it was based on a Zilog Z80B.
--
Alex Taylor.
Remove 'nospam' to reply by email.
--
I was going to procrastinate today, but I'll do it tomorrow.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 24/08/2002
Angelo
"Chris Brown" <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:amc880$g9d$1...@narcissus.localdomain...
> In article <ambben$4d1nv$1...@ID-15679.news.dfncis.de>,
> Pete <my....@wintermute.org.uk> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> > >> Wow. So many things require the special I/O port built into
> > >>the 6510 (that being what separates it from the 6502), that
> > >>I'd be amazed to hear that your "original C64" actually works.
> >
> > > Like what?....
> >
> >Like everything....the integral I/O port is required at the most basic
> >hardware level.
>
> Specifically, it's needed to control whether ROM or RAM appears at various
> locations within the address space.
Well it appears as another had stated that the original C64 production
run used coprocessor chips to do the I/O portion with a 6502 then
replaced by a 6510. Which makes production sense since the very
first C64's were built upon the design of the VIC-20.
Jim
Michael Black
The I/O was addressed into page zero. The 6502 (and it's variants)
has an addressing mode specifically for addresses in the first 256
bytes; they were handy because they only needed two bytes, one was the
op-code the other was the byte in page zero (unlike normal absolute
addressing which needed three bytes) which saved space and
speeded things up. Since there would be no time when you'd
want to leave page zero without memory, it will always be in place.
The I/O in the 6510 used up two (or was it four?) bytes of page
zero. Putting it there meant that you didn't have to put a gap
somewhere else in memory, and worry about switching out the I/O.
It also meant you could do that I/O switching faster than if
the operations required a third byte.
Some of what that I/O in page zero was doing was switching between
RAM and ROM. I forget the exact details of memory mapping, but
by putting that I/O way down there gave a lot more flexibility than
if it had been placed elsewhere in memory. Plenty of early computers
suffered from having I/O stuck seemingly at random, which got in
the way of memory expansion. If you needed a full 64K of RAM,
and could live without I/O for a brief time, you could basically
switch in RAM to the rest of the memory map, yet still switch it
out when the time came to do something else, because of those
few bytes of memory space set aside in page zero for that I/O.
It was truly a neat solution.
And now that it's brought up, I'd be curious to know if the
6510 came first, and the C-64 simply took advantage of it (which
I assumed at the time of the C-64's release), or was the 6510
cooked up because the designer's of the 64 saw the advantage of
such a neat thing in their computer, and then went to the CPU
designer's section and told them they needed it. In retrospect,
I suspect it was the latter.
Michael
Roger Johnstone
> 020918112...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> Atari's arcade version of Tetris also ran on a 6502. The Super NES
>> console ran on a 65C816, which is a 65C02 derivative - other than the
>> Apple IIgs, the only system I know to use a C816.
>
> The 65C816 core has found new life as the central core in a _HOST_ of
> very cheap ($1 and less) toy ICs. There are hundreds of thousands made
> every day. You might be surprised how many 6502 and 65C816 cores are
> in your kid's toybox...
I spotted this at the Western Design Center's web site some time ago.
WDC are the creators of the 65C02 and the 65C816.
http://www.westerndesigncenter.com/
"It is estimated that there have been more than 2 billion 6502/65C02/
65C816 embedded processors in applications such as personal computers,
video game systems, modems, floppy disk drives, set-top cable boxes,
telephones, fax machines, pagers, digital television chip sets,
automobile dashboard controllers, hand-held electronic publishing
devices, PDA?s, toys, industrial controllers, embedded heart
defibrillators and pacemakers, etc. It is also estimated that the
installed base of 65C02 and 65C816 embedded processors is growing by
more than 200 million units per year, provided by WDC?s sixty-plus
licensees."
--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
Apple II - FutureCop:LAPD - iMac Game Wizard
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws/
________________________________________________________________________
"So we went to Atari and said, 'We've got this amazing thing, even built
with some of your parts and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll
give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work
for you.' They said 'No'. Then we went to Hewlett-Packard; they said,
'We don't need you. You haven't got through college yet'."
Apple Computer founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and
H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer
Skipper Smith
>Hi
>
>> For grins, the Apple /// used a 16bit processor built out of a
>6502
>> and two 6522s (6520s? 6521? Forget which interface chip) ... weird.
>
>I had an Apple /// that I took apart (and then broke it). I'm almost totally
>sure it was based on a Zilog Z80B.
Actually, that computer had TWO processors in it. The Z80B was
specifically to support CPM. You could buy a module that plugged into the
cartridge port of the C=64 that also had a Z-80 in it for the same
purpose. It was also available on a plug-in card for the Apple // prior
to that.
--
Skipper Smith Helpful Knowledge Consulting
Worldwide Microprocessor Architecture Training
PowerPC, ColdFire, 68K, CPU32 Hardware and Software
/* Remove no-spam. from the reply address to send mail directly */
Skipper Smith
>In <608b6569.02091...@posting.google.com> Lewin A.R.W.
>Edwards wrote:
>> st...@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius) wrote in message news:<9307085f.
>> 020918112...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>> Atari's arcade version of Tetris also ran on a 6502. The Super NES
>>> console ran on a 65C816, which is a 65C02 derivative - other than the
>>> Apple IIgs, the only system I know to use a C816.
>>
>> The 65C816 core has found new life as the central core in a _HOST_ of
>> very cheap ($1 and less) toy ICs. There are hundreds of thousands made
>> every day. You might be surprised how many 6502 and 65C816 cores are
>> in your kid's toybox...
>
>I spotted this at the Western Design Center's web site some time ago.
>WDC are the creators of the 65C02 and the 65C816.
Actually, they (under that name) weren't.
Motorola created the 6800. A few designers walked out the door with the
masks to it and started a company called MOS Technologies and made a chip
called the 6500. Motorola sued MOS Technologies. A judge decidedthat
since Motorola made no attempt to secure their intellectual property, the
6800/6500 would from then on be considered public domain. Motorolans have
had to have the contents of their bags perused upon entering or exiting
Motorola property ever since.
MOS Technologies did a respin of the 6500 to make the 6502 (Motorola also
did a respin) so that they could have proprietary rights to what they were
selling. They also started other more complicated designs. Then, for
some reason, decided to sell themselves, lock, stock, and barrel to
CBM. Commodore renamed that part of the company to something I can't
remember, and proceeded to completely abuse the fab (personal
opinion). Nintendo decided to use the 6502 in their original game
machine. Found out that parts of the design were in the public domain and
proceeded to make a duplicate of the 6502 but without the proprietary
information and thus avoided giving CBM a single penny of licensing fees
that probably could have kept CBM afloat in bad times (but more likely
would have just been siphoned off by Mehdi Ali and Irving Gould).
When Commodore went bankrupt, their physical equipment was sold at
auction. Those parts that had originally been part of MOS Technologies
along with the IP that was part of the 65XX family then went on to become
"Western Design Center". Everything they say about the estimates for
sockets inhabited by 65XX parts is pretty reasonable, though.
This is all IIRC, but based on my association with Motorola and CBM and
discussions with Dave Haynie, so take it for what it is worth.
>http://www.westerndesigncenter.com/
>
>"It is estimated that there have been more than 2 billion 6502/65C02/
>65C816 embedded processors in applications such as personal computers,
>video game systems, modems, floppy disk drives, set-top cable boxes,
>telephones, fax machines, pagers, digital television chip sets,
>automobile dashboard controllers, hand-held electronic publishing
>devices, PDA?s, toys, industrial controllers, embedded heart
>defibrillators and pacemakers, etc. It is also estimated that the
>installed base of 65C02 and 65C816 embedded processors is growing by
>more than 200 million units per year, provided by WDC?s sixty-plus
>licensees."
>
>--
>Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
>
>Apple II - FutureCop:LAPD - iMac Game Wizard
>http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws/
>________________________________________________________________________
>"So we went to Atari and said, 'We've got this amazing thing, even built
>with some of your parts and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll
>give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work
>for you.' They said 'No'. Then we went to Hewlett-Packard; they said,
>'We don't need you. You haven't got through college yet'."
>
> Apple Computer founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and
> H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer
Roger Johnstone
> Roger Johnstone <roj...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>WDC are the creators of the 65C02 and the 65C816.
>
> Actually, they (under that name) weren't.
>
> Motorola created the 6800. A few designers walked out the door with
> the masks to it and started a company called MOS Technologies and made
> a chip called the 6500. Motorola sued MOS Technologies. A judge
> decidedthat since Motorola made no attempt to secure their
> intellectual property, the 6800/6500 would from then on be considered
> public domain. Motorolans have had to have the contents of their bags
> perused upon entering or exiting Motorola property ever since.
>
> MOS Technologies did a respin of the 6500 to make the 6502 (Motorola
> also did a respin) so that they could have proprietary rights to what
> they were selling. They also started other more complicated designs.
> Then, for some reason, decided to sell themselves, lock, stock, and
> barrel to CBM. Commodore renamed that part of the company to
> something I can't remember, and proceeded to completely abuse the fab (
> domain and proceeded to make a duplicate of the 6502 but without the
> proprietary information and thus avoided giving CBM a single penny of
> licensing fees that probably could have kept CBM afloat in bad times (
> but more likely would have just been siphoned off by Mehdi Ali and
> Irving Gould).
>
> When Commodore went bankrupt, their physical equipment was sold at
> auction. Those parts that had originally been part of MOS
> Technologies along with the IP that was part of the 65XX family then
> went on to become "Western Design Center". Everything they say about
> the estimates for sockets inhabited by 65XX parts is pretty reasonable,
> though.
>
> This is all IIRC, but based on my association with Motorola and CBM
> and discussions with Dave Haynie, so take it for what it is worth.
That's basically the way I've heard the story too, but WDC (which is
basically William Mensch) did create the 65C02 (the enhanced CMOS chip)
and the 16-bit 65C816.
From what I remember one of the chips (6501?) was pin-compatible with
the 6800, not just bus-compatible like the other 6500 chips. Was this
ever actually sold, or did they have to can it for legal reasons?
--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
Apple II - FutureCop:LAPD - iMac Game Wizard
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws/
________________________________________________________________________
"It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible
to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with
such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years."
John Von Neumann (circa 1949)
Dave R.
<slrnaomot0....@web1.calweb.com>:
>selling. They also started other more complicated designs. Then, for
>some reason, decided to sell themselves, lock, stock, and barrel to
>CBM. Commodore renamed that part of the company to something I can't
>remember, and proceeded to completely abuse the fab (personal
Would that be the Commodore Semiconductor Group (CSG)?
Ralph Wade Phillips
"Alex Taylor" <alex_...@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:tsti9.29300$7x3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> Hi
>
> > For grins, the Apple /// used a 16bit processor built out of a
> 6502
> > and two 6522s (6520s? 6521? Forget which interface chip) ... weird.
>
> I had an Apple /// that I took apart (and then broke it). I'm almost
totally
> sure it was based on a Zilog Z80B.
You're wrong. It took a "Microsoft SoftCard ///" to give the Apple
/// a Z80 (might have been a "B", not sure about that).
No, the processor started out as a 6502, but had a pair of VIAs
(Versatile Interface Adapters) to expand the instruction set and the data
bus, yielding a 16 bit processor ... One of Woz's better thunks, even better
than his contribution to the Disk ][, according to comments of his later.
RwP
Skipper Smith
That is correct. I was mistake on that part. He left MOS Technologies
when Commodore bought them and went their seperate ways.
>From what I remember one of the chips (6501?) was pin-compatible with
>the 6800, not just bus-compatible like the other 6500 chips. Was this
>ever actually sold, or did they have to can it for legal reasons?
Pin compatibility wasn't what made for the legal problems- it was the
duplication of the mask (which was trademarked). I don't know what the
legal issues might have been at that time with bus compatibility, nor do I
know of anything that occured with the 6501, sorry.
richard cortese
news:slrnaopfai....@web1.calweb.com...
I realize the difficulties in trying to remember and relate stories from ~25
years ago. There are a few problems with the way things add up.
**********************************************
From patent 3,991,307
Inventors: Peddle; Charles Ingerham (Audubon, PA); Mathys; Wilbur L.
(Spring City, PA); Mensch, Jr.; William D. (Norristown, PA); Orgill; Rodney
H. (Hatfield, PA)
Assignee: MOS Technology, Inc. (Norristown, PA)
This invention takes a new approach to the problem: it uses only a binary
adder to get the decimal sum or difference of two numbers, but does it in a
single cycle of the binary adder, thus significantly improving the speed of
operation without suffering the cost of an additional decimal adder. In
accordance with the invention, the binary sum of two bcd operands is
corrected by suitable gating as it travels from the binary adder to another
part of the microprocessors, e.g., the accumulator, so that it becomes the
binary coded decimal sum or difference of the two operands by the time it
reaches that other part of the microprocessor.
********************************************************
Just a bit more information then you need, but all inventors on a patent
application are considered equal under the law, so Peddle and Orgill are the
same no matter what their order is on the patent.
Anyway, that is the story the way I heard it. It wasn't that Peddle Et Al
stole the 6800 so much as they realized changes in the 6800 silicon layout
design that would reduce cost, increase yields, more efficient 4 cycle vs 8
cycle instruction execution, etcetera.
You could argue that they came to some of those conclusions at Motorola
which would make those modifications Motorola's intellectual property.
As far as the rest of the story goes, it all has to be subordinate in some
degree to the granting of this patent. For instance the story goes the 6502
came out because of the 6500/6800 not being protected. Since the 6502/68xx
series came out for better protection and did incorporate patented features
there has to be more to the Nintendo story then they got the 6502 cheap
because it wasn't protected.
The patent department would<should?> have never allowed the design to be
patented if it was known at the time. If it was known, the patent would have
been challenged and disallowed. That is how things work, 17 years exclusive
rights in exchange for devulging new technology.
Brian E. Doe
<dXwi9.84154$Pf7.2...@news1.west.cox.net> in
comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sy:
> Well it appears as another had stated that the original C64 production
> run used coprocessor chips to do the I/O portion with a 6502 then
> replaced by a 6510. Which makes production sense since the very
> first C64's were built upon the design of the VIC-20.
A bit of trivia, but I'm curious: How many different revisions did the C-64
motherboard have in its lifetime?
--
Brian Team *AMIGA* NewsCoaster v1.53
Member "I Am Amiga" Fan Club
http://www.amiga-anywhere.com/shop.php?cat_id=22&prod_id=41
Remove spam trap and add .jp to end of address for e-mail
Ojala Pasi 'Albert'
Skipper Smith <ski...@no-spam.calweb.com> wrote:
>Pin compatibility wasn't what made for the legal problems- it was the
>duplication of the mask (which was trademarked)
What mask are you talking about?
I can not believe they were allowed to take the whole mask set of 6800
when leaving the company, so you must be talking about something else.
-Pasi
--
"Mythology -- those times when I was alive. When I could still see the sun.
But in this mythology is rooted all the truths that I know. And if we go
back, we can find the future, and the means to change it. The very least
we can do is seek to understand." -- Maharet in "The Queen of the Damned"
Angelo
"Ojala Pasi 'Albert'" <alb...@pikkukorppi.cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:amk1kj$qec$1...@news.cc.tut.fi...
> In article <slrnaopfai....@web1.calweb.com>,
> Skipper Smith <ski...@no-spam.calweb.com> wrote:
> >Pin compatibility wasn't what made for the legal problems- it was the
> >duplication of the mask (which was trademarked)
>
> What mask are you talking about?
>
> I can not believe they were allowed to take the whole mask set of 6800
> when leaving the company, so you must be talking about something else.
>
> -Pasi
>
Who said they were "allowed"?
The whole snafu was that they "walked" out with
the goods. ;-)
Jim
Angelo
"Brian E. Doe" <bdoe.sp...@msa.attmil.ne> wrote in message
news:903010356447871.NC-...@news.kadena.attmil.ne.jp...
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:51:37 GMT, "Angelo" ranted and raved about
> <dXwi9.84154$Pf7.2...@news1.west.cox.net> in
> comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sy:
>
> > Well it appears as another had stated that the original C64 production
> > run used coprocessor chips to do the I/O portion with a 6502 then
> > replaced by a 6510. Which makes production sense since the very
> > first C64's were built upon the design of the VIC-20.
>
> A bit of trivia, but I'm curious: How many different revisions did the
C-64
> motherboard have in its lifetime?
>
> --
> Brian Team *AMIGA* NewsCoaster v1.53
Unsure but of the 4 I have there are 2 distinct board revisions with
different components/places. Only 1 is from the first release
of the C64 and she's still working, bought it when Commodore
first released them. Can still hear that god awful sid tune they
used in the commercials. (awful by today's standards that is ;-)
It was pretty amazing when it debuted.
Jim
Michael Black
sure where to reply.
I dug out Byte for November 1975, it was only the third issue.
Right on the cover was "A $20 Microprocessor?" and that sure got
the attention of a lot of us.
Inside, the article on page 58 is titled "Son of Motorola (or the
$20 CPU Chip)". Oh baby, now we can afford to build a computer.
It describes the 6501, a 6800 hardware compatible but not software
compatible, CPU. You were supposed to be able to plug this one into
any socket that used a 6800, and so long as you had software, it would
work.
I don't know where the mask business comes into play, because this
isn't a 6800. Some of the instructions were the same, but then things
like branch would have to be. The 6501 had some different instructions.
And since the architecture was not the same, no B accumulator for
instance, there could be no compatibility.
It runs some instructions in fewer cycles, and it mentions that
Mos Technology is hinting that it can with a faster clock speed
than 1MHz.
There are some subtle hardware differences between the two.
It mentions that it needs an external clock, just like the 6800 it
was supposed to be pin compatible. There is a reference to the
6502, to sell for $25, which includes the clock. As Mos points
out, despite being five dollars more, it may be a better choice
because you don't needed the external circuitry. It makes no
mention of other differences on the 6502.
This article mentions the Western Electronic Conference
(September 16-19) where the 6502 would be sold out of a hotel
suite, but in the future tense. Since that seems to be
the time when various people first got a 6502 (including Steve
Wozniak), I am suspicious about whether the 6501 ever made it
to production.
My 1976 copyright edition of Adam Osborne's "An Introduction to
Microcomputers, volume II" has no mention of the 6501, though
it does describe the chopped down variants (but not the 6507).
If I could remember some clue, I could find the info about what
happened to the 6501. I know that Byte ran a brief article some
months later. Motorola did take offense at the 6501, but since
it wasn't even an extension of the 6800 (as the Z-80 was an extension
of the 8080), I suspect the only thing they could complain about
was the same pin-out. Certainly, that was what I remember reading.
If there ever was a 6501, it was available for a very brief time
and then disappeared from references. Which suggests that MOS
was either sufficiently threatened, or outright forced, to withdraw
it from the market.
As for WDC, I'm still thinking about where to look. A websearch
turns up their page and says they started in 1978. I thought
they first produced some pretty exotic CPU's but I may be mixing
them up with another company. They were originally a "design
center", in that they didn't release products themselves. They
came up with the CMOS version of the 6502; I don't know how
that came about but remember there were at the time second-sources
for the 6502, such as Rockwell and Synertek. Indeed, it was
those other companies that were the ones that produced the
first 65C02's and there were at least two different versions of
it. Obviously by the time they came up with the 16-bit CPU that
included the 6502 as a subset (a software bit switched between
CPU's) they were actually releasing their own products.
There seems to be more of a case for WDC stealing from MOS Technology,
since it kept working on the 6502, than MOS stealing from Motorola,
though I suspect that wasn't the case.
And since WDC started in 1978, and had 6502 variants in the early
eighties, I don't know where Commodore's bankruptcy, which came in
the late eighties or early nineties, fits into the WDC scenario.
Michael
Alex Taylor
> Actually, that computer had TWO processors in it. The Z80B was
> specifically to support CPM. You could buy a module that plugged into the
> cartridge port of the C=64 that also had a Z-80 in it for the same
> purpose. It was also available on a plug-in card for the Apple // prior
> to that.
Aaah! I had the SOS disks, but I never got anything to boot properly on the
machine, since the floppy was knackered. I tinkered with it, trying to fix
it, until it's death (caused by something I did wrong). I swapped it, in its
broken state, for a Sinclair QL and some other bits.
--
Alex Taylor.
Remove 'nospam' to reply by email.
--
I was going to procrastinate today, but I'll do it tomorrow.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002
Alex Taylor
"Ralph Wade Phillips" <ral...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:3d8c6...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>> You're wrong. It took a "Microsoft SoftCard ///" to give the
Apple
> /// a Z80 (might have been a "B", not sure about that).
I'm convinced it was on the motherboard, although I'm led to believe it was
there for CP/M support rather than as the main processor. The machine I had
only had an external hard disk as an expansion, and I definitely took the
Z80B out and put it in a Speccy to see if it worked. The Apple ][ took a Z80
card IIRC.
This was a long time ago, so I might have remembered it wrong. If the Z80
wasn't in an expansion slot, it may well have been on a motherboard-mounted
daughterboard, and that's where I'm getting confused.
--
Alex Taylor.
Remove 'nospam' to reply by email.
--
I was going to procrastinate today, but I'll do it tomorrow.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002
Ralph Wade Phillips
"Alex Taylor" <alex_...@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pKEj9.1767$Pu4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Ralph Wade Phillips" <ral...@techie.com> wrote in message
> news:3d8c6...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> >> You're wrong. It took a "Microsoft SoftCard ///" to give the
> Apple
> > /// a Z80 (might have been a "B", not sure about that).
>
> I'm convinced it was on the motherboard, although I'm led to believe it
was
> there for CP/M support rather than as the main processor. The machine I
had
> only had an external hard disk as an expansion, and I definitely took the
> Z80B out and put it in a Speccy to see if it worked. The Apple ][ took a
Z80
> card IIRC.
You might be. But a) there wasn't a socket for it, b) CP/M took the
SoftCard /// (or a compatible SoftCard for the ][ family), and c) you're
just plain wrong on the ///.
If you took a Z80B out of it, it wasn't an Apple ///.
>
> This was a long time ago, so I might have remembered it wrong. If the Z80
> wasn't in an expansion slot, it may well have been on a
motherboard-mounted
> daughterboard, and that's where I'm getting confused.
Yah, the SoftCard /// (and, yes, the store I worked at actually sold
a few) plugged into one of the four slots. The ProFile interface plugged
into another one.
RwP
Pete
>....The 6507 is maybe some pence cheaper, and has less pins making
>the overall design a bit cheaper....
But was the 6507 cheaper than the full 6502?
I ask because I got into electronics, as a hobby, in 1977 and a few years
later a magazine (either Practical Electronics, ETI or Elektor - I forget
which) published a design for a small "trainer" system based around the
6507.
At the time the 6507 was priced at two or three times that of the 6502, in
Europe, to hobbyists, at least. Not to mention that it was INCREDIBLY
difficult to obtain - so much so that said magazine ended up publishing a
design for a piggyback board to enable a 6502 to be used in place of the
'07!
I didn't get into commercial design work until the late 80's so I don't know
what volume pricing of these chips was like.
My gut feeling is that the 6507 was a cheaper chip (well it SHOULD have
been) but does anyone know for sure?
TTFN - Pete.
Pete
> Motorola created the 6800. A few designers walked out the door
>with the masks to it and started a company called MOS Technologies
>and made a chip called the 6500....
While that sure explains why the 65xx family are bus compatible with the
68xx family, I thought it was Chuck Peddle who designed the 6502 processor?
Also, from an architectural/software point of view I don't see any real
similarities between the 65xx and 68xx families.
After all, the 6502 has a pair of 8-bit index registers (X and Y) and an
8-bit accumulator (A). The 6800 has a single 16-bit(?) index register (X)
and a pair of 8-bit accumulators (A and B) which could be used together to
form a 16-bit accumulator.
This affects so many things at such a basic level that I cannot believe that
MOS could have used the 6800 masks for anything other than a basis to design
a completely new product from, IE they just used them to see how it was
done.
TTFN - Pete.
Pete
> I had an Apple /// that I took apart (and then broke it). I'm
>almost totally sure it was based on a Zilog Z80B.
Hmm, my Apple /// never had a Z-80 in it....the machine was most assuredly
based around a 6502.
You sure yours didn't have a Z-80 SoftCard in it?
TTFN - Pete.
Pete
> 2600, 5200/400/800/XL/XE, Amiga and Lynx were all designed by
>the same basic crew...
Any idea if any of the original design team were involved in the design of
the 7800's "Maria II" chip?
I forget which company produced it for Atari (don't have the data sheets
handy) but from a programmer's perspective it was a step on from the
Antic/GTIA.
I'd be amazed if there wasn't some input at least from the original team.
TTFN - Pete.
Pete
> Specifically, it's needed to control whether ROM or RAM appears
>at various locations within the address space.
Not to mention cassette interface motor control etc....
TTFN - Pete.
Pete
> Well it appears as another had stated that the original C64
>production run used coprocessor chips to do the I/O portion with
>a 6502 then replaced by a 6510....
Well, I haven't actually seen that message, but it sure sounds unlikely to
me in a production environment. You sure these machines aren't prototypes,
that would make sense?
Also, none of the photographs/reviews of the day which I saw
showed/mentioned anything other than the 6510.
>....Which makes production sense since the very first C64's were
>built upon the design of the VIC-20.
No it doesn't. In a production environment you make as few changes to a
product which is already shipping as possible.
To replace the CPU in this manner is a MAJOR change, and would require
redesigning the main PCB and a significant amount of testing of the new
board (I've worked in exactly this field).
Besides, the only similarity between the VIC-20 and the C-64 is the
case/keyboard!
TTFN - Pete.
Angelo
"Pete" <my....@wintermute.org.uk> wrote in message
news:amo63c$7mve9$6...@ID-15679.news.dfncis.de...
One word to all your observations above.
COMMODORE.
Such idiosyncracies were the norm for their
market vs R&D departments. Attested by
Dave Haynie, Jay Miner and quite a few others
close to the hearth.
Jim
Kelli Halliburton
> One word to all your observations above.
> COMMODORE.
>
> Such idiosyncracies were the norm for their
> market vs R&D departments. Attested by
> Dave Haynie, Jay Miner and quite a few others
> close to the hearth.
I correspond regularly with Dave Haynie. We're members of the same mailing
list. And you, Jim, are no Dave Haynie.
While Commodore was known to pull quite a few stupid moves, I am not
inclined to think that the marketing department would have forced a switch
from your hypothetical memory-mapped I/O at addresses 0 and 1 of the 6502 to
a single-chip implementation of the same I/O ports built into the 6510. It's
just not a decision that marketing would have cared anything about. It
doesn't sell computers one way or the other.
So much for "market vs R&D" theories.
The question is, really: given the quest to reduce chip count, and therefore
reduce motherboard complexity, and in turn cost of production, is there any
reason why they would have gone to the trouble in the original design to
cobble up the necessary decode logic for two memory-mapped I/O ports when
they had the resources of the CSG to develop the 6510 in-house?
Wildstar
> Hi,
> I didn't get into commercial design work until the late 80's so I don't
know
> what volume pricing of these chips was like.
>
> My gut feeling is that the 6507 was a cheaper chip (well it SHOULD have
> been) but does anyone know for sure?
It wouldn't matter because all it would have done was change the price maybe
a dollar.
Hint: You don't have have the traces tied to all the lines. The 6502 and
6507 were not much of a price difference. Even I could have got a 6502 for
$3.00. The rest of the design would have still been the same. It you only
wanted 4 KB, all you do is tie traces (to and from the memory) to only 12
pins. Only have 12 traces.
Angelo
"Kelli Halliburton" <kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote in message
news:oBNj9.371$4a.28...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> "Angelo" <james...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xjNj9.103856$Pf7.3...@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> > One word to all your observations above.
> > COMMODORE.
> >
> > Such idiosyncracies were the norm for their
> > market vs R&D departments. Attested by
> > Dave Haynie, Jay Miner and quite a few others
> > close to the hearth.
>
> I correspond regularly with Dave Haynie. We're members of the same mailing
> list. And you, Jim, are no Dave Haynie.
And this proves what exactly? I have conversed with Dave over time
as well, doesn't mean squat and of course you are no Dave Haynie
So why the personal jab that has nothing to do with the context?
>
> While Commodore was known to pull quite a few stupid moves, I am not
> inclined to think that the marketing department would have forced a switch
> from your hypothetical memory-mapped I/O at addresses 0 and 1 of the 6502
to
> a single-chip implementation of the same I/O ports built into the 6510.
It's
> just not a decision that marketing would have cared anything about. It
> doesn't sell computers one way or the other.
>
> So much for "market vs R&D" theories.
So much for your grasping the concept of marketing driving a
cheaper item regardless. Dave and Jay came on board
with the Amiga not the C64. Their names are only above
attesting to Commodore's ungodly decision making record killing
pertinent ideas. Lest you forget the A600, the CDTV
or the crippled A4000 or 040 cards 3 years too late.
Hate to break the news to you but in all production venues
there is no "theory" to the corelation of marketing vs. R&D.
R&D says we can make this, marketing says we can't afford it.
End of discussion.
So much for "not seeing the forrest"
>
> The question is, really: given the quest to reduce chip count, and
therefore
> reduce motherboard complexity, and in turn cost of production, is there
any
> reason why they would have gone to the trouble in the original design to
> cobble up the necessary decode logic for two memory-mapped I/O ports when
> they had the resources of the CSG to develop the 6510 in-house?
Given Commodore's track record of cheap build on one hand
then expensive overbuild on another nothing surprises me.
Also without intimate knowledge of the original C64 design
and the team to which Dave nor Jay were part of, we can't
say except for the real hardware that is out there.
There are original design C64's with the 6502.
That much is a physical certainty. Whether these are just
prototype designs leading up to a production 64 I don't know.
Why? Who knows exactly except for the original design
team.
Jim
Michael Black
I'd say if there really was a C64 with a 6502, it was a prototype.
I've never heard anything else but the 6510 as the CPU, and that's
going back to when the 64 was released.
As I mentioned in another post, it would be interesting to know
whether the 6510 was created as part of the C64, or if it was
independently designed, and someone decided to put it in the
C64. I'm sure I once read an article (I think in that 6502-based
magazine based in Chelmford, MA that I think was called Micro)
that described the 6510, introducing it as a new product rather
than part of the C64. I haven't tried looking for the article
(and I may not have it anymore). This would lead to my long-held
belief that the 6510 came first, but looking back at it all
from the vantage point of this thread, it seems more likely
that the 6510 was intended for the C64.
I don't know about the mechanics of it all, but one reason
that Commodore bought Mos Technology was so they didn't have
to rely on some other company for the ICs. So once it was
in place, they probably were in a much better position to
"throw together" an IC than a company that had to go outside.
That integration makes the case for a 6502 in a C64 much weaker.
I was rereading "The Home Computer Wars" by Michael Tomczyk (published
by Compute! Books) lastnight, trying to find some pertinent info.
But it's not technical enough, and kind of vague about dates.
It did mention that the VIC IC, used in the VIC-20, had been
a regular product from MOS, I think he said about 1978, and nobody
wanted to use it. Having it available seems to have influenced
the VIC-20.
You're right about how the C64 can't be built too much on the VIC-20.
If nothing else, the fact that there was a switch from static to
dynamic RAM (at least I assume that from the small memory in the latter)
meant that a lot of added circuitry was needed. The VIC-20 was more
like my OSI Superboard, in terms of simplicity, while the C64 was
more like an Apple II (though in both cases, Commodore made better
use of higher density integrated circuits, not really a surprise since
they came later).
Michael
Pete
>> My gut feeling is that the 6507 was a cheaper chip (well it
>>SHOULD have been) but does anyone know for sure?
> It wouldn't matter because all it would have done was change
>the price maybe a dollar.
OK, I'll admit I was being a tad vage....the 6507 *SHOULD* have been a
cheaper device than the full 6502 since it was being aimed at the embedded
controller/small system market.
That said, since AFAIK both processors used exactly the same die just how
much cheaper was the 6507 in quantity?
However, even if it was only a dollar cheaper that would make a hell of a
difference when you're buying them in quantity....companies like Atari would
be buying tens of thousands at a time!
> Hint: You don't have have the traces tied to all the lines....
AFAIK Internally the 6507 was identical to the 6502, IE they used the same
die, just that they didn't bring out the upper four address lines.
This would effectively give you a 64K address space made up of 16
reflections of the lower 4K. Which, as you say, is the same as leaving the
upper four address lines of the 6502 unconnected.
>....The rest of the design would have still been the same. It you
>only wanted 4 KB, all you do is tie traces (to and from the memory)
>to only 12 pins. Only have 12 traces.
Ah, but you're missing the other main feature of the 6507. The 6507 came in
a smaller (28 pin??) package, rather then the more standard 40 pin package
that the 6502 came in.
TTFN - Pete.
Pete
>>....reason why they would have gone to the trouble in the
>>original design to cobble up the necessary decode logic for
>>two memory-mapped I/O ports when they had the resources of
>>the CSG to develop the 6510 in-house?
>
> Given Commodore's track record of cheap build on one hand
>then expensive overbuild on another nothing surprises me.
>Also without intimate knowledge of the original C64 design
>and the team.... ....we can't say except for the real hardware
>that is out there.
> There are original design C64's with the 6502.
>....Whether these are just prototype designs leading up to a
>production 64 I don't know.
Would it be possible for you to post some photos of this machine (both
internal and external) somewhere on the web for us to see?
I don't doubt your certainty that this machine exists and I for one would
like to see what it looks like (particularly internally).
As I said, I've never heard of a C-64 containing a 6502 rather than a 6510
and it would be interesting to see the beast.
If, as you say, it is one of the first machines to be produced, I'd guess
that CBM probably rushed out a small number of machines using what was the
prototype PCB. Logically, such a PCB would have been used during the design
and testing phases to prove the concept prior to putting the 6510 into
production.
Perhaps there were delays in 6510 production and/or the release date was
moved forward forcing them to do this?
OTOH Prototype/demonstration machines have turned up from time to time. I
myself have a P-500 in the other room; I understand only a very small number
were made and sent to dealers for demonstration purposes before the line was
scrapped without being put into full production.
TTFN - Pete.
Angelo
> Hi,
>
> >>....reason why they would have gone to the trouble in the
> >>original design to cobble up the necessary decode logic for
> >>two memory-mapped I/O ports when they had the resources of
> >>the CSG to develop the 6510 in-house?
> >
> > Given Commodore's track record of cheap build on one hand
> >then expensive overbuild on another nothing surprises me.
> >Also without intimate knowledge of the original C64 design
> >and the team.... ....we can't say except for the real hardware
> >that is out there.
> > There are original design C64's with the 6502.
> >....Whether these are just prototype designs leading up to a
> >production 64 I don't know.
>
> Would it be possible for you to post some photos of this machine (both
> internal and external) somewhere on the web for us to see?
>
> I don't doubt your certainty that this machine exists and I for one would
> like to see what it looks like (particularly internally).
I'll crack her open this weekend and see about getting pics out.
I don't have webspace though so that might be a problem.
>
> As I said, I've never heard of a C-64 containing a 6502 rather than a 6510
> and it would be interesting to see the beast.
Well people also thought the C-65 was a myth as well not too long
ago, then the liquidation and hundreds of systems showed up in
lot auctions.
>
> If, as you say, it is one of the first machines to be produced, I'd guess
> that CBM probably rushed out a small number of machines using what was the
> prototype PCB. Logically, such a PCB would have been used during the
design
> and testing phases to prove the concept prior to putting the 6510 into
> production.
>
> Perhaps there were delays in 6510 production and/or the release date was
> moved forward forcing them to do this?
>
>
> OTOH Prototype/demonstration machines have turned up from time to time. I
> myself have a P-500 in the other room; I understand only a very small
number
> were made and sent to dealers for demonstration purposes before the line
was
> scrapped without being put into full production.
>
>
> TTFN - Pete.
Your latter thought is more of my opinion on the machine. But without
info from a member of the original design team who really knows.
Any original C-64 design people out there reading?
Jim
Eldor C. Luedtke Jr.
keyboard typing furiously about Re: Amiga CPU is similar to Mac CPU
<SNIP>
> Given Commodore's track record of cheap build on one hand
> then expensive overbuild on another nothing surprises me.
> Also without intimate knowledge of the original C64 design
> and the team to which Dave nor Jay were part of, we can't
> say except for the real hardware that is out there.
> There are original design C64's with the 6502.
> That much is a physical certainty. Whether these are just
> prototype designs leading up to a production 64 I don't know.
> Why? Who knows exactly except for the original design
> team.
I can't speak as a designer, but, I did work at Commodore Country (I
Burleson Texas) repairing them, ans, I do not recall ever seeing one
with a 6502. I saw plenty Vic-20s with 6502s, but ALL the C=64s AFAIK
had 6510s.
>
> Jim
>
>
--
Eldor
David Wilson
>Hi,
> >> My gut feeling is that the 6507 was a cheaper chip (well it
> >>SHOULD have been) but does anyone know for sure?
> > It wouldn't matter because all it would have done was change
> >the price maybe a dollar.
>OK, I'll admit I was being a tad vage....the 6507 *SHOULD* have been a
>cheaper device than the full 6502 since it was being aimed at the embedded
>controller/small system market.
>That said, since AFAIK both processors used exactly the same die just how
>much cheaper was the 6507 in quantity?
Smaller package (28 pins instead of 40) = cheaper package.
Smaller package = more chips per tube = cheaper shipping.
Less holes and smaller footprint = cheaper PCB.
>However, even if it was only a dollar cheaper that would make a hell of a
>difference when you're buying them in quantity....companies like Atari would
>be buying tens of thousands at a time!
Yes - that is the reason.
--
David Wilson School of IT & CS, Uni of Wollongong, Australia
White Flame (aka David Holz)
news:uovcf22...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Pete" <my....@wintermute.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:amo637$7mve9$1...@ID-15679.news.dfncis.de...
> > been) but does anyone know for sure?
>
> It wouldn't matter because all it would have done was change the price
maybe
> a dollar.
um, you've never worked for a company that has mass produced anything, have
you?
--
White Flame (aka David Holz)
http://www.white-flame.com/
(spamblock in effect)
richard cortese
news:amq8c0$2gfc$1...@barad-dur.nas.com...
> "Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uovcf22...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Pete" <my....@wintermute.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:amo637$7mve9$1...@ID-15679.news.dfncis.de...
> > > My gut feeling is that the 6507 was a cheaper chip (well it SHOULD
have
> > > been) but does anyone know for sure?
> >
> > It wouldn't matter because all it would have done was change the price
> maybe
> > a dollar.
>
> um, you've never worked for a company that has mass produced anything,
have
> you?
Ha! You've been there too? One of the devices I helped develop had a mistake
made by the project manager on the price of one componet. I had reported it
to him accurately but he made a mistake moving a decimal point over that
reduced the cost by a factor of 10. This was the difference between 1.5¢ and
15¢ in the cost of a device that was going out the door at $18-$20. I still
remember him telling me that I had killed the entire project with *my*
mistake.
One of the things that hasn't been mentioned yet is the added expense of
drilling 12 extra holes and manufacturing fall out/costs on everything from
dull drills to bent pins and solder bridges. There are several good books
out on the topic that illustrate QC/product fallout is one of the most
effective cost effective activities you can pursue. Nothing is more
expensive in the chain then having a solder bridge because of one of those
extra pins and having to either rework or toss out a populated board.
Mike Leavitt
>
> "Skipper Smith" <ski...@no-spam.calweb.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnaomnud....@web1.calweb.com...
>
> > Actually, that computer had TWO processors in it. The Z80B was
> > specifically to support CPM. You could buy a module that plugged into the
> > cartridge port of the C=64 that also had a Z-80 in it for the same
> > purpose. It was also available on a plug-in card for the Apple // prior
> > to that.
>
> Aaah! I had the SOS disks, but I never got anything to boot properly on the
> machine, since the floppy was knackered. I tinkered with it, trying to fix
> it, until it's death (caused by something I did wrong). I swapped it, in its
> broken state, for a Sinclair QL and some other bits.
The funniest sight I ever saw was a co-worker's Sinclare with 128k of
ram on it. All those ram packs, dwarfed the little Sinclare.
--
Mike Leavitt ac...@lafn.org
Wildstar
"richard cortese" <rico...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:qu3k9.796
>
> Ha! You've been there too? One of the devices I helped develop had a
mistake
> made by the project manager on the price of one componet. I had reported
it
> to him accurately but he made a mistake moving a decimal point over that
and
> 15в in the cost of a device that was going out the door at $18-$20. I
still
> remember him telling me that I had killed the entire project with *my*
> mistake.
>
> One of the things that hasn't been mentioned yet is the added expense of
> drilling 12 extra holes and manufacturing fall out/costs on everything
from
> dull drills to bent pins and solder bridges. There are several good books
> out on the topic that illustrate QC/product fallout is one of the most
> effective cost effective activities you can pursue. Nothing is more
> expensive in the chain then having a solder bridge because of one of those
> extra pins and having to either rework or toss out a populated board.
Don't you think they use Lasers to cut the holes. No longer longer a need
for drills. Yet
this was available to companies like Commodore and Atari. The question maybe
a at most a little cheaper
and yes at 100,000 unit shipment, well you are talking about an overall
price difference. Still doesn't make a d*** difference on the per unit price
of the console which is only a $99 unit. Just sell it for $99.99 a piece.
which is $100 and gain that $1.00 addition in price. Tighten the trace
circuits a slight further. (Bring the chips slightly closer) makes the PCB
smaller.
All that price difference is easy enough to counter in a $1 increase in
price per game cartridge. Figure a $45 cartridge equal $46.00.
White Flame (aka David Holz)
> Don't you think they use Lasers to cut the holes. No longer longer a need
> for drills. Yet
> this was available to companies like Commodore and Atari. The question
maybe
> a at most a little cheaper
/me has never *plonk*ed anybody before, yet is seriously considering it.
--
White Flame (aka David Holz)
Kelli Halliburton
> Don't you think they use Lasers to cut the holes. No longer longer a need
> for drills. Yet
> this was available to companies like Commodore and Atari. The question
maybe
> a at most a little cheaper
> and yes at 100,000 unit shipment, well you are talking about an overall
> price difference. Still doesn't make a d*** difference on the per unit
price
> of the console which is only a $99 unit. Just sell it for $99.99 a piece.
> which is $100 and gain that $1.00 addition in price. Tighten the trace
> circuits a slight further. (Bring the chips slightly closer) makes the PCB
> smaller.
>
> All that price difference is easy enough to counter in a $1 increase in
> price per game cartridge. Figure a $45 cartridge equal $46.00.
Laser drilling units in 1979? For a little company like Atari? I don't think
so.
Wildstar, please get a sense of proportion. Technology costs go down as you
go forward in time, which means that they go UP when you go BACKWARD in
time. We're talking about stuff that happened between 20 and 25 years ago! A
Commodore 64 cost US$600 when it was released.
richard cortese
> Don't you think they use Lasers to cut the holes. No longer longer a need
> for drills.
Actually I worked with Coherent Radiation CO2 lasers as it related to
drilling holes in polymeric substrates I will uncatogorically say it was not
ready in the 70s.
Ironically the problems I saw, the puff of colloidal particles causing
dispersion of the beam and inaccuracies in the hole were duplicated in the
"Star Wars" defense programs. It was one of the things I am sure the
Russians figured out as a cheap defense for directed energy weapons. Just
coat nuclear warheads with any crap and the puff of smoke prevents further
damage.
The only way around this is multiple pulses which end cost time and money. I
wish I could remember some of the numbers as I actually knew them many years
ago. The bottom line was for all but the highest quanties of production you
are better off buying a cheap drill and a minimum wage assembler. The Atari
VCS probably would have qualified but I am sure low production items like
850 interfaces would never have covered the cost of set up and capitol
equipment costs.
Wildstar
"Kelli Halliburton" <kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote in message
> Laser drilling units in 1979? For a little company like Atari? I don't
think
> so.
>
> Wildstar, please get a sense of proportion. Technology costs go down as
you
> go forward in time, which means that they go UP when you go BACKWARD in
> time. We're talking about stuff that happened between 20 and 25 years ago!
A
> Commodore 64 cost US$600 when it was released.
>
Laser units where around for QUITE awhile and Atari ran off the finance
backbone of Warner Communication which was a fairly large comapany. One
Laser drill was $1 million then. I can build one by cutting a ruby and use
of a few mirrors, magnifying glass and some stuff. Making one can be done
sort of inexpensively. Basically focus a high concentration of light through
a ruby and you get a ruby laser. At the right frequency and intensity it
will cut.
Though building one from home is hard but with a company expense it isn't a
problem. Just need a Ruby,emerald or Saphire. That's the key component of a
laser. They are not a Billion dollar device for corporation only for general
public. Besides they only add two to four digits for general public so its
above financial reach for home use.
Lasers where used in the early 70s and Atari handhelds where late 80s. Lynx
for example was late 80s.
Mail Me
what it has to do with Tandy / Radio Shack. Please delete
comp.sys.tandy from your posts.
N
Hamish Marson
> Hi,
>
> > Well it appears as another had stated that the original C64
> >production run used coprocessor chips to do the I/O portion with
> >a 6502 then replaced by a 6510....
>
> Well, I haven't actually seen that message, but it sure sounds unlikely to
> me in a production environment. You sure these machines aren't prototypes,
> that would make sense?
>
> Also, none of the photographs/reviews of the day which I saw
> showed/mentioned anything other than the 6510.
>
> >....Which makes production sense since the very first C64's were
> >built upon the design of the VIC-20.
>
> No it doesn't. In a production environment you make as few changes to a
> product which is already shipping as possible.
>
> To replace the CPU in this manner is a MAJOR change, and would require
> redesigning the main PCB and a significant amount of testing of the new
> board (I've worked in exactly this field).
>
Unfortunatley CBM weren't unknown to do things that were almost as bad
(Sometimes worse). I had an early (In NZ) model C64 that had a different
pinout on the video than the later ones. It meant the cables supplied
with the colour monitor didn't work on it (But a DIN - 4RCA cable meant
for a stereo worked like a treat).
They did worse with the Amiga-2000. I had what they termed an Amiga -
A2000. They also released an Amiga B2000. The differences were that the
A2000 had the same chipsets as the A1000. The B2000 had the A500
chipsets that did 1MB chip RAM. Then they just ignored the A2000's &
hoped they'd die. Bastards. I got in trouble back in 1990 (Almost lost
my job :) for posting a complaint about that (Among other things) on
comp.sys.amiga... The A2000 also had anasty habit of losing tie on the
clock. On the ratio of 50:60... (Which I never did track down, almost as
if it was expecting 60Hz power & running slower on 50Hz, except the
video was also tied to that and it managed to do PAL instead of NTSC OK.
Sorry... I digress...
> Besides, the only similarity between the VIC-20 and the C-64 is the
> case/keyboard!
>
>
Visually yes. In pracice I think they were different IIRC.
> TTFN - Pete.
>
>
--
I don't suffer from Insanity... | Linux User #16396
I enjoy every minute of it... |
|
http://www.travellingkiwi.com/
|
Blanche Cohen
>It seems that the Macintosh is similar to the Amiga. If you look at the
>table here, you will notice the similar error messages:
Well, considering both systems were based on the Motorola 68000 chip,
I'm not surprised.
Dave Haynie
wrote:
>> I have two C64's, the original C64 and it has a 6502 in it
>> and the C64-C which has a 6510 in it.
>Sorry, but my original C64 had a 6510 in it; all of them did.
I agree. And as the #2 guy on the C128 (which, incidently, had an 8502
in it, another variation of the 6502/6510), you should listen to me
:-)
>C64C is just a C64 in a different case to make it look more "modern"
>and similar to the C128.
Yup. Well, not just... the C64C, C64D, C64E, etc. were different
motherboard designs, all for the same computer. Consider, at its peak,
the C64 was selling over 2 million per year. When you sell that many,
the idea of taking $1.00 out of the design is fairly compelling. The
"E" is the last one I know about -- they did a big gate array in Japan
that sucked in just about everything but the CPU, VIC-II chip, and
memory.
> Are you sure your "original C64" isn't a VIC-20?
>;) That would explain the 6502....
Most PETs, and the VIC-20, used the orignal 6502. The PLUS/4 and C16
used the 7501. There were a couple weird "PET/CBM" variations that
used the 6509 (a 6502 with a very primitive, very kludged bank-switch
machanism, nothing remotely as elegant as the C128), and at least one
that offered a 6809 as a coprocessor (CBM 8096 maybe?).
Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
dha...@jersey.net| "The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful" - J.Buffett
Alan Fisher
wrote:
Top posting I know but....
I've just been given a C=Vic20, and as an old C=64 user I must admit I
can barely tell the difference between the two by simply looking at the
casem, tho this vic has a red power LED which I'm pretty sure my old C64
didn't have though its been about 12 years since I last used one...
Oh and I gotta say this: OMG its *the* Dave Haynie!!!!
(Slaps himself to calm down)
Hey do you still have any copies of your deathbed vigil Video?
Anyways, nice to see you're still about :)
--
<tsb>
<sb>*Alan Fisher*
<sb>UIN: 122045620
<sb>IRC Nick: "Abbadon" or "Leander^"
<sb>
<sb> Hope you're all fed and funky
<tsb>
Dave Haynie
<Howdarey...@fuckoffandgohome.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:59:42 GMT, dha...@jersey.net (Dave Haynie)
>wrote:
>Top posting I know but....
>I've just been given a C=Vic20, and as an old C=64 user I must admit I
>can barely tell the difference between the two by simply looking at the
>case, tho this vic has a red power LED which I'm pretty sure my old C64
>didn't have though its been about 12 years since I last used one...
Well, you know, C= wasn't much for the look of the thing. The VIC-20
has a white case, the C64 initially used the same case, only in tan.
In '84 or so, they introduced the C16 in yet-again-the-same-case,
only in charcoal.
>Oh and I gotta say this: OMG its *the* Dave Haynie!!!!
It's me, yup. Don't get too overwhelmed, I'm just this guy who used to
work at C= and make some cool toys.
>Hey do you still have any copies of your deathbed vigil Video?
VHS video, no -- I gave away the last one a few months ago (but did
ultimately get a job out of the deal). Ironically, I'm working on the
DVD edition. This could be seen as a grab for 8th anniversary cash,
and sure, there is that factor. But basically, I looked over the
original master tape last year, and found rot setting in. This told me
to digitize it now, rather than later. Plus, it's out of print, and I
get a few emails every month asking about it. And finally, tape just
sucks. I view everything on disc. If I don't make a DVD, pretty soon
all my VHS decks will fall into disrepair, and I won't get to watch
the video.
I'm also running a pseudo-contest, no biggie, in conjunction. I'll
include the notice below.
>
>Anyways, nice to see you're still about :)
I do check in every year or so. The funny thing -- at Commodore, I
wasn't even remotely interested in video. My hobby-goal was to learn
sound engineering. When I did the DBV, I learned some video stuff,
forcibly. I knew people who could have done a far better job, probably
for free (Joel Tessler, countless Toaster Jockys, etc). But I
foolishly decided that one of the Amiga's marks, in history, was the
fsct of personal video production. Only, I always do my hobbies with a
professional eye. So I took me $3000 worth of "regular home gear" (GVP
TBCplus, SuperGen2000, Scala + MM100, Dpaint, SVHS mastering deck from
JVC, audio mixer, etc).
======= THE "CONTEST" ========
Hi All-
I'm in the final stages of the preparation of a DVD edition of
"The Deathbed Vigil and other tales of digital angst". For those
who've been living, well, in the normal mainstream of modern life and
don't know this, this is the film I made about the end of Commodore.
As usual with DVDs, I've been trying to think of some useful,
interesting, or fun "extra stuff" to put on the disc. I have too much
stuff, basically, but in my continual search for meaning, tasty brew,
and all that crap, I came up with the idea of "IMPACT". Basically,
with the Amiga as we know it pretty much moved from the single most
revolutionary personal computer in history to more of a footnote in
history, just what WAS its impact.
I can play with words, but the question is too large, and too
personal, for just one input. What this all meant to me is different
than what it meant/means to you. So I've decided to solicit answer to
this basic question: what was/is the Amiga's impact. On you, on the
industry, on life on earth. I know a piece of it. Some of you may have
more to add.
So, here's the game. Think of it as a contest, or whatever.
Simply put, you write up a paragraph; something succinct, or you'll
get edited, even if I like what you said. It needs to fit on one 4:3
TV frame at NTSC resolution, in quasi-readable type. Send whatever you
like to me at dha...@jersey.net. Put "[DBV]" in the subject, and your
preferred name at the end. I'll put the best ones on the DVD.
Feel free to pass this on. Thanks.
Brian E. Doe
raved about <3dadb1e6....@news.jersey.net> in
comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sy:
> VHS video, no -- I gave away the last one a few months ago (but did
> ultimately get a job out of the deal). Ironically, I'm working on the
> DVD edition. This could be seen as a grab for 8th anniversary cash,
> and sure, there is that factor. But basically, I looked over the
> original master tape last year, and found rot setting in. This told me
> to digitize it now, rather than later. Plus, it's out of print, and I
> get a few emails every month asking about it. And finally, tape just
> sucks. I view everything on disc. If I don't make a DVD, pretty soon
> all my VHS decks will fall into disrepair, and I won't get to watch
> the video.
If I'm not mistaken, Cloanto includes the Deathbed Vigil with their Amiga
Forever 5 CD's.
--
Brian Team *AMIGA* NewsCoaster v1.53
Member "I Am Amiga" Fan Club
http://www.amiga-anywhere.com/shop.php?cat_id=22&prod_id=41
Remove spam trap and add .jp to end of address for e-mail
Richard Kilpatrick
<dha...@jersey.net> writes
>Most PETs, and the VIC-20, used the orignal 6502. The PLUS/4 and C16
>used the 7501. There were a couple weird "PET/CBM" variations that
>used the 6509 (a 6502 with a very primitive, very kludged bank-switch
>machanism, nothing remotely as elegant as the C128), and at least one
>that offered a 6809 as a coprocessor (CBM 8096 maybe?).
The P-series, or some variants thereof, used the 6809, as did the
SuperPET 9000 series. Which was an upgrade to the 8096, in theory.
Richard
--
Classic Consoles: Atari Jaguar, NES, Atari Lynx II |\ _,,,---,,_
Philips NMS8250, Acorn Cambridge Workstation, BBC B+ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
Apples? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
Music? http://www.mp3.com/RichardKilpatrick/ '----''(_/--' `-'\_)Morticia
Martin Slaney
> I do check in every year or so. The funny thing -- at Commodore, I
> wasn't even remotely interested in video.
I remember :-) About 10 years ago when I was a moderately religious
Amigan <g> we exchanged e-mail (blimey guv, that was before I even had
any internet access - I was using an e-mail gateway through FIDOnet !!)
At the time I was working for a supplier of professional video gear who
supplied Amigas as low-end GX/titling solutions .... I was trying to
badger you into thinking of the video industry as the principle niche
market for Amigas - and designing serious bottom-up support for analogue
telly-style video into Amiga designs. I think I was probably right <g>
... but it would never really have happened in the C= environment I suspect.
Amigas should have been baby Quantels :-)
Ah well. Nice to see you're still around :-) My A3k flaked about 7 years
ago ... I just went PC/Mac/SGI - but recently I couldn't resist
picking up a A1200 at a boot fair for the price of a coupla beers :-) -
just for old times' sake :-)
Dave Haynie
<martin@slazNIET_SPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I do check in every year or so. The funny thing -- at Commodore, I
>> wasn't even remotely interested in video.
>I remember :-)
Well, as a _user_, of course. It was obviously a good market for the
Amiga.
>At the time I was working for a supplier of professional video gear who
>supplied Amigas as low-end GX/titling solutions .... I was trying to
>badger you into thinking of the video industry as the principle niche
>market for Amigas
The problem -- never was my call. I had to design basic stuff that
played in EVERY niche the marketing folks claimed we had, then
specialize them, as necessary, for specific niches. Thus, you had
basic video compatiblity in the base system, but if you wanted a
genlock, a broadcase-quality output, etc, you needed an add-in.
And that wasn't all bad. For one, it's kind of the general to specific
thing. I'm a smart guy, and can learn things, but can I necessarily do
something, like a pro-quality video interface, as well as someone
who'e been in the business for years? Look at the Toaster -- if we had
done more Toster-like things built-in, the base models would have cost
more, and the Toaster wouldn't have been created.
I had this philosphy at C=: "We should design the things only we can
design". There were certain bits in an Amiga that only our engineering
department could do right. There were other things we could do just as
well, and certainly some things not as well, versus the third party
community. I wanted to ensure that all of our effort was applied to
the first things, anything leftover on the second, none on the third.
It didn't always work out that way, but we did get closer every year.
> . I think I was probably right <g>
>... but it would never really have happened in the C= environment I suspect.
What can you do? Broadcast-quality video output would have been
expensive in the base unit. But you needed the expansion ports
(especially the video port) for more advanced things, which might also
include broadcase-quality video. Built-in Genlock would have been
cool, but too expensive in the day.
>
>Amigas should have been baby Quantels :-)
Maybe. The other thing was the march of progress. In the early '90s,
you could do nice analog with the Amiga, but the future was clearly in
digital video, and that's where I wanted the things I was doing in
1991 to be. Sadly, by then, the company was run by evil men (sure,
there were some stupid men running things, but the difference can be
profound) and they cancelled good projects, just to make the old
administration seem poor (hey, look, no new products when the old guys
said they'd be ready).
>
>Ah well. Nice to see you're still around :-) My A3k flaked about 7 years
> ago ... I just went PC/Mac/SGI
I'm primarily using PClones these days. Reason #1 is clearly the fact
that all the performance battles are being fought on this platform
alone, which is really good if you're a customer. #2 is support: while
sure, it's got Windows, it's also the primary target for every
interesting non-MS OS that's come along. Mac, I can't support. Apple
is 250% meaner than Microsoft when they have the chance, they just
don't usually get the chance. But when they do, they'd sooner stab you
in the back as look at you. For example, when they shut down the "Mac
Clone" -- they killed off all kinds of companies, all of which were
building better Macs than Apple (which is ultimately why they did it).
They got the whole Mac industry, but due to this, it's been shrinking
ever since. 4% of the personal computer business dooms you to being a
footnote, and perpetually behind the curve. Which is precisely Apple
today.
> but recently I couldn't resist
>picking up a A1200 at a boot fair for the price of a coupla beers :-) -
>just for old times' sake :-)
I still have my A3000 and an A1200, still fun on occasion. The A3000
even lives on the network, though omly at 10-Base-2 speeds... I would
probably use it more if I had any time for recreational computing. But
it's all business these days.
Dave Haynie
<bdoe.sp...@msa.attmil.ne> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 18:49:30 GMT, dha...@jersey.net (Dave Haynie) ranted and
>raved about <3dadb1e6....@news.jersey.net> in
>comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sy:
>> VHS video, no -- I gave away the last one a few months ago (but did
>> ultimately get a job out of the deal). Ironically, I'm working on the
>> DVD edition.
>If I'm not mistaken, Cloanto includes the Deathbed Vigil with their Amiga
>Forever 5 CD's.
They have a small postage-stamp MPEG-1 version, encoded from a plain
old everyday consumer-edition copy of the DBV. It's a useful bonus,
but not exactly the same as having a real movie (DVD or VHS).