WTB: EPROM Emulator for 2716
TXMarsh
a use for?
In the alternative, does anyone know if anyone is still making these?
Thanks.
Tim
Jon Kirwan
I don't. I think I might still have some 2716's, though.
Are you looking here for something you can download code into
and test, without the UV erasure step? Or something more
complex than that?
Those things are a 'mere' 2k byte and 450ns cycle times, I
think. One could almost make one of those from a cheap micro
in today's world; with a socket conversion, anyway.
But no emulator laying about, despite the fact that I have a
lot of old stuff hanging on shelves. Sorry.
Jon
TXMarsh
UV erase and burn again.
I thought about making my own with a propeller micro but I need to
start being more careful about "project creep."
That is, it always seems that I have an idea to do something (in this
case design a test rig with custom software for a 6800 based pinball
machine) and then I decide I could do the project more efficiently if
only I build another widget first.
I would also be interested in most any tool that works with the
motorola 6800/6802/6808. I've been on a real retro-computing kick...
reading too many old issues of BYTE!
tim
AZ Nomad
>On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:36:50 -0700 (PDT), TXMarsh
><timoth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Does anyone have an emulator for a 2716 eprom that they no longer have
>>a use for?
>>In the alternative, does anyone know if anyone is still making these?
>>Thanks.
>I don't. I think I might still have some 2716's, though.
>Are you looking here for something you can download code into
>and test, without the UV erasure step? Or something more
>complex than that?
When were those in use, 30 years ago?
TXMarsh
> When were those in use, 30 years ago?
Yep... that's about right. This particular pinball machine is from
around 1986... and the 6808 wasn't exactly new at that point. : )
Jon Kirwan
<timoth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks for looking Jon! Yep... just trying to avoid having to burn,
>UV erase and burn again.
Okay. Figured.
>I thought about making my own with a propeller micro but I need to
>start being more careful about "project creep."
>That is, it always seems that I have an idea to do something (in this
>case design a test rig with custom software for a 6800 based pinball
>machine) and then I decide I could do the project more efficiently if
>only I build another widget first.
Didn't you know? It's widgets all the way down!! Seems like
that to me, anyway. ;)
>I would also be interested in most any tool that works with the
>motorola 6800/6802/6808. I've been on a real retro-computing kick...
>reading too many old issues of BYTE!
oh, my. Retro for me is more like core memory, drum memory,
mercury delay line memory, front panels with soft but real
switches that don't develop callouses when you use them to
toggle in your programs, and if I move closer to the 6800
time line, maybe even some 1103 dynamic ram chips.
Those 6800 things came slightly after, if I recall, but
that's not too far away from old recollections.
Hmm. I think the early ones were 1MHz. Might be able to
emulate that, too, with another one of those widgets. ;)
Where are you picking up 6800's? I have a few 8080A laying
about... damn... now I'm going to have to go see if I have
any more of the 6800's in the box. (Probably, if I do, the
pins are going to need some cleaning.)
Jon
Jon Kirwan
Pinball!! Cool! We had a few pinball machines at home. My
wife is .. well, it was very important to her that we had a
few in the living room! However, no micros in those.
Then we had kids and moving and jobs that took up 36 hours a
day of my time and... well...
We used to go, every week, to a pinball palace and buy up a
fixed number of tokens and spend a few hours playing together
(or separately.)
Good luck reprogramming the thing! Should be a lot of joy.
Jon
Jon Kirwan
Someone over in sci.electronics.basics and .design is asking:
Subject: HDS-200 / Motorola 6800 Development tool
Is there any interest out there in this (antique)
development tool? I've got one (it takes up a lot
of space!) that I would like to part with.
Thanks,
TomC
Not sure if that is something you could use.
Jon
D Yuniskis
TXMarsh wrote:
> Does anyone have an emulator for a 2716 eprom that they no longer have
> a use for?
I may have a spare 2716 ppod for one of my logic analyzers -- but
you'd need the logic analyzer as well! :>
> In the alternative, does anyone know if anyone is still making these?
If you are looking for real 2716's, I can probably find a few
(even 1702's!). I *think* all the 2716's were interchangeable
(IIRC, the mess happened with TI in the 2732 series) -- aside from
access times.
If, OTOH, you are looking for a poor man's development tool,
we used to use 2Kx8 SRAMs with a "write protect switch"
epoxied (superglue didn't exist back then) to the top of
the device. (this requires some forethought in laying out
the PCB so you have access to a "write" signal)
4K parts (2732) were harder to fabricate in this manner as
you had to piggy-back *two* 2K SRAMs, lift their CS legs and
air-wire a small decoder mounted (legs up) on the top of the
topmost SRAM. We called these "pigs" -- many early video
games (arcade pieces) were developed this way. :> Sure beat
the 30+ minute erase-burn-test cycles!
You might even look for an integrated BBRAM with some external
logic on the WE signal (or, just reload it each time you power up)
Tauno Voipio
Get a small 5V Flash and make an adapter socket. You
will not find anything too small or slow.
IIRC, there were two kinds of 2716: one with supplies
of +5V, +12V and -5V, and another with +5V only.
--
Tauno Voipio
while (1);
You can try to find 2816 device (EEPROM pin compatible with 2716),
so there will be no need for erasure and writing is also faster...
I've used them for development at the time...
- while(1);
Chris Burrows
> I thought about making my own with a propeller micro but I need to
> start being more careful about "project creep."
Why worry? I often find the spinoff projects to be more useful than the
original aim. Necessity is the mother of invention ...
> I've been on a real retro-computing kick...
> reading too many old issues of BYTE!
Me too. It's much more effective than taking the rejuvenation pills ;-)
Cheers,
Chris
Chris Burrows
Astrobe v3.2: ARM Oberon-07 Development System
http://www.astrobe.com
Michael Kellett
I have a Dataman Softy S4 - yours for £??? - make an offer by email if you
are interested.
It supports 2716 and you can still download code and eprom signatures from
their website.
It programs and emulates and has the emulator lead.
Michael Kellett
JW
wrote in Message id:
<ac1af224-f55a-4fe7...@a19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>:
>Thanks for looking Jon! Yep... just trying to avoid having to burn,
>UV erase and burn again.
Here you go, this should work nicely:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=CAT28C16ALI90-ND
They're electrically erasable. As long as your programmer supports the
part...
There's lots of other sources as well. Use "28C16" in your query here:
http://www.findchips.com/
TXMarsh
Jon... thanks for the tip on the 6800 development harware.
while(1) and JW... thanks for the idea about the 2816.
: )
Tim
Paul E. Bennett
Might depend on where you are and if one that works for bigger EPROM's could
be adapted in some way to give you what you need. I have a pair that I think
do up to the 512k size (will have to check) that run from the parallel
ports. Made by Computer Solutions Ltd some years back.
--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E....@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************
TXMarsh
can tell most emulators that did 512 also did smaller eprom emulation
but sometimes they only emulated down to 2732s... but some do emulate
2716s... so kinda depends on the exact model. Not a real expert on
2716s v. 2732s but there may be some fundamental difference (besides
size).
Jon Kirwan
My recollection is that that was a nice period of time where
most of the time most of the different sizes were voltage and
pin compatible. But that might very well have been at or
above the x32 size. The x16 might be different in some way.
I'd have to go to a datasheet again, to know. Memory fails.
Your point is wise to hold in mind, lacking specifics, while
looking around.
Jon
Didi
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:12:17 -0700 (PDT), TXMarsh
>
There was no difference between the 16 and 32 from a read point of
view, just A11 was added. I think on the 2716 it was the programming
voltage pin, but this may be wrong (I have not been designing eprom
programmers which would program these for well over 20 years :-) ).
But I am quite sure the 32 can "drop in" replace a 16 if the data
are written in its upper half (Vpp for the 16 is held at 5V
during read and this is where A11 is).
Dimiter
------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments
http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/
Jon Kirwan
Okay. Always good to sweep away a little ignorance and/or
recover some lost memory. ;)
Thanks,
Jon
D Yuniskis
Didi wrote:
> On Oct 1, 11:46 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:12:17 -0700 (PDT), TXMarsh
>>
>> <timothyma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Paul... thanks for the reply. I'm in the US (Texas). From what I
>>> can tell most emulators that did 512 also did smaller eprom emulation
>>> but sometimes they only emulated down to 2732s... but some do emulate
>>> 2716s... so kinda depends on the exact model. Not a real expert on
>>> 2716s v. 2732s but there may be some fundamental difference (besides
>>> size).
>> My recollection is that that was a nice period of time where
>> most of the time most of the different sizes were voltage and
>> pin compatible. But that might very well have been at or
>> above the x32 size. The x16 might be different in some way.
>> I'd have to go to a datasheet again, to know. Memory fails.
>>
>> Your point is wise to hold in mind, lacking specifics, while
>> looking around.
>
> There was no difference between the 16 and 32 from a read point of
> view, just A11 was added. I think on the 2716 it was the programming
> voltage pin, but this may be wrong (I have not been designing eprom
> programmers which would program these for well over 20 years :-) ).
> But I am quite sure the 32 can "drop in" replace a 16 if the data
> are written in its upper half (Vpp for the 16 is held at 5V
> during read and this is where A11 is).
TI threw a monkey-wrench into the works with their "2716".
The predecessor -- 2708 -- required multiple supplies.
Intel (and the rest of the Japanese suppliers) introduced
*the* 2716 as a "5V only" part (still needed Vpp for programming
but could *run* the chip off 5V alone -- no need for multiple
supplies).
Folks quickly realized that they did NOT want TI's parts
(purchasing agents who thought 2716 == 2716 soon learned that
this was not the case... recall that 2716's were approaching
the $50/ea price at one point so a naive purchasing agent
could easily screw himself by "finding" a bunch of "2716's"
at a "real good price" :> ). So, TI had to come up with
a "TI" 2716 -- though they already had used the 2716 P/N.
Hence the 2516 was born. (i.e., a TI 2516 is the same as
an intel 2716)
Not content with shooting themselves in the foot with *their*
2716, TI then went on -- in their infinite stupidity -- to shoot
themselves in the *other* foot by coming out with a 2532
THAT WAS NOT EQUIVALENT to the rest of the world's 2732!
Point being: make sure you know *which* chip you are trying to
emulate.
As an aside, it is amusing to look back at the die for these
devices. Intel had these *tiny* die while folks like Hitachi
had these big monstrosities (though functionally equivalent).
Yet, they (Hitachi) managed to make a good show of it (financially).
Probably had Milo Minderbinder on their sales staff :-/
--don
Didi
> Hi Dimiter,
> ....
> Not content with shooting themselves in the foot with *their*
> 2716, TI then went on -- in their infinite stupidity -- to shoot
> themselves in the *other* foot by coming out with a 2532
> THAT WAS NOT EQUIVALENT to the rest of the world's 2732!
>
> Point being: make sure you know *which* chip you are trying to
> emulate.
Hi Don,
I think I remember there was some sort of a mess with these
but I am not sure how far it went (did it affect read etc.).
Perhaps I never saw an abnormal TI part, I think I remember
the 25 instead of the 27 though.
Of course I do remember the 2708 with its +5, +12 and -5 volts
but I never really used it nor did I make a programmer
capable of programming it. I also remember the 1702... but
only its existence, never used or considered it.
> As an aside, it is amusing to look back at the die for these
> devices. Intel had these *tiny* die while folks like Hitachi
> had these big monstrosities (though functionally equivalent).
> Yet, they (Hitachi) managed to make a good show of it (financially).
> Probably had Milo Minderbinder on their sales staff :-/
But I did have a Hitachi EEPROM with a 2716 pinout in my hands
in the early to mid 80-s. Did not have to UV erase it, had to
program it in the programmer.
But during these years I was quite disconnected from the real
world, at this side of the iron curtain there was no access to
the market and I had to run TGI (thinking of it as a private
company was itself a diagnosis rather than anything else) on
part donations from friendly state owned labs etc... :-).
So my memories likely cover a limited area, although
most of them are surprisingly vivid.
Paul E. Bennett
If I recall (hard to be sure without looking at the data-sheets) there are a
few pins that moved around between those two sizes. Which means that you
would have to wire an adaptor up to be able to use it.
Albert van der Horst
Didi <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>On Oct 1, 11:46=A0pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:12:17 -0700 (PDT), TXMarsh
>>
>> <timothyma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I
>> >can tell most emulators that did 512 also did smaller eprom emulation
>> >but sometimes they only emulated down to 2732s... but some do emulate
>> >2716s v. 2732s but there may be some fundamental difference (besides
>> >size).
>>
>> My recollection is that that was a nice period of time where
>> most of the time most of the different sizes were voltage and
>> above the x32 size. =A0The x16 might be different in some way.
>> I'd have to go to a datasheet again, to know. =A0Memory fails.
>>
>> Your point is wise to hold in mind, lacking specifics, while
>> looking around.
>>
>> Jon
>
>There was no difference between the 16 and 32 from a read point of
>view, just A11 was added. I think on the 2716 it was the programming
>voltage pin, but this may be wrong (I have not been designing eprom
>programmers which would program these for well over 20 years :-) ).
>But I am quite sure the 32 can "drop in" replace a 16 if the data
>are written in its upper half (Vpp for the 16 is held at 5V
2716 retro?
What about the 2708 ?
When the price dropped I immediately bought stock,
without really knowing what I would do with them.
[ By the way I'll part from them for the price I originally payed
( euro 10), purchaser pays shipping. If only they find a good
home! ]
>
>Dimiter
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
D Yuniskis
Didi wrote:
> On Oct 2, 4:39 am, D Yuniskis <not.going.to...@seen.com> wrote:
>
> I think I remember there was some sort of a mess with these
> but I am not sure how far it went (did it affect read etc.).
IIRC, the "AC" differences between the parts wasn't significant
(i.e., the range of access times was big enough to absorb any small
differences between vendors).
The bigger problem (for us, looking for "static" RAM parts that could
be used to emulate ROMs) was the variations of "static" parts that
were available as 2716 contemporaries. E.g., pseudo-statics vs.
"real" statics; low power vs. not-so-low power. You had to read
datasheets carefully... :-( (and remind purchasing agents that *you*
are the engineer, not them!)
> Perhaps I never saw an abnormal TI part, I think I remember
> the 25 instead of the 27 though.
> Of course I do remember the 2708 with its +5, +12 and -5 volts
> but I never really used it nor did I make a programmer
> capable of programming it. I also remember the 1702... but
> only its existence, never used or considered it.
First design I was involved with used 1702's (i4004 based).
I recall white ceramic with gold lead frames (?). Much classier
looking than the drab gr[ae]y ceramic that the 2716's came in.
>> As an aside, it is amusing to look back at the die for these
>> devices. Intel had these *tiny* die while folks like Hitachi
>> had these big monstrosities (though functionally equivalent).
>> Yet, they (Hitachi) managed to make a good show of it (financially).
>> Probably had Milo Minderbinder on their sales staff :-/
>
> But I did have a Hitachi EEPROM with a 2716 pinout in my hands
> in the early to mid 80-s. Did not have to UV erase it, had to
> program it in the programmer.
> But during these years I was quite disconnected from the real
> world, at this side of the iron curtain there was no access to
> the market and I had to run TGI (thinking of it as a private
> company was itself a diagnosis rather than anything else) on
> part donations from friendly state owned labs etc... :-).
<frown> Hard for me to really imagine that! Though I can recall
working with folks in the UK ~20 years ago who couldn't buy many
of the parts that I took for granted. And, anything they *could*
buy was considerably more expensive ("dollars == pounds" was the
mantra we used -- despite the current exhange rate).
I've (more recently) found dealing with products for second/third
world markets to be an unpleasant reminder of how much I (we?)
take for granted in this regard. "No, you can't use that BGA
part because they won't be able to service it..."
> So my memories likely cover a limited area, although
> most of them are surprisingly vivid.
[watch your mail...]