Amiga, Mac, Atari
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!
> "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.
> >>
> > 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!)
> >
> >
Wildstar
same. Like the 6510.
Thank You.
"Alan Michelson" <z...@lafn.org> wrote in message
news:3D87E727...@lafn.org...
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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. ]
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
>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
--
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 */
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)?
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.
Skipper Smith
'shore 'nuf. You would think I could remember that :-).
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
news:Ydsk9.691
> 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.