Amiga CPU is similar to Mac CPU

410 views
Skip to first unread message

Martijn van Buul

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 3:10:28 PM9/15/02
to
It occurred to me that Alan Michelson wrote in comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc:

[ 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

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 2:48:04 PM9/15/02
to
It seems that the Macintosh is similar to the Amiga. If you look at the
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

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 5:34:20 PM9/15/02
to
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!!! :)


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

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 8:05:37 PM9/15/02
to Martijn van Buul
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!

> 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

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 8:21:38 PM9/15/02
to
William Kendrick wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 12:08:27 AM9/16/02
to
In article <3D852056...@lafn.org>, Alan Michelson <z...@lafn.org>
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

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 2:56:47 AM9/16/02
to
It occurred to me that Alan Michelson wrote in comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc:
> 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.

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

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:30:51 AM9/16/02
to
Alan Michelson <z...@lafn.org> 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.

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

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:35:38 AM9/16/02
to
Martijn van Buul <pie...@c64.org> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 12:04:27 AM9/17/02
to
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


"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

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:57:31 PM9/16/02
to
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!
Mo


"William Kendrick" <bi...@newbreedsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:w17h9.24222$Ik.5...@typhoon.sonic.net...

Michael van Elst

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 3:16:06 AM9/17/02
to
"Mo" <mygranny-nospam-@swbell-nospam-.net> writes:

>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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 4:19:03 AM9/17/02
to
It occurred to me that Mo wrote in comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc:

> 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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 4:49:04 AM9/17/02
to
In comp.sys.handhelds Mo <mygranny-nospam-@swbell-nospam-.net> wrote:
> Also I knew that didn't sound right about the 2600 so I looked up the specs
> on it-
>
> 2600 Specifications:
>
> CPU: 6507
<snip>
>
> Atari Lynx :
> CPU: 6507 RAM: 128 Bytes, in VLSI ROM: 4K max
<snip>
> 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.
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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 5:03:35 AM9/17/02
to
In comp.sys.amiga.hardware William Kendrick <bi...@newbreedsoftware.com> wrote:

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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 4:22:55 AM9/17/02
to
It occurred to me that Mo wrote in comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc:
> 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%

Bzzt.

Brian E. Doe

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 6:20:45 AM9/17/02
to
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
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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 8:42:43 AM9/17/02
to
Mo wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 8:10:03 AM9/17/02
to
Hi,

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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 1:32:02 PM9/17/02
to
In article <LKxh9.167$l9.47...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, Mo wrote:
> 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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 4:36:36 PM9/17/02
to
In article <40Ch9.24846$Ik.5...@typhoon.sonic.net>, William Kendrick
<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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 6:26:48 PM9/17/02
to

"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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 10:14:27 PM9/17/02
to

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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 10:18:42 PM9/17/02
to
In article <3D87E181...@lafn.org>, Alan Michelson <z...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 10:38:34 PM9/17/02
to
Mo wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 10:53:47 PM9/17/02
to
> 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!

Motorola 68040 (perhaps the '030 as well ?)

-JB


Kelli Halliburton

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 9:18:34 PM9/17/02
to
"Angelo" <james...@cox.net> wrote in message
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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 1:12:37 AM9/18/02
to
6507 is a 6502 derivitive so it is a 6502 snce the instruction sets the
same. Like the 6510.
Thank You.

"Alan Michelson" <z...@lafn.org> wrote in message
news:3D87E727...@lafn.org...

Angelo

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 12:34:50 AM9/18/02
to

"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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 5:23:33 AM9/18/02
to
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:26:48 GMT, "Angelo" ranted and raved about
<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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 7:41:08 AM9/18/02
to
In article <I_Nh9.65989$Pf7.1...@news1.west.cox.net>,

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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 9:24:10 AM9/18/02
to
Wildstar wrote:
> 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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 12:12:21 PM9/18/02
to
Howdy!

"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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 3:07:53 PM9/18/02
to

"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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 3:24:49 PM9/18/02
to
"Sune Mika Salminen" <not_...@fakeantispamemail.dk> wrote in message news:<am9ubt$2h0$1...@news.cybercity.dk>...

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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 10:29:24 AM9/18/02
to
> 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

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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 8:04:36 PM9/18/02
to
Hi,

> 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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 7:43:20 PM9/18/02
to
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.

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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 11:24:40 PM9/18/02
to

"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

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 4:10:14 PM9/18/02
to
"Ralph Wade Phillips" <ral...@techie.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
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

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 4:35:19 AM9/19/02
to
In comp.sys.amiga.hardware Daniele Gratteri <viva...@libero.it> wrote:

>> 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

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 4:39:21 AM9/19/02
to
In comp.sys.amiga.hardware Wildstar <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 6:17:36 AM9/19/02
to
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.

Daniele Gratteri

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 8:59:48 AM9/19/02
to
"Thomas Richter" <th...@cleopatra.math.tu-berlin.de> ha scritto nel messaggio
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

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 10:52:06 AM9/19/02
to
st...@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius) wrote in message news:<9307085f.02091...@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...

Axell

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 7:15:19 PM9/19/02
to
Wildstar wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 7:54:08 PM9/19/02
to
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.


--
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

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 11:51:37 PM9/19/02
to

"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

unread,
Sep 20, 2002, 12:35:16 AM9/20/02
to
"Angelo" <james...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<KnTh9.69070$Pf7.2...@news1.west.cox.net>...

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

unread,
Sep 20, 2002, 3:22:42 AM9/20/02
to
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.

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

unread,
Sep 20, 2002, 1:50:05 PM9/20/02
to
Alex Taylor <alex_...@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>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

unread,
Sep 20, 2002, 2:06:25 PM9/20/02
to
Roger Johnstone <roj...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>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

unread,
Sep 20, 2002, 8:06:00 PM9/20/02
to
In <slrnaomot0....@web1.calweb.com> Skipper Smith wrote:

> 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 (
> 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.

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.

unread,
Sep 20, 2002, 8:29:54 PM9/20/02
to
ski...@no-spam.calweb.com (Skipper Smith) wrote in
<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

unread,
Sep 21, 2002, 8:57:39 AM9/21/02
to
Howdy!

"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

unread,
Sep 21, 2002, 2:41:23 PM9/21/02
to

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

unread,
Sep 21, 2002, 3:28:10 PM9/21/02
to
"Skipper Smith" <ski...@no-spam.calweb.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Sep 22, 2002, 4:15:05 AM9/22/02
to
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
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'

unread,
Sep 22, 2002, 5:13:55 AM9/22/02
to
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
--
"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

unread,
Sep 22, 2002, 8:06:40 AM9/22/02
to

"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

unread,
Sep 22, 2002, 8:06:40 AM9/22/02
to

"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

unread,
Sep 22, 2002, 1:01:29 PM9/22/02
to
Roger Johnstone <roj...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:<20020921120...@news.inv.ihug.co.nz>...
There's enough misinformation in this thread that I'm not fully
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