4 Jan
2006
4 Jan
'06
4:43 p.m.
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:20:51 -0800
From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
Subject: Re: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available -
>On 1/4/2006 at 8:10 AM M H Stein wrote:
>Most languages were ported to the PET (although
some were for the 6809
>in the dual-processor SPET):
But a 6809 is nothing like a 6502!
Of course not; I was just pointing out that any search of 6502 software etc.
for the PET will probably include 6809 stuff as well.
If anything, a 6809 is an improved 16-bit version of a
6800.
No "if anything" about it; in the words of the 6809 designers (who had
also been involved in development of the 6800):
"We feel (the 6809) is the best machine so far made by human."
(From a 3-part series starting in Byte Jan '79, detailing the philosophy
and development of the 6809 - wonder if they're suggesting that there
were better machines, presumably made by non-humans? Aliens?
The proverbial infinite number of monkeys?)
In a way, this goes toward the idea of the 6800 having
the more useful
architecture than the 6502.
Arrghh... do we always have to have these discussions about which CPU/
computer/OS/language etc. etc. is better/more useful than xyz?
More useful for what, when, for whom, at what cost, yadda, yadda...?
And how does software being written for a 16-bit 6809 (three years newer
than the 6502) say anything about the relative merits of the even older
6800? I suppose that software being written for the Pentium proves
that an 8080 was better than a Z80?
As a matter of interest, the 6502 was the successor to the 6501,
pin-compatible with the 6800 and not that much different.
The 6809 was substantially different from both of them...
m