21 Dec
2001
21 Dec
'01
12:40 p.m.
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
without modification, in most cases, on a Z80,.by the
time the 6502
became
popular. Now, I've always believed the 6502 at 1
MHz to compare
favorably with
the 4 MHz Z80, but I used the Z80 running CP/M 2.2 to
do useful work,
since it
was a lot more trouble squeezing useful work out of a
6502 back in
'78-'79.
If anything I'd say CP/M was a factor more than any virtue of Z80. I say
that as
most "z80" code underused the Z80 as a fancy 8080. One may wonder if a
cp/m like (or better!) OS existed for 6502 such that it was portable or
easily
ported if things may have developed differently.
Allison
21 Dec
21 Dec
3:19 p.m.
I'd completely agree with your observation regarding the OS. Further, I'd say
the Z80 wouldn't have been the success it turned out to be, but for CP/M.
The OS that Apple produced was the only major OS for the 6502 as far as I know.
I recognize there were some later attempts at an OS for the later systems by
Commodore et al but they were never comparable with CP/M or Apple DOS.
One of our local 6502'ers wrote a pretty sensible OS for the 6502 that was
ported to several systems including a KIM-1 with extra memory, and, among
others, my home-built version of a 6502-group favorite homebrew. I didn't like
the results folks were getting with their Apples, and, being a stubborn guy, I
insisted on using it to do my correspondence, etc, until, finally, I broke down
and went to CP/M, since it was SOOO much easier and more convenient. One taste
and the infatuation with the 6502 for doing "useful work" was over. I
didn't
even give up CP/M when faced with the incresing popularity of the IBM PC until
MS-DOS 3.2 came out. I continued to use the 6502 for control and communication
tasks, however.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "ajp166" <ajp166(a)bellatlantic.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: 6502/Z80 speed comparison (was MITS 2SIO serial chip?)
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
without modification, in most cases, on a Z80,.by
the time the 6502
became
popular. Now, I've always believed the 6502
at 1 MHz to compare
favorably with
the 4 MHz Z80, but I used the Z80 running CP/M 2.2
to do useful work,
since it
was a lot more trouble squeezing useful work out
of a 6502 back in
'78-'79.
If anything I'd say CP/M was a factor more than any virtue of Z80. I say
that as
most "z80" code underused the Z80 as a fancy 8080. One may wonder if a
cp/m like (or better!) OS existed for 6502 such that it was portable or
easily
ported if things may have developed differently.
Allison
7:43 p.m.
I whole hartedly agree !
It's the systemsoftware and the application combined with
a large userbase that determines succes. In the late '80 the
Apple II(x) was nice but CP/M enabled more manufactorers
with rather different hardware to tap the same potential
user/clientbase. Even a (microsoft) Z80 card was made for
the Apple II(x) platform while it already had a good CPU ?????
Very much the same happened almost a decade (I'm talking
about the breaktrough period here) later with the IBM-PC
and its clones . And in that case designquality again
was not the issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: ajp166 <ajp166(a)bellatlantic.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: 6502/Z80 speed comparison (was MITS 2SIO serial chip?)
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
without modification, in most cases, on a Z80,.by
the time the 6502
became
popular. Now, I've always believed the 6502
at 1 MHz to compare
favorably with
the 4 MHz Z80, but I used the Z80 running CP/M 2.2
to do useful work,
since it
was a lot more trouble squeezing useful work out
of a 6502 back in
'78-'79.
If anything I'd say CP/M was a factor more than any virtue of Z80. I say
that as
most "z80" code underused the Z80 as a fancy 8080. One may wonder if a
cp/m like (or better!) OS existed for 6502 such that it was portable or
easily
ported if things may have developed differently.
Allison
8354
days inactive
8355
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
ajp166＠bellatlantic.net -
edick＠idcomm.com -
sipke＠wxs.nl