2 Jan
2006
2 Jan
'06
1:26 p.m.
I believe the Zilog Z80 is still made. At least it was in 2004.
May be a different part number though.
Bob
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:13:52 -0500
From: shoppa_classiccmp at trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa)
Subject: Re: 1802 problems
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Message-ID: <20060102151352.66303BA47EA at mini-me.trailing-edge.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Pete Turnbull <pete at dunnington.plus.com> wrote:
Up until just a few years ago (2002?), Harris/Intersil web pages listed the
SOS 1802 as a current product, along with more conventional CMOS 1802's
and support chips.
If I have the chronology right, Harris bought much of RCA's line in
the 90's and Intersil bought them out a few years later.
But they've been dropping a lot of classic parts (including the CA3046,
which I never believed would go out of style! There are newer
surface-mount differential pairs of course but not quite the same
as the good old CA3046 in a can...) Many of the hobbyist-oriented
retailers still have plenty of old stock though.
What 70's era micros are still in production? Z80, I'm sure. 8088, probably
(although probably not in an Intel fab.) Anything else?
If I look in the BG Micro or Jameco catalog I see lots of 70's era micros and
support chips but I'm sure that most of those parts are pulls or old stock.
Tim.
--------
It was used
because there was a rad-hard silicon-on-sapphire version,
and then some people used the standard versions so they could use the
same code and tools.
2 Jan
2 Jan
7:21 p.m.
In message <43B9704E.3070408 at sbcglobal.net>
Bob Rosenbloom <bobalan at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I believe the Zilog Z80 is still made. At least it was
in 2004.
May be a different part number though.
The 65C02S is still manufactured - see <http://www.westerndesigncenter.com/>.
--
Phil. | Acorn RiscPC600 SA220 64MB+6GB 100baseT
philpem at dsl.pipex.com | Athlon64 3200+ A8VDeluxe R2 512MB+100GB
http://www.philpem.me.uk/ | Panasonic CF-25 Mk.2 Toughbook
... Shh! Be vewy quiet, I'm hunting wuntime errors!
8:22 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On Monday 02 January 2006 07:21 pm, Philip Pemberton wrote:
In message <43B9704E.3070408 at sbcglobal.net>
Bob Rosenbloom <bobalan at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Speaking of 6502s, I happen to have a whole bunch of those, and some 6510s,
and 6522s and 6526s, and perhaps even some 6551 (?) UARTs too. Anybody have
anything particularly nifty that these would be good for? I kinda like Garth
Wilson's workbench computer, and definitely don't want to go the route that
some have gone (found on the web) where multiple floppy drives and writing a
bloody dos for it and all that sort of thing get involved. Anybody know of
some simple monitor-type software that's out there?
And, any suggestions for getting familiar with this stuff when most of my
8-bit thinking is the 8080/8085/z80 type parts? The idea of rom on top of
address space and that whole zero-page bit and only a 256-byte stack still
strike me as pretty strange...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
I believe the Zilog Z80 is still made. At least
it was in 2004.
May be a different part number though.
The 65C02S is still manufactured - see
<http://www.westerndesigncenter.com/>. 
8:39 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
"Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at blazenet.net> wrote:
Speaking of 6502s, I happen to have a whole bunch of
those, and some 6510s,
and 6522s and 6526s, and perhaps even some 6551 (?) UARTs too. Anybody have
anything particularly nifty that these would be good for? I kinda like Garth
Wilson's workbench computer, and definitely don't want to go the route that
some have gone (found on the web) where multiple floppy drives and writing a
bloody dos for it and all that sort of thing get involved. Anybody know of
some simple monitor-type software that's out there?
How adaptable is the KIM-1 monitor? IIRC it had both the keypad and
a TTY mode where it would use the UART. I used KIM-1's but never got too
much into poking around everything the monitor could do/did do.
There was also the Apple II monitor with its built-in disassembler
(and miniassembler with the right INTBASIC toolkit ROM, right?) It'll have
a lot of hooks into the Apple II video range but if those are somehow
rip-outable then it might be a start (worse comes to worse, you know that
you can use the PR# and IN# hooks for character in and out). And
also in the toolkit ROM was SWEET-16... Wow, going back a couple
of decades, that was fun back then!
Tim.
3 Jan
3 Jan
12:42 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On Monday 02 January 2006 08:39 pm, Tim Shoppa wrote:
"Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at
blazenet.net> wrote:
I always thought that'd be a nifty machine to get a hold of and play with,
but never did, somehow. Last one I saw for sale was way up there in price,
not something I was gonna spend...
Speaking of 6502s, I happen to have a whole
bunch of those, and some
6510s, and 6522s and 6526s, and perhaps even some 6551 (?) UARTs too.
Anybody have anything particularly nifty that these would be good for? I
kinda like Garth Wilson's workbench computer, and definitely don't want
to go the route that some have gone (found on the web) where multiple
floppy drives and writing a bloody dos for it and all that sort of thing
get involved. Anybody know of some simple monitor-type software that's
out there?
How adaptable is the KIM-1 monitor? IIRC it had both the keypad and
a TTY mode where it would use the UART. I used KIM-1's but never got too
much into poking around everything the monitor could do/did do. There was also the Apple II monitor with its built-in
disassembler
(and miniassembler with the right INTBASIC toolkit ROM, right?) It'll have
a lot of hooks into the Apple II video range but if those are somehow
rip-outable then it might be a start (worse comes to worse, you know that
you can use the PR# and IN# hooks for character in and out). And
also in the toolkit ROM was SWEET-16... Wow, going back a couple
of decades, that was fun back then!
I remember some magazine article dealing with Sweet-16, in Byte? Been a long
time, anyhow. That stuff built in ain't that big a deal, my thinking is
more toward doing assembly and such on some other box and downloading it.
Big question for either of these, though, is source available?
Any of you guys have advice on how to get a grip on the weirdnesses of these
chips, when what I'm used to is 8080/8085/z80 assembler?
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
1:43 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On 1/3/2006 at 12:42 PM Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Any of you guys have advice on how to get a grip on the
weirdnesses of
these chips, when what I'm used to is 8080/8085/z80 assembler?
With the 6502, the big lmitation to me was the very small fixed stack (with
no overlow-underflow traps) and the heavy reliance on "direct" low memory
cells. No 16 bit operations per se and almost everything you do affects
the condition codes. You tend to think about everything in terms of 8
bits, even computing addresses. Things that involve more than byte
quantities tend to get very wordy--for example, try writing a subroutine to
move an arbitrary number (up to 65K) bytes and compare it with the same in
Z80 or even 8080 code. To me, the 6502 has more of a microcontroller
instruction set than the 8080/Z80.
Cheers,
Chuck
2:09 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 01:43 pm, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 1/3/2006 at 12:42 PM Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Yeah, those are the two things that jump out at me all right...
I used to think that a bigger stack was a good idea. After playing around
some with some monitor code, I'm not so sure any more, and for a simple
embedded application that might not be as much of a problem as I'd thought.
As for that "low page" stuff? I guess that could work out fairly well if you
thought of it as a whole lot of registers or something. :-)
Any of you guys have advice on how to get a grip
on the weirdnesses of
these chips, when what I'm used to is 8080/8085/z80 assembler?
With the 6502, the big lmitation to me was the very small fixed stack (with
no overlow-underflow traps) and the heavy reliance on "direct" low memory
cells. No 16 bit operations per se
That could make things a bit more complicated.
and almost everything you do affects the condition
codes.
And that as well.
You tend to think about everything in terms of 8 bits,
even computing
addresses. Things that involve more than byte quantities tend to get very
wordy--for example, try writing a subroutine to move an arbitrary number (up
to 65K) bytes and compare it with the same in Z80 or even 8080 code. To me,
the 6502 has more of a microcontroller instruction set than the 8080/Z80.
One of my favorite approaches to using a monitor type setup was to use a
dispatch table, which was trivially easy in the z80 environment, just take
the "op" code you're passed, and index into the table (and I don't even
mean
using an index register per se, I never had much use for those). The other
thing I did nontrivially often was to take a parameter off the stack as
passed, that whole cp/m convention of sticking things in registers always
struck me as rather silly by comparison. You wanna pass a parameter to
something, stick it on the stack, have the called code remove it, and
adjust as necessary. I haven't looked yet at how easy it would be to do that
on a 65xx chip.
More of a microcontroller? Yeah, maybe. I have some of those I haven't
played with much either, 80xx parts mostly, some with rom but that's easy
enough to disable and use an external eprom if you don't mind losing a bunch
of pins. I just haven't gotten around to them yet. But ever scrapped
keyboard has one of those in there. :-)
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
2:53 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On 1/3/2006 at 2:09 PM Roy J. Tellason wrote:
More of a microcontroller? Yeah, maybe. I have some
of those I haven't
played with much either, 80xx parts mostly, some with rom but that's
easy
enough to disable and use an external eprom if you don't mind losing a
bunch
of pins. I just haven't gotten around to them yet. But ever scrapped
keyboard has one of those in there. :-)
The strange thing about history is that it's unpredictable.
I'dve expected to see the 6502 architecture (with its 8 bit limitations)
find its way into embedded microcontrollers and the 6800 (which feels a bit
more friendly to z80 residents with its 16-bit index register and stack) to
be at home in PCs. Yet, the reverse has turned out to be true--the 68HC11
seems to be everywhere--and the 6502 has been pretty much relegated to
obscurity after some popularity in the first generation of personal
computers. One wonders what the Apple ][ would have become had the 6800
been the processor of choice (IIRC, the Apple I had jumpers to allow either
the 6502 or 6800 to be used).
Which leads me, in a way, to the conclusion that maybe instruction sets
don't matter all that much in the real world.
Cheers,
Chuck
3:05 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 11:53:38 -0800
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 1/3/2006 at 2:09 PM Roy J. Tellason wrote:
It's my understanding from reading Apple History that the
superior 6800 was the first choice, but it was much easier to get
ahold of the cheaper 6502 part. Motorola was a big powerful
conglomerate. MOS Technologies was a hungry newer firm.
Personally, I would certainly rather have had the Apple product
line based on the 6800. But my bias is showing.
More of a microcontroller? Yeah, maybe. I have
some of those I haven't
played with much either, 80xx parts mostly, some with rom but that's
easy
enough to disable and use an external eprom if you don't mind losing a
bunch
of pins. I just haven't gotten around to them yet. But ever scrapped
keyboard has one of those in there. :-)
The strange thing about history is that it's unpredictable.
I'dve expected to see the 6502 architecture (with its 8 bit limitations)
find its way into embedded microcontrollers and the 6800 (which feels a bit
more friendly to z80 residents with its 16-bit index register and stack) to
be at home in PCs. Yet, the reverse has turned out to be true--the 68HC11
seems to be everywhere--and the 6502 has been pretty much relegated to
obscurity after some popularity in the first generation of personal
computers. One wonders what the Apple ][ would have become had the 6800
been the processor of choice (IIRC, the Apple I had jumpers to allow either
the 6502 or 6800 to be used).
4:10 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On 1/3/2006 at 3:05 PM Scott Stevens wrote:
It's my understanding from reading Apple History
that the
superior 6800 was the first choice, but it was much easier to get
ahold of the cheaper 6502 part. Motorola was a big powerful
conglomerate. MOS Technologies was a hungry newer firm.
Personally, I would certainly rather have had the Apple product
line based on the 6800. But my bias is showing.
Maybe not--how many lanugages were implemented on the 6502, as contrasted
with the x80? Was there ever a 6502 COBOL, FORTRAN or PL/I? (I honestly
don't know, but I suspect that FORTRAN may have existed). The picture
might have been quite different, given the 6800 architecture.
Cheers,
Chuck
4:22 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 04:10 pm, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 1/3/2006 at 3:05 PM Scott Stevens wrote:
It'd sure have been nice if the 68k made its way into the pc, too, instead
of the 80xxx, which I've never been all that fond of at the hardware
level...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
It's my understanding from reading Apple
History that the
superior 6800 was the first choice, but it was much easier to get
ahold of the cheaper 6502 part. Motorola was a big powerful
conglomerate. MOS Technologies was a hungry newer firm.
Personally, I would certainly rather have had the Apple product
line based on the 6800. But my bias is showing.
Maybe not--how many lanugages were implemented on the 6502, as contrasted
with the x80? Was there ever a 6502 COBOL, FORTRAN or PL/I? (I honestly
don't know, but I suspect that FORTRAN may have existed). The picture
might have been quite different, given the 6800 architecture. 
7:59 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available -
Maybe not--how many lanugages were implemented on the 6502, as contrasted
with the x80? Was there ever a 6502 COBOL, FORTRAN or PL/I? (I honestly
don't know, but I suspect that FORTRAN may have existed). The picture
Not really native 6502, but there was a Fortan complier for the UCSD
P-system on the Apple ][. Of course it compiled to p-code, but the whole
thing did run on a 6502 machine.
What languages were available for the BBC Micro (without a second
processor[1]), I wonder. I know about BASIC, Pascal, Forth, Lisp
[1] With the Z80 second processor you could run CP/M, which means just
about any language, of course. There were certainly BASIC, Pascal and C
for the 32016 second processor.
-tony
4 Jan
4 Jan
6:34 a.m.
New subject: UCSD P-System (was Speaking of 6502s)
In message <m1Etwzf-000IyLC at p850ug1>
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
Not really native 6502, but there was a Fortan
complier for the UCSD
P-system on the Apple ][. Of course it compiled to p-code, but the whole
thing did run on a 6502 machine.
I've always wanted to try porting P-System to my 6502 CPU board, but I never
managed to find any source listings (or even documentation) for it...
Thanks.
--
Phil. | Acorn RiscPC600 SA220 64MB+6GB 100baseT
philpem at dsl.pipex.com | Athlon64 3200+ A8VDeluxe R2 512MB+100GB
http://www.philpem.me.uk/ | Panasonic CF-25 Mk.2 Toughbook
... You're twisted, perverted, & sick. I like that!
1:25 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available -
On 1/4/06, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
What languages were available for the BBC Micro
(without a second
processor[1]), I wonder. I know about BASIC, Pascal, Forth, Lisp
There was an Acornsoft BCPL.
There is known to be a Beebug C, but I never managed to track it down.
The C I did manage to track down (not proper C but Small-C, and indeed
only a limited subset of even that) was done by Dr. A. J. Travis. I
wrote a project in this, and really liked it.
http://www.mdfs.net/System/C/BBC/ for more details.
Ed.
17 Jan
17 Jan
10:39 a.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available -
On 1/4/06, Tony Duell <ard at
p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
COMAL was very nice. What BBC Basic should have been ;-)
I presume you do know about Acornsoft C. (I did some of the QA
on that compiler)
There was a LOGO of sorts, I seem to recall, but hard pressed to
remember any details. It may have been a hack job in basic actually.
Hold on ... http://www.catharton.com/electronica/viewpage.php?page_id=2
yep, was sure I remembered it.
And wasn't there an ICON for the beeb? i don't remember it personally
but I remember someone at Edinburgh telling me he'd written a version
of our text editor ECCE in Icon, and I think it was for the Beeb. Could
be wrong about that one.
Graham
What languages were available for the BBC Micro
(without a second
processor[1]), I wonder. I know about BASIC, Pascal, Forth, Lisp
There was an Acornsoft BCPL.
There is known to be a Beebug C, but I never managed to track it down.
The C I did manage to track down (not proper C but Small-C, and indeed
only a limited subset of even that) was done by Dr. A. J. Travis. I
wrote a project in this, and really liked it.
3 Jan
3 Jan
3:58 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 02:53 pm, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>I just haven't gotten around to them yet. But
ever scrapped
>keyboard has one of those in there. :-)
Should say "_every_ scrapped keyboard...
The strange thing about history is that it's
unpredictable.
I'dve expected to see the 6502 architecture (with its 8 bit limitations)
find its way into embedded microcontrollers and the 6800 (which feels a bit
more friendly to z80 residents with its 16-bit index register and stack) to
be at home in PCs. Yet, the reverse has turned out to be true--the 68HC11
seems to be everywhere--and the 6502 has been pretty much relegated to
obscurity after some popularity in the first generation of personal
computers. One wonders what the Apple ][ would have become had the 6800
been the processor of choice (IIRC, the Apple I had jumpers to allow either
the 6502 or 6800 to be used).
Oh really? Now _that's_ an interesting tidbit, I had no idea those chips
were that close, though I do see a lot of similarities between them.
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
4:29 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On 1/3/2006 at 3:58 PM Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Oh really? Now _that's_ an interesting tidbit, I
had no idea those chips
were that close, though I do see a lot of similarities
between them.
IIRC the 650x development team were ex-Moto guys. The 6501 (a very rare
bird) was pin-compatible with the 6800; after Moto sued MOS, the 6502 came
out with only very minor pin swaps.
Cheers,
Chuck
5 Jan
5 Jan
5:53 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On 1/3/06, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Yet, the reverse has turned out to be true--the
68HC11
seems to be everywhere--and the 6502 has been pretty much relegated to
obscurity after some popularity in the first generation of personal
computers.
Which leads me, in a way, to the conclusion that maybe
instruction sets
don't matter all that much in the real world.
I've been wondering about this as well. I would have assumed that for
microcontrollers that cost would be supreme. Did the 6800 family get
cheaper than the 6502 at some point? After all saving a dollar a unit
on 100K units pays for a programmer.
6:12 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On 1/5/2006 at 2:53 PM Eric J Korpela wrote:
I've been wondering about this as well. I would
have assumed that for
microcontrollers that cost would be supreme. Did the 6800 family get
cheaper than the 6502 at some point? After all saving a dollar a unit
on 100K units pays for a programmer.
Maybe it's more the case that the 68HC11 comes in an almost bewildering
number of variations--somewhere around 100. Price is somewhere around
$1.75-3.00 each in 1000 unit lots.
Cheers,
Chuck
6 Jan
6 Jan
11:20 a.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
Eric J Korpela wrote:
On 1/3/06, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com>
wrote:
Instruction set does no longer matter since microcontrollers come with
flash ROMs of 1MB size or larger, and are programmed in C or even BASIC
(with a builtin interpreter or a cross compiler).
I liked the PDP-11 instruction set (as well as 6809/68000 sets) very
much, but they were made mainly for assembler freaks - no worrying about
where to put data or addresses - basically every register worked with
every instruction type or address mode. In contrast, instruction sets
for processors like 8080/Z80/8086, where specialized registers exist
(like HL, or CX, or SI/DI) and special instructions that don't work only
under specific data layout conditions.
These times are gone - assembler is irrelevant for larger projects, and
controller have become large enough to allow wasting space and tolerate
inefficient code.
Some controllers, including the rather lousy 8051 series, still persist,
but mainly because "system designers" have used and understood them for
20 years now and it is too expensive to train them another horse.
Holger
Yet, the reverse has turned out to be true--the
68HC11
seems to be everywhere--and the 6502 has been pretty much relegated to
obscurity after some popularity in the first generation of personal
computers.
Which leads me, in a way, to the conclusion that
maybe instruction sets
don't matter all that much in the real world.
I've been wondering about this as well. I would have assumed that for
microcontrollers that cost would be supreme. Did the 6800 family get
cheaper than the 6502 at some point? After all saving a dollar a unit
on 100K units pays for a programmer.
3 Jan
3 Jan
5:52 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
In message <200601031242.40172.rtellason at blazenet.net>
"Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at blazenet.net> wrote:
I always thought that'd be a nifty machine to get
a hold of and play with,
but never did, somehow. Last one I saw for sale was way up there in price,
not something I was gonna spend...
So I've noticed. Prices for SYM-1s are just as bad. I would love to get my
hands on a KIM-1 or a SYM-1 (aka SY-VIM-1)... Or an AIM-65 for that matter.
Anything's good, as long as it's 6502 powered :)
I remember some magazine article dealing with
Sweet-16, in Byte? Been a long
time, anyhow. That stuff built in ain't that big a deal, my thinking is
more toward doing assembly and such on some other box and downloading it.
I think there's an article about it on <http://www.6502.org/>...
--
Phil. | Acorn RiscPC600 SA220 64MB+6GB 100baseT
philpem at dsl.pipex.com | Athlon64 3200+ A8VDeluxe R2 512MB+100GB
http://www.philpem.me.uk/ | Panasonic CF-25 Mk.2 Toughbook
... Answers: $1, Short: $5, Correct: $25, dumb looks are still free.
8:28 p.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
"Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at blazenet.net> wrote:
The Apple II monitor had a complete commented listing in the back of the
book that came with it. (for a II it was the "red book", II+'s come with
a listing too at the end of the hardware manual.)
I'm sure Rich Cini's site has the source to the KIM-1 monitor.
Tim.
On Monday 02 January 2006 08:39 pm, Tim Shoppa wrote:
Well, if you've got some of the chips and want to do some wire-wrapping
or soldering, you can buy the additional chips you need and
put one together without a lot of effort. Schematics
on the web at Rich Cini's site.
"Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at
blazenet.net> wrote:
I always thought that'd be a nifty machine to get a hold of and play with,
but never did, somehow. Last one I saw for sale was way up there in price,
not something I was gonna spend... Speaking of 6502s, I happen to have a whole
bunch of those, and some
6510s, and 6522s and 6526s, and perhaps even some 6551 (?) UARTs too.
Anybody have anything particularly nifty that these would be good for? I
kinda like Garth Wilson's workbench computer, and definitely don't want
to go the route that some have gone (found on the web) where multiple
floppy drives and writing a bloody dos for it and all that sort of thing
get involved. Anybody know of some simple monitor-type software that's
out there?
How adaptable is the KIM-1 monitor? IIRC it had both the keypad and
a TTY mode where it would use the UART. I used KIM-1's but never got too
much into poking around everything the monitor could do/did do. There was also
the Apple II monitor with its built-in disassembler
(and miniassembler with the right INTBASIC toolkit ROM, right?) It'll have
a lot of hooks into the Apple II video range but if those are somehow
rip-outable then it might be a start (worse comes to worse, you know that
you can use the PR# and IN# hooks for character in and out). And
also in the toolkit ROM was SWEET-16... Wow, going back a couple
of decades, that was fun back then!
I remember some magazine article dealing with Sweet-16, in Byte? Been a long
time, anyhow. That stuff built in ain't that big a deal, my thinking is
more toward doing assembly and such on some other box and downloading it.
Big question for either of these, though, is source available?
4 Jan
4 Jan
12:32 a.m.
New subject: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available - was 1802 problems
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 08:28 pm, Tim Shoppa wrote:
Well, if you've got some of the chips and want to do some wire-wrapping
or soldering, you can buy the additional chips you need and
put one together without a lot of effort. Schematics
on the web at Rich Cini's site.
Somebody else pointed me at that a few posts back, and I'm downloading as I
type this. I'd be real surprised if I needed to buy any chips...
<...>
I vaguely recall running across something of the sort but don't know if I
still have it -- it may be photocopied pages or something, I don't know. My
stuff isn't nearly as well-organized as I'd likeit to be.
How adaptable is the KIM-1 monitor? IIRC it had both
the keypad and
a TTY mode where it would use the UART. I used KIM-1's but never got
too much into poking around everything the monitor could do/did do.
I always thought that'd be a nifty machine to get a hold of and play
with, but never did, somehow. Last one I saw for sale was way up there
in price, not something I was gonna spend... Big question
for either of these, though, is source available?
The Apple II monitor had a complete commented listing in the back of the
book that came with it. (for a II it was the "red book", II+'s come with
a listing too at the end of the hardware manual.) I'm sure Rich Cini's site has the source to
the KIM-1 monitor.
Yup, got it...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
11:19 a.m.
Philip Pemberton wrote:
In message <43B9704E.3070408 at sbcglobal.net>
Bob Rosenbloom <bobalan at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...which is, IIRC, not very much related to a Z80 :-) I don't see any
real problems to find Z80 chips at all - almost any retailer who
provides any electronic components has them (if not, I'd not consider
ordering there :-)). It may be a little bit more difficult to find
specific Z80 versions (clock frequencies, special uncommon peripherals).
WRT wdc: Actually, infact you can order small quantities (>=10) from wdc
if you ask politely via email. Don't expect cent prices, though. wdc is,
however, more attractive for the 65816, which I'd recommend for more
sophisticated hobbyist designs.
Holger
I believe the Zilog Z80 is still made. At least it
was in 2004.
May be a different part number though.
The 65C02S is still manufactured - see <http://www.westerndesigncenter.com/>.
6795
days inactive
6810
days old
23 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bobalan＠sbcglobal.net -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
gtoal＠gtoal.com -
holger.veit＠ais.fraunhofer.de -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
listmailgoeshere＠gmail.com -
philpem＠dsl.pipex.com -
rtellason＠blazenet.net -
shoppa_classiccmp＠trailing-edge.com