Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #66786 > unrolled thread

Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-02 05:34 -0400
    Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-02 11:42 +0100
    Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-02 19:08 +0000
      Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-03 06:26 -0400
        Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-03 18:42 +0000
          Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-03 16:34 -0400
            Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-04 00:50 +0000
              Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 07:53 -0700
                Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-04 19:11 +0000
                  Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 04:39 -0400
                    Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-05 20:20 +0000
                      Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 18:46 -0400
                        Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:48 +0100
                          Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 23:01 -0400
                        Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:08 +0000
                          Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 02:31 +0000
                            Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-04-06 17:35 +0000
                          Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-06 00:32 -0400
                            Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-04-07 03:09 +0000
                              Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-06 23:47 -0400
                                Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-07 12:06 +0100
                                  Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-04-07 15:53 +0000
                              Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-07 12:02 +0100
                                Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-07 07:13 -0400
                                  Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-07 12:26 +0100
                                    Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-07 07:42 -0400
                                      Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-07 12:55 +0100
                      Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:47 +0100
                        Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 02:34 +0000
                        Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 22:49 -0400
                Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 02:00 -0400
                  Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-05 07:46 +0000
                    Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 04:21 -0400
                      Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-05 11:37 +0100
                      Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-05 20:05 +0000
                        Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 19:47 -0400
                          Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-04-06 00:14 +0000
                            Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:53 +0100
                              Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 23:42 -0400
                                Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-04-06 17:35 +0000
                                  Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 22:13 +0000
                            Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 02:27 +0000
                              Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 11:57 +0100
                            Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 22:47 -0400
                            Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-07 07:47 +0000
                              Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-07 05:13 -0400
                                Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-07 17:50 +0000
                          Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:52 +0100
                            Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 23:34 -0400
                              Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-04-06 17:35 +0000
                                Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 22:29 +0000
                                Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-06 22:18 -0400
                          Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 02:25 +0000
                            Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-04-07 03:16 +0000
                              Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-07 00:35 -0400
                                Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-07 06:09 +0000
                  Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-05 11:20 +0100
                    Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-05 20:09 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#66975

On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 17:35:22 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2025-04-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 
>>    Then the wonderful 68000s ... but they could never make enough, fast
>>    enough, cheap enough ......
> 
> Or soon enough.  Which once again proved that it's better to be first
> than to be best.
> 
> "It's a good thing the iAPX 432 never caught on. Otherwise some truly
> horrible Intel architecture might have taken over the world."

But, but, that was the REAL processor. The 8086 was just a 8080 with 
BandAids until Intel could get the problems sorted. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66936

On 6 Apr 2025 00:14:27 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:


> Around 1980 or so, I had a short assembly program for 6502.  It may have
> been a college assignment.  Just for fun, I rewrote it for 6800 and then
> for 6809.  Then, I counted the number of instructions in all three
> versions.  The 6800 version used 2/3 the number of instructions as the
> 6502 version.  The 6809 version used half of the instructions of the
> 6502 version.

An early RISC processor! We doan need all those steenking instructions!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66958

On 06/04/2025 03:27, rbowman wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2025 00:14:27 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
> 
> 
>> Around 1980 or so, I had a short assembly program for 6502.  It may have
>> been a college assignment.  Just for fun, I rewrote it for 6800 and then
>> for 6809.  Then, I counted the number of instructions in all three
>> versions.  The 6800 version used 2/3 the number of instructions as the
>> 6502 version.  The 6809 version used half of the instructions of the
>> 6502 version.
> 
> An early RISC processor! We doan need all those steenking instructions!

My friend who worked for ARM back in the day when it was just Acorn said 
that the story was when looking for a processor better than the 6502, 
they hadn't the money for a lot of transistors or the equipment needed 
to design a CISC CPU. The 6502 had a small instruction et, not many 
transistors and ran uber fast compared with z80s due IIRC to it not 
taking several cycles to execute an instruction.

So they whittled their instruction set down to the bare minimum and the 
rest would be 'done in software' .

What they ended up with barely used any power at all, and was faster 
than a 6502. And very cheap to make, using less than 25,000 transistors 
on 3µm fabrication .
ARM found themselves with a chip that wasn't 'industry standard' but was 
small cheap fast and very easy on power consumption, so it bumbled along 
in embedded microprocessors apps. Helped by the licence model that meant 
anyone could put an ARM core on their purpose built chip, for a small fee.

And then came the mobile phone, and the rest is history...
A typical example of the needs of the day driving the technology.

Sadly as others here have pointed out an ARM processor that is as fast 
as the latest INTEL bollocks tends to use the same amount of power these 
days.



-- 
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that 
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that 
don't protect,  masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66940

On 4/5/25 8:14 PM, Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2025-04-05, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>     I still see debate over whether the 6502 was 'better'
>>     than the 6809. The 6502 was envisioned as the 'improved'
>>     6809 by the Motorola defectors - and in some ways was.
>>     However they also left out some registers that were
>>     convenient to compiler writers. So, no verdict.
> 
> I don't have chapter and verse to quote, but back in the day I
> was told that the original design of the 6502 _WAS_ superior to
> the 6809, but Motorola sued on a basis of IP theft or similar,
> and the 6502 was dumbed down by removing registers and/or
> crippling the indexing modes.  One of the first things that
> struck me about the 6502's indexing and other addressing modes
> was that it looked/smelled crippled.


   The ex-Motorola people saw ways to improve the 68xx series,
   especially in doing instructions in fewer machine cycles.
   Motorola didn't want to change anything. In that, success.
   MHz for MHz the 6502 was faster.

   BUT also at some costs ...

   Decades of perspective ... I'm gonna say they were both
   great chips for consumer-level products. The CoCo people
   will swear by the 68's, the Apple/Commodore people will
   swear by the 65's.

> Around 1980 or so, I had a short assembly program for 6502.  It
> may have been a college assignment.  Just for fun, I rewrote it
> for 6800 and then for 6809.  Then, I counted the number of
> instructions in all three versions.  The 6800 version used 2/3
> the number of instructions as the 6502 version.  The 6809 version
> used half of the instructions of the 6502 version.

   Yep - WAS easier to write, well, for the 68xx chips.

   BUT, the 65xx pgm would probably run just as fast, in
   some cases even faster. I think they were selling the
   chips cheaper too.

   Six/half-dozen ....

   The 68000 chips were digital poetry - a Motorola
   triumph. Alas they could never quite make enough,
   fast enough, CHEAP enough ........ and Intel ran
   in to fill the gap. IBM *almost* went with the
   68000 - but licensing/quantity issues got in
   the way. Also wanted a wider bus (except the
   68008) ... which was a tad more expensive for
   IBM.

   The Company wanted into the PC biz, but
   did not want to risk TOO much investment.
   Seems regressive, but smart investment is why
   IBM is still around and profits, a blue-chip
   stock, after all this time.

   Somehow, Mighty Mo flubbed it.

   Oh, it also would have been CP/M-68k, not DOS.
   Frankly, DOS was better/easier.

   68000-compatibles are STILL sold under other
   makers names - STILL have uses in 'devices',
   esp printers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66995

On 6 Apr 2025 00:14:27 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> I don't have chapter and verse to quote, but back in the day I was told
> that the original design of the 6502 _WAS_ superior to the 6809, but
> Motorola sued on a basis of IP theft or similar, and the 6502 was dumbed
> down by removing registers and/or crippling the indexing modes.

No, that would have been the Motorola 6800. The 6809 came somewhat later.

The main rivalry in the 8-bit world was between the 6502 and the Z80. 6502 
fans liked to tout the fact that their fave CPU had so many instructions 
that would execute in one clock cycle ... until you looked closer and 
discovered that it was restricting itself to 8-bit address arithmetic, 
where the Z80 was supporting full 16-bit addresses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66996

On 4/7/25 3:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2025 00:14:27 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
> 
>> I don't have chapter and verse to quote, but back in the day I was told
>> that the original design of the 6502 _WAS_ superior to the 6809, but
>> Motorola sued on a basis of IP theft or similar, and the 6502 was dumbed
>> down by removing registers and/or crippling the indexing modes.
> 
> No, that would have been the Motorola 6800. The 6809 came somewhat later.
> 
> The main rivalry in the 8-bit world was between the 6502 and the Z80. 6502
> fans liked to tout the fact that their fave CPU had so many instructions
> that would execute in one clock cycle ... until you looked closer and
> discovered that it was restricting itself to 8-bit address arithmetic,
> where the Z80 was supporting full 16-bit addresses.
>

   Well ... it was what it was.

   And the 65xx clearly WAS very very popular.

   How many Apple's, CBMs, sold ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67008

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 05:13:06 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> On 4/7/25 3:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2025 00:14:27 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't have chapter and verse to quote, but back in the day I was
>>> told that the original design of the 6502 _WAS_ superior to the 6809,
>>> but Motorola sued on a basis of IP theft or similar, and the 6502 was
>>> dumbed down by removing registers and/or crippling the indexing modes.
>> 
>> No, that would have been the Motorola 6800. The 6809 came somewhat
>> later.
>> 
>> The main rivalry in the 8-bit world was between the 6502 and the Z80.
>> 6502 fans liked to tout the fact that their fave CPU had so many
>> instructions that would execute in one clock cycle ... until you looked
>> closer and discovered that it was restricting itself to 8-bit address
>> arithmetic, where the Z80 was supporting full 16-bit addresses.
>>
>>
>    Well ... it was what it was.
> 
>    And the 65xx clearly WAS very very popular.
> 
>    How many Apple's, CBMs, sold ?

How many Apples had Z80 envy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-80_SoftCard

A friend had an Apple II and when he outgrew BASIC was a little upset to 
find the Apple wasn't a great platform for learning C. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66929

On 06/04/2025 00:47, c186282 wrote:
> IMHO getting, or
>    faking, the FDDs would be a little challenging.

I wrote disk drivers a long time ago, for an 8" floppy...
You could take a Pi Pico make it a Z80 running CP/M with a USB keyboard, 
and stuff the flash with all the CP/M software you would ever need.
Could even bit bang a parallel port...


-- 
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons 
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66943

On 4/5/25 8:52 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/04/2025 00:47, c186282 wrote:
>> IMHO getting, or
>>    faking, the FDDs would be a little challenging.
> 
> I wrote disk drivers a long time ago, for an 8" floppy...

   Yikes ... ALL the disk controllers back then were
   ultra-proprietary and not even very compatible
   if from the same company.

   DO have a few 8" floppies - for an LSI-11 system.
   Don't see ever USING them for anything, just as
   "historical artifacts".

   The only place I see 8" floppies now is on eBay.
   The drive UNITS ... forget it. I remember Shugart
   drives ... you put in the disk and it went "clunk"
   as you locked down the door  :-)

> You could take a Pi Pico make it a Z80 running CP/M with a USB keyboard, 
> and stuff the flash with all the CP/M software you would ever need.
> Could even bit bang a parallel port...

   Via EMULATION you can make a LOT of little boards/PCs
   into faux Z80 systems. The Pico can likely out-perform
   the original hardware systems at this point. A PI4/5 by
   much more. One of the BMax boxes I have - surely at
   over 50 times as fast minimum - a faux 250-MHz Z80 :-)

   Oh, DID look on eBay (which I'll never buy from) ...
   lots of KayPro boxes in running order. Saw a K-10,
   which included a 10mb HDD, but fer sure you'll never
   find a new-ish HDD that'll run off that controller.
   Those old ones were MFM, maybe just FM. A number of
   K2's however and some K4's. Beware though, there
   were TWO K4's ... not entirely compatible. Yer best
   bet would be a basic K2, 2.5MHz Z80.

   LONG back I actually did some work with K2's and
   one of the Osbournes ... they were GOOD MACHINES
   and would GET IT DONE.

   Odd historical note ... AC Clarke wrote the "2010"
   script on a K2, sent it in from Sri Lanka by
   acoustic modem (300 baud max fer sure)  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66972

On 2025-04-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

>    The only place I see 8" floppies now is on eBay.
>    The drive UNITS ... forget it. I remember Shugart
>    drives ... you put in the disk and it went "clunk"
>    as you locked down the door  :-)

I remember them going "clunk" each time the heads loaded.
There was a diskette duplicator program that would read
a sector, write a sector, one sector at a time.  Clunk,
clunk, clunk...  It took *forever*, and put a lot of wear
and tear on the drives.  I wrote a version that would read
an entire track at a time, step to the next track, start
reading at the sector that was just coming under the head,
and continue until memory was full, then dump it all out
to the destination drive the same way.  It would duplicate
a single-sided 8-inch disk in 36 seconds.

>    Odd historical note ... AC Clarke wrote the "2010"
>    script on a K2, sent it in from Sri Lanka by
>    acoustic modem (300 baud max fer sure)  :-)

I remember sending a 50K file to someone at 300 baud.
It took half an hour.  How times have changed...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66977

On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 17:35:23 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I remember sending a 50K file to someone at 300 baud.
> It took half an hour.  How times have changed...

When they were making the 1982 'Tron' Digital Effects in NYC was doing 
some of the CGI. The day's work would be sent to CA via modem overnight. I 
forget how many hours were required for a few seconds of animation. 

I think you can stream it on Prime for a couple of bucks. It should be 
good for laughs if nothing more.

About the same era I was hooking up to a BBS in Boston with an acoustic 
coupler. High tech!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66981

On 4/6/25 1:35 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2025-04-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 
>>     The only place I see 8" floppies now is on eBay.
>>     The drive UNITS ... forget it. I remember Shugart
>>     drives ... you put in the disk and it went "clunk"
>>     as you locked down the door  :-)
> 
> I remember them going "clunk" each time the heads loaded.
> There was a diskette duplicator program that would read
> a sector, write a sector, one sector at a time.  Clunk,
> clunk, clunk...  It took *forever*, and put a lot of wear
> and tear on the drives.  I wrote a version that would read
> an entire track at a time, step to the next track, start
> reading at the sector that was just coming under the head,
> and continue until memory was full, then dump it all out
> to the destination drive the same way.  It would duplicate
> a single-sided 8-inch disk in 36 seconds.

   Decided improvement.

   Alas it didn't take much to use up all RAM back
   in the day.

   Hmm ... should I put my old DEC-formatted 8" flops
   in like an argon-filled glass case or something, as
   unique historical artifacts ?

   DID do a wiring nightmare to xfer the DATA on them
   over to an original IBM-PC ... somewhere I have an
   old photo of that. Serial-port hack  :-)

>>     Odd historical note ... AC Clarke wrote the "2010"
>>     script on a K2, sent it in from Sri Lanka by
>>     acoustic modem (300 baud max fer sure)  :-)
> 
> I remember sending a 50K file to someone at 300 baud.
> It took half an hour.  How times have changed...

   Remember the 300 baud BBS universe ? You could
   literally read the text AS it came in  :-)

   I DO remember slower than 300 baud ... wow ....
   how times have changed !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66935

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 19:47:22 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    I still see debate over whether the 6502 was 'better' than the 6809.
>    The 6502 was envisioned as the 'improved'
>    6809 by the Motorola defectors - and in some ways was. However they
>    also left out some registers that were convenient to compiler
>    writers. So, no verdict.

One thing cannot be debated -- the 6502 was a hell of a lot cheaper than 
the 6800. Peddle was working at Motorola when he first tried designing a 
processor that wasn't a pricey as a 6800. Motorola said 'Not interested!'.

There was a parallel when Ward Christensen floated the idea for a personal 
computer up his IBM chain of command and the memo came down 'No market 
there. Knock yourself out on your own time.'  I had to check. He didn't 
have Peddle's entrepreneurial drive and happily retired from IBM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Christensen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66985

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 19:47:22 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>    I still see debate over whether the 6502 was 'better' than the 6809.
>>    The 6502 was envisioned as the 'improved'
>>    6809 by the Motorola defectors - and in some ways was. However they
>>    also left out some registers that were convenient to compiler
>>    writers. So, no verdict.
> 
> One thing cannot be debated -- the 6502 was a hell of a lot cheaper than 
> the 6800. Peddle was working at Motorola when he first tried designing a 
> processor that wasn't a pricey as a 6800. Motorola said 'Not interested!'.

That was the big draw to the 6502.  MOS Tech had a processor that sold 
for $25 when the Moto competitors were selling for $275 (or some such 
large markup).

Yeah, compared to the 6800 or 6809 a lot was lost to hit the $25 
target.  But for scrappy startups looking to do more with less, it 
worked just as well as the pricer options.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66989

On 4/6/25 11:16 PM, Rich wrote:
> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 19:47:22 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>>     I still see debate over whether the 6502 was 'better' than the 6809.
>>>     The 6502 was envisioned as the 'improved'
>>>     6809 by the Motorola defectors - and in some ways was. However they
>>>     also left out some registers that were convenient to compiler
>>>     writers. So, no verdict.
>>
>> One thing cannot be debated -- the 6502 was a hell of a lot cheaper than
>> the 6800. Peddle was working at Motorola when he first tried designing a
>> processor that wasn't a pricey as a 6800. Motorola said 'Not interested!'.
> 
> That was the big draw to the 6502.  MOS Tech had a processor that sold
> for $25 when the Moto competitors were selling for $275 (or some such
> large markup).


   Exactly correct. When in doubt, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

   The 65xx was also "more efficient" - did similar
   instructions in fewer cycles. MOS was Motorola
   defectors ... SAW where the 68xx could be improved
   but Motorola WASN'T INTERESTED.

   As mentioned here before, there's no clear "superiority"
   arg for either family of CPUs. However the sheer cheapness
   of the 65xx series was the deciding argument for many.


> Yeah, compared to the 6800 or 6809 a lot was lost to hit the $25
> target.  But for scrappy startups looking to do more with less, it
> worked just as well as the pricer options.

   Yep.

   The old CoCo people will laud the 68xx, the old Apple/CBM
   people will laud the 65xx. The big-picture technical equation
   didn't really favor either. It was MOSTLY The Money. What
   you could do on one CPU you could do on the other - sometimes
   a little better or worse - but still $$$ ruled .......

   My regret - Motorola and derivs - they were SO damned good
   back in the day. What the fuck HAPPENED ??? "Management"
   most likely .........

   There SHOULD be a 68xxx CPU as a constant competitor
   to Intel and such ... but NO. SO damned sad ! Personally
   I liked the Motorola paradigm over the Intel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66992

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 00:35:21 -0400, c186282 wrote:


>    My regret - Motorola and derivs - they were SO damned good back in
>    the day. What the fuck HAPPENED ??? "Management" most likely
>    .........

Motorola Solutions has a lock on the public safety field as far as 
hardware goes. Over the years they have bought CAD and RMS companies to 
extend into the software arena. Motorola Mobility lives on as a Lenovo 
division.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66895

On 05/04/2025 07:00, c186282 wrote:
> Oh, I remember ... those "big name" compilers were
>    gawdawfully EXPENSIVE. Most people, even small biz,
>    just couldn't AFFORD them .
dam sight cheaper than the computer they ran on then.
Out of reach of hobbyists, yes, but not small companies, and there was 
no copy protection :-)
-- 
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale 
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66910

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 11:20:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 05/04/2025 07:00, c186282 wrote:
>> Oh, I remember ... those "big name" compilers were
>>    gawdawfully EXPENSIVE. Most people, even small biz,
>>    just couldn't AFFORD them .
> dam sight cheaper than the computer they ran on then.
> Out of reach of hobbyists, yes, but not small companies, and there was
> no copy protection :-)

Depends on the small company. I wrote a MCS-48 cross assembler when my 
manager balked at the cost of the official PDP-11 version. It wasn't a 
sophisticated macro assembler but it got the job done on my CP/M box.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web