peg@psuecl.bitnet (PAUL E. GANTER) (01/17/90)
> The Z-80 and the ubiquitous 6502 are available for just a couple of > dollars and are quite easy to assemble into simple systems. There > are a lot of books tageted at the two aforementioned chips. The > 65C02 is nice to work with because the desing is fully static and > does not have any maximum durations on clock states. My personal favorite is the Motorola 6803. It is a very simple processor, but includes goodies like a serial port (handy for downloading code to the board during debug), a timer, and 256 bytes of RAM. The 68701 is an EPROM version of the 6801 (similar to the 6803 but with masked ROM). It is a nice way to get a low chip count--has 2k of EPROM. Finally, the 6802 is similar to the 01/03/701, but has no serial port or timer. Although these MCU's are rather slow (1.25MHz max--I've never tried pushing them), they are easy and fun to use. I use them now in lots of projects, and I have Z-80 and 6500 series stuff lying unused. If you want additional info., get in touch. I will supply schematics for a simple 6803 system to you or anyone interested--even though you will learn a lot figuring it out yourself!! Good luck, Paul
markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (01/19/90)
In article <78519@psuecl.bitnet>, peg@psuecl.bitnet (PAUL E. GANTER) writes: > > My personal favorite is the Motorola 6803. It is a very simple processor, > but includes goodies like a serial port (handy for downloading code to the > board during debug), a timer, and 256 bytes of RAM. The 68701 is an EPROM > version of the 6801 (similar to the 6803 but with masked ROM). It is a > nice way to get a low chip count--has 2k of EPROM. The Motorla 68HC11 is a superset of the 6803 with another index register. A lot of advantages. CMOS, A/D (8 bit), EEPROM. It comes in several flavors. Hitachi also has the 6303, also a superset (but different) of the 6803. Also CMOS. markz@ssc.uucp
ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar) (01/21/90)
In article <78519@psuecl.bitnet> peg@psuecl.bitnet (PAUL E. GANTER) writes: >> The Z-80 and the ubiquitous 6502 are available for just a couple of >> dollars and are quite easy to assemble into simple systems. There >> are a lot of books tageted at the two aforementioned chips. The >> 65C02 is nice to work with because the desing is fully static and >> does not have any maximum durations on clock states. An interesting point about old MPU's is that they tend to become very cheap, and then get expensive. For instance, the 4004 is almost a collector's item nowadays, and the 8080 is going that way. As the Z-80 and 6502 are still used in imbedded applications (the Sega system uses the Z-80, as do hundreds of terminals) then they will stick about for a few years yet. [Deleted some about the 6802 and 6803] >Finally, the 6802 is similar to the 01/03/701, but has no serial port or >timer. > >Although these MCU's are rather slow (1.25MHz max--I've never tried pushing >them), they are easy and fun to use. I use them now in lots of projects, >and I have Z-80 and 6500 series stuff lying unused. Not really, the BBC Micro has a 6502 running at 2 MHz, and the new Atari Lynx has a custom 6502 + ??? that runs at 4 MHz. >If you want additional info., get in touch. I will supply schematics >for a simple 6803 system to you or anyone interested--even though you >will learn a lot figuring it out yourself!! I'm interested. How could I get this? You know, in ten years time we may have a man holding a small 40 pin chip saying: "You know, there used to be millions of these little TMS1000's, but this may be the last one left... I'll sell it for twenty grand..." :-) All hail Saint Fubar, parton saint of computer programmers. +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Ian Farquhar | Phone : (02) 805-7420 (STD) | | Microcomputer Support | (612) 805-7420 (ISD) | | Office of Computing Services | Fax : (02) 805-7433 (STD) | | Macquarie University NSW 2109 | (612) 805-7433 (ISD) | | Australia | Also : 805-7205 | +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | ACSNet ifarqhar@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz | | ifarqhar@mqccsuna.mqcc.mq.oz | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ D
knudsen@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (michael.j.knudsen) (02/01/90)
In article <80541@psuecl.bitnet>, peg@psuecl.bitnet (PAUL E. GANTER) writes: > Why can't you believe this? Very fast versions of the 6500 series are > available. What rumors from Commodore can't you believe? The one that > says they have been selling a multitasking home computer with color > graphics and a reasonably small OS for under $1000, and doing it for > over 4 years? > Sorry, couldn't quite resist that one... Nor can I resist pointing out the "rumor" that Radio Shack has been selling a multitasking color grafix home computer with an OS of about 24 to 32K bytes for about 6 years, and at half the cost of an Amiga 500. It uses a 6809, the last and best of the 8-bitters, as an earlier poster mentioned. That's the Color Computer running OS-9 from Microware. The 6809 is almost as fast in tight corners as the 6502 and a heck of a lot better C-language machine. THe 6502 is a little too RISCy for high-leel languages. Not to rag on the Amiga, since the above posting did not claim that it was the *first* M-Tasking home machine. Actually, both the Amigas and the Color Computers join forces whenever someone from Microsoft or International BM points to their PS2 and OS/2 systems and says you need $10000 worth of hardware and 4 MB of software to do multitasking with windows. -- Mike Knudsen knudsen@ihlpl.att.com (708)-713-5134 "Round and round the while() loop goes; Whether it stops," Turing says, "no one knows."
jimc@isc-br.ISC-BR.COM (Jim Cathey) (02/02/90)
In article <761@nixpbe.UUCP> josef@peun11.uucp (Moellers) writes: >I agree, nobody with a grain of sense would design a multi-user >UNIX-machine with e.g. an Z80 but to use a 32532 as a controller in an >8pin matrix printer would be overkill! Interestingly, the Morrow Decision 1 computer (S-100 Z-80A based) of a few years ago ran Micronix, a port of Unix version 7. It actually worked! My roommate had one. With 1 user it wasn't too bad, but more than one loaded it pretty good. He didn't have enough memory for it. It was a segment swapping OS, not demand paged virtual. The CPU card had a hardware MMU that mapped 4K pages and added protection to accomplish the magic. They had a CP/M emulator that ran under Micronix so you could run WordStar et. al. from the shell. Boy, I'd never want to have to design one of these puppies! As a Unix engine, though, it was better than Coherent for PC's -- the MMU offered intertask protection which Coherent didn't have. The MD1 was crash-proof, but the PC was better for C programming as it had 16-bit ops. -- +----------------+ ! II CCCCCC ! Jim Cathey ! II SSSSCC ! ISC-Bunker Ramo ! II CC ! TAF-C8; Spokane, WA 99220 ! IISSSS CC ! UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.iscs.com) ! II CCCCCC ! (509) 927-5757 +----------------+ "With excitement like this, who is needing enemas?"
peg@psuecl.bitnet (PAUL E. GANTER) (02/04/90)
In article <12991@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>, knudsen@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (michael.j.knudsen) writes: >> available. What rumors from Commodore can't you believe? The one that >> says they have been selling a multitasking home computer with color >> graphics and a reasonably small OS for under $1000, and doing it for >> over 4 years? > > Nor can I resist pointing out the "rumor" that Radio Shack has been > selling a multitasking color grafix home computer with an OS > of about 24 to 32K bytes for about 6 years, and at half the > cost of an Amiga 500. Sheet! I had almost forgotten about it! You are right! > > It uses a 6809, the last and best of the 8-bitters, as an earlier > poster mentioned. That's the Color Computer running OS-9 from > Microware. The 6809 is almost as fast in tight corners as the 6502 > and a heck of a lot better C-language machine. THe 6502 is a little > too RISCy for high-leel languages. The system manager here is a big fan of the 6809, he first pointed out the CoCo with OS9. He has designed some impressive devices with the 6809 (data muxers, etc.) that make use of "multitasking". > Not to rag on the Amiga, since the above posting did not claim > that it was the *first* M-Tasking home machine. > Actually, both the Amigas and the Color Computers join forces > whenever someone from Microsoft or International BM points to > their PS2 and OS/2 systems and says you need $10000 worth of hardware > and 4 MB of software to do multitasking with windows. You mean I haven't been multitasking with my 1 Meg of RAM? I'll have to run out and buy that Model 80 with 4 Meg this afternoon! Paul