Re: 6502, 65816 = RISC ?

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <4vgm15$qra@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>,
Bruce R. McFarling <ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>And since the persistent advantages of the 65C02 is the small 
>transistor count that made it an attractive (i.e., relatively 
>inexpensive) processor when the AppleI was designed, don't 
>look for that to change.

   That would be the 6502 in the Apple I. 65C02 was a while later.

   With a lot of Apple II requiring fixed instruction cycle counts
(5.25" disk hardware, and to as leser extent games which didn't bother
syncing to nonexistant interrupts),changing cycle times when it could
be done on the 1 byte instructions would have played so much havoc
that Apple would never shipped such a chip. 

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein