[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Difference between 6502 & 65C02
- Subject: Re: Difference between 6502 & 65C02
- From: mkelsey@eecs.wsu.edu (Michael Kelsey)
- Date: 1996/03/29
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
- Organization: School of EECS, Washington State University
- References: <96082.140914JCA31@maine.maine.edu> <4ivuv4$rlc@crl11.crl.com> <4j2dk1$6h0@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <4j862u$5k8@voyager.iii.org.tw> <4je9a2$pc6@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
- Sender: news@serval.net.wsu.edu (News)
In article <4je9a2$pc6@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, johnlb@primenet.com (John Bowling) writes:
|> In article <4j862u$5k8@voyager.iii.org.tw>,
|> james keim <jkeim@unlinfo.unl.edu> wrote:
|> >John Bowling (johnlb@primenet.com) wrote:
|> >
|> >: I don't have any reference books on these anymore, but from what I recall
|> >: there were a half dozen processors between 6501 and 6510, and the primary
|> >: differences were the number of pins and how much memory they addressed.
|> >: A few may have contained internal RAM/ROM. It doesn't seem like a 6503
|> >: would be software compatable with the IIe (designed years before the
|> >: 65C02, as were all 65xx processors [without the C]) so it was probably a 40
|> >: pin 6502 with internal RAM/ROM. Possibly used because Apple found a
|> >: bunch of them surplus and wanted to save some money.
|> >
|> >: It can't be 65C02 compatable unless it was designated a 65C03, and I
|> >: don't recall ever hearing about such a chip.
It is 65C02 compatible. My CPU is labeled 6503 and runs every *enhanced* //e
program, and all of the older programs not making older ROM specific calls.
|> >
|> >: John
|> >
|> >
|> >John--
|> >
|> >There was some discussion of this some time ago on Genie. I don't
|> >remember all the details but I think the kernel of the discussion was
|> >that one company started calling their 65c02 a 6503--probably just to
|> >make things a little confusing. As I remember, they are basically the
|> >same chip.
|> >
|> >Harold Hislop would know for sure if he is anywhere around. I'm sure
|> >he was one of the principle parties discussing this chip.
|> >
|> >--James Keim
|>
|> My previous post was referring to standard part numbers by the chip
|> manufacturers. OEM part numbers can be anything, and from what has been
|> said in other posts Apple decided to call the 65C02 a 6503 as an
|> internal number.
|>
So, the 6503 I have in my //e is just an OEM 65C02A? I have always wondered
about that, and until now, I had forgotten about it.
Michael Kelsey
mkelsey@eecs.wsu.edu
--------------------------------------------------
"Your Apple II is only as limited as you make it!"
--------------------------------------------------