Re: Difference between 6502 & 65C02

[johnlb@primenet.com (John Bowling)]

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.
>
>: 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.

John

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Bowling             |Apple II GS can whip the pants off its little
johnlb@primenet.com      |brother (Mac) any time!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------