[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 65802 vs. 65C02?

Subject: Re: 65802 vs. 65C02?
From: dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:07:45 +1200
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
References: <9307085f.0303181609.6c5db6be@posting.google.com>
User-agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.3)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.sys.apple2:28947

Dosius <steve@dosius.zzn.com> wrote:

> I am thinking of emulating an Apple //c+ - which uses a 65802.

No it doesn't.  The IIc+ uses a 65C02.  The only thing that is special
about its CPU is that the motherboard incorporates an accelerator, which
is basically a 4 MHz Zip chip broken out into separate components rather
than being bonded into a single package, plus some added firmware
support.

The firmware might be relying on specific behaviour of the accelerator
hardware, so if you don't emulate that properly, it might not work.

Apart from the accelerator and the extra hardware support for the 3.5"
drive, the IIc+ is architecturally very similar to the last revision of
the IIc.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Follow-Ups:
- Re: 65802 vs. 65C02?
  - From: steve@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius)

References:
- 65802 vs. 65C02?
  - From: steve@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius)

Prev by Date: Re: Apple II Interrupt card
Next by Date: Re: 65802 vs. 65C02?
Previous by thread: Re: 65802 vs. 65C02?
Next by thread: Re: 65802 vs. 65C02?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread