Re: 65802 vs. 65C02?

[steve@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius)]

Wayne Stewart <waynes@telus.spamless.net> wrote in message news:<3E787D6A.9020304@telus.spamless.net>...
> Dosius wrote:
> 
> > All the docs I read said that the IIc+ came with the '802... :\ I
> > think I saw '802 ops in the ROM, but I'm not sure.  I thought maybe
> > that was why I got that freaky crash loop when stuffing the IIc+ ROM
> > into the //c emulation.
> > 
> > -uso.
> 
> I've had my IIc+ apart and it has a 65C02.
> The November 1988 issue of Incider claims it has a 65C02.
> Or here's where Apple says it has a 65C02 and describes the
> differences between the IIc and IIc+
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=1814
> 
> Wayne

Sorry...I must remember that not every source I read is reliable :) 
If it comes from Apple, it must be reliable.  (BTW, Apple said in the
//c Owner's Manual I have that the //c had a 16K ROM, and damned if I
didn't find a version of the //c ROM which I was able to pare down to
16,128 bytes and still get to work quite well!)

Well, that makes it a *little* easier - no need to hack in a subset of
the '802 for the //c+.  I'll look at that article, and see if there is
any other info out there, if I STFW, that will tell me what
differences might be causing this weird behavior, and I might be able
to get the //c+ to work in Dapple ][ in the future.

-uso.