Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

Here's the Datasheet.

 

It wouldn't be a straightforward swap, but shouldn't be too complex.

The Bus Enable is an input and should be held high. SOB should also be held high.

 

VPB is actually an output indicating an interrupt vector is being accessed (allows external logic to keep multiple vector sets).

 

There's a SO (active low) even in Rockwell plain vanilla 6502 on same pin (pin 38).

 

I see in that spec on page 31, it states read/modify/write instructions do two reads and one write instead of the normal one read and two writes. That may cause some compatibility problems in software.

[Rybags]

I don't think that'd be a major problem.

 

It would only be an issue for stuff that uses INC, LSR etc on hardware registers... can't remember now if I used that in the final Interlace program.

[atariksi]

I don't think that'd be a major problem.

 

It would only be an issue for stuff that uses INC, LSR etc on hardware registers... can't remember now if I used that in the final Interlace program.

 

It's also good for some things like: doing strobes on joystick ports with 558ns accuracy via 54016, updating POKEY volume registers with fast pot scan on, etc. On the other hand, RMB/SMB may be good for kernels assuming they take 4 cycles on hardware registers (rather than do LDA/STA) to change color palette in GTIA modes. I suppose TRB/TSB are 6 cycle instructions like LSR/INC/DEC/ASL/ROL/ROR abs.

 

What undocumented 6502 opcodes work consistently that are in use?

[atariksi]

I don't think that'd be a major problem.

 

It would only be an issue for stuff that uses INC, LSR etc on hardware registers... can't remember now if I used that in the final Interlace program.

 

It's also good for some things like: doing strobes on joystick ports with 558ns accuracy via 54016, updating POKEY volume registers with fast pot scan on, etc. On the other hand, RMB/SMB may be good for kernels assuming they take 4 cycles on hardware registers (rather than do LDA/STA) to change color palette in GTIA modes. I suppose TRB/TSB are 6 cycle instructions like LSR/INC/DEC/ASL/ROL/ROR abs.

 

What undocumented 6502 opcodes work consistently that are in use?

 

Forget about RMB/SMB, they are only for ZP according to spec. So only STZ would be useful in kernels.

[Rybags]

Not sure. I think some Synapse games used them.

 

They're popular in copy protection schemes. Just one of those little barriers they put up against hackers.

[atariksi]

Not sure. I think some Synapse games used them.

 

They're popular in copy protection schemes. Just one of those little barriers they put up against hackers.

 

It would have been good if they upgraded the 6502 for block moves and block fills or writes to same location for I/O or other uses. It would be easier than upgrading to an accelerator.

[atarian63]

The simple unarguable fact is that it is 3 whole decades since the A8 first hit the shops now, and yet there is maybe one or two games that don't look like 16 shades of the same colour OR some lame 4 colour across the whole screen 1982 C64 level game. Apart from DLIs I see NO EVIDENCE for a clean fast ultra colourful game of the quality AND speed of many late C64 games ever appearing.

 

Crownland flickers like hell CONSTANTLY and is quite a slow scroller....if Crownland is SMB then Mayhem is Sonic & Knuckles in speed, but flickering is unacceptable, if flickering is acceptable then the 8-bit Sega Master System version of R-Type can be rebranded as perfect. Flickering = you are asking the hardware to do something it CAN'T do in time end of story.

 

So far despite 261 I have only seen maybe one mildly impressive game (that flickers on the PM graphics constantly) and one tune which was better than I though (but still inferior to the SID tune it is trying to replicate on technical grounds...severe lack of waveform AND sound control in hardware)

 

Let's face it.....throwing hopeful theories and some lines of code to compare to REAL GAMES like Enforcer level two demo on C64 (search it yourself on youtube, nobody ever has any comments worth reading in retaliation to it anyway here) which blows the A8 chipset out of the water and into the next universe is not going to cut the mustard with me sorry. Nice machine, but the only advantage the A8 does have (larger palette) is practically unusable, which is why apart from raster bar horizontal colour graduations the A8 is just too complex, too limiting and with inferior sound to boot. As a games machine it will always be incomplete to the genius and lightning fast design produced by MOS for C=.

 

Both machines are good but after 261 pages it is still obvious to all but a few trolling atari fanboys here that the A8 is the worse of the two compromises. Every machine has a compromise...but reading some posts in the thread you would think God was fabricating the chips while jesus scoured the promised lands for raw materials to build the awesome messiah of 8 bit computing

 

You are the one trolling and acting as a fanboy. You are trying to draw a conclusion about the two machines' hardware based on some games that may or may not use the capabilities of the machine. If you want to say something about games say it, but then don't draw the absurd conclusion about the hardware from it unless you can prove that the games are using the machines to the fullest extent. You don't even make any sense-- atari has advantage of larger palette but it's unusable.

 

We're mainly been talking recently about 160*200 mode and how to appease someone porting a game to A8 not about every graphics mode, every sound possible, all I/O possible, etc. etc. Go get a clue. So-called "lightning fast design" is why C64 runs slower than A8 in CPU speed and I/O speed and scrolling. You are like a frog in a well-- unless Atari can do 4*8 color RAM technique, all it's other techniques don't matter. Unless it can have wider better horizontal sprites, vertical value and hardware collision detection is useless. Etc. etc.

 

Another post from you bitching and moaning again what a suprise. My challenge was find a game as technically stunning as

and you with your so called expertise and non-fanboy replies have not posted a single video or image link to ANYTHING. And then you call me a troll for pointing out that all I get is evasive bullshit from the A8 fanboy side.

 

If the C64 is so cheap why does it's sound chip blow pokey out the water for versatility and musical diversity ON TOP OF technically the most advanced SPU of it's time and then some (feel free to call people MORE QUALIFIED AND LESS BIASED THAN YOU INCORRECT WITH ZERO EXAMPLES AS USUAL) Why does it's sprite engine blow the PM crappy graphics out the water too? Why is it that maybe 0.0001% of Atari games even come close to doing things like Salamander or Armalyte. Hell the vertical multicolour bars on the bonus level on the A8 are impossible to do on A8 (all 16 colours per line) and yet I can replicate the effect in about 50 lines of C= BASIC.

 

As for collision detection funny that I have rarely played a game by a known talented 8bit coder with bad collision detection...and given the 1000s of games released for the machine that would call bullshit again on your claim AGAIN.

 

The conclusion was two fold...I shall repeat it as you obviously have serious problems with digesting the english language.

 

1. it is not possible to do the Enforcer 2 (level 2 example) graphics engine on an A8 and at the same time this game is showing a graphical ability close to an Amiga game/late 80s arcade game in terms of moving objects on screen/parallax/speed. All I hear is theories...sometimes followed by underwhelming or flickery examples but usually just theory.

 

2. it is not possible to replicate the sound of an electric guitar without resorting to low quality samples, again this was the acid test benchmark in the 80s, electric guitar and piano being two notable instruments that if replicated show the presence of a sophisticated sound chip. Once again no doubt you will call bullshit on this claim but I am not responsible for the ignorance of people in these matters. The very first live demo of the superiority of the Amiga audio chipset was polyphonic strings/piano/electric guitar sounds.....I wonder why (well I don't actually seeing as I have knowledge of audio equipment professionals used in this timeframe and hence what computer soundchips aspired to achieve)

 

And you have the cheek to say my posts are somehow unworthy, it is YOUR (and other fanboy dreamers) posts that need attention in this thread, I threw down the gauntlet with those two simple examples and there is no answer with examples to better them. Up shot is the superior abilities of the A8 you purport to are as mythical and unproven as Noah's Ark at this time mr.

 

And people with brain cells totally understand my comments about colour palette/on screen colour capability of the A8 chipset, the simple fact is with 128 OR 256 colours the on screen palette is very limited, almost to the point where the choice makes no difference in most games because 4/16 or 4/128 looks the damned same to most people. I already pointed out that the only advantage was in the use of horizontal colour graduations in DLIs like the sky in Attack of the Mutant Camels.

 

Please read my posts properly in future and leave YOUR troll impersonations out of my quoted posts in future thanks.

Time to up your meds oky

[atarian63]

This isn't gay, but it's more in the spirit of the original poster's comparing games between A8 and C64

 

Anybody ever played "Ms Pac Man" on Commodore 64? It's surprisingly good. Dare I say, I like it better than the Atari8 version. It's a little more arcade-like, if memory serves. It is also DIFFICULT!! The red ghost gets really fast, and is faster than you are - even when you're NOT eating dots. This makes it quite challenging. I can not get to the third intermission, and it's been a long time since I have played a version of MsPac and had to say that. I enjoy the challenge! I haven't played the arcade in so long I can't remember how difficult it it.

 

 

The C64 version of Donkey Kong is pretty fun, too. When I first tried it, I turned my nose up at it, because the Atari8 version is - in my mind - the definitive version. I mean, I played so much A8 DK growing up that the arcade seems strange to me. Thank god for MAME so I can remember what it was like. Mario (or "Jumpman") moves slower in the C64 version than A8. I thought this was a drag, but the arcade Mario is pretty slow too. C64 DK also is the only other version I am aware of that has the "pie factory" (or whatever) in it. However, it seems in this pie factory screen, you can't jump from the center of the screen across the relatively large gaps to either of the 2 little ledges on the edge of the screen. This is the only version of DK I've noticed that. Anybody a whiz at C64 DK? Dare I say, I still prefer the magnificent A8 version, but this is fun, and kicks the Coleco's ass.

 

These are two "Atarisoft" titles, BTW, so of course Atari gets credit!

Like most c64 arcade games the sound is all wrong and the general feel is off.

[atarian63]

Oh yes, please do bring all the gayness to the table you can find. It's scary isn't it?

 

Seriously, that's how it always goes. The best tech never, ever wins.

 

All the more reason to enjoy both open computing and retro computing on your terms, your way.

 

I personally don't care if we get a PS4. Would much rather be playing home brew and doing just what wood_jl is doing; namely, collecting and connecting up older gear to play fun games and share the experience with others.

 

It is a much better scene compared to most of modern gaming right now, gay or not.

 

...and my comment was directed at the fact that not everybody thinks that's gay. Like most things labeled "gay", gayness is in the eye of the person calling "gay!". No worries on any of that. Like the gay thing, this is only a problem, if you think it is.

 

Cheers!

 

But in the UK the best tech did win...twice! First the C64 eventually wiped the floor with the Amstrad/Spectrum/MSX in the UK, ditto the Amiga was king by late 1990 and unstoppable. In both cases overall the winner was the best package. Yes the Archimedes had a more powerful CPU than the Amiga but that was it!

 

I do care if all we get is Wii-Fit and Brain Training for the DS for another decade, that's the day I stop buying any new hardware except PCs to run my business on for the lowest price.

 

Sure the retrogames are great but then so is Battlefield 2 on 64 player multiplayer and Wipeout HD and Colin McRea 4 on xbox1. Every generation has something to bring to the table, my rose tinted glasses went AWOL a long time ago when I upgraded to vampiric Raybans haha

You must be kidding, that is an area uk got it wrong as well.C64 did well as it was cheap,thats it. Amiga,who knows with the crazy weird o/s. The A1000 I'll bet was not a hit there. Big price and lots of problems and kickstart to "boot" ha ha! As for Wii, it is easily #1 due to a simple idea in games that MS has forgotton(or never learned) playability and fun! Not to mention the cool interface.

[Kr0tki]

Not reproaching, but just pointing out it's common useage.

Yeah, really common - 790 results in Google for 'apple "6502c"' versus 10000 for 'apple "65c02"' or million for 'apple 6502'.

 

Anyway, I still don't know what's the point of it. You made a mistake, confusing two different processor models. I corrected you. Normally it would end here. However you didn't let go. Instead you presented an impractical hypothesis of inserting a 6502C into an Apple, and then started downplaying your mistake by saying it's common (which I agree, it is somewhat common; that's the reason for which I attempted to correct you and later Rybags). Does it however change the fact that it's a mistake and it needed to be corrected? Please explain me, what is the reason you didn't let it go.

 

The link you gave does not prove them wrong.

Why do you think it should? I gave it to back my other claim up; you know, the one with 6502A and B.

 

They are not blurry for that information. It's easily described-- the empty socket is from where MOS 6502 was removed from 1541 drive (http://www.krishnasoft.com/C1541MB.jpg) and top big chip of the three in the A400CPU card (http://www.krishnasoft.com/A400CPU.jpg) is where 6502 was placed, the other two chips on the card are ANTIC and GTIA. The CPU card was removed from the top slot shown in http://www.krishnasoft.com/A400MB.jpg.

No, you didn't get the point. So here's the straightforward explanation: You cannot learn the location of the CPU from your photos, without actually knowing it in the first place. The only thing that would help you avoid mistaking the CPU with other chips (its name), is not on the photos. Ergo, your photos have zero value in our context.

 

You are assuming it's 1Mhz. Rockwell spec states up to 3 Mhz plain vanilla 6502s. Anyway, A400 is been almost constantly on since I replaced the chip and so far all okay.

You have previously stated the chip reads "MOS, 6502", so why are you bringing up a Rockwell? Should I start calling you a Wookie?

Anyway, I have found a better link that confirms the claim of normal 6502 being 1Mhz, 6502A being 2MHz and 6502B being 3MHz.

 

Given widespread use of both terms (6502c and 65c02), I would say "What's in a name? That processor by any other name would be just as incompatible."

1. for "widespread", see above

2. Are you saying, that confusing both processors is irrelevant and noone should correct such mistakes? If not, then please tell me what was the point of your last statement.

[atariksi]

Not reproaching, but just pointing out it's common useage.

Yeah, really common - 790 results in Google for 'apple "6502c"' versus 10000 for 'apple "65c02"' or million for 'apple 6502'.

...

Some references are better than others-- your link is inferior to the links I gave. I think a better reference is there, but you did not use it.

 

>Anyway, I still don't know what's the point of it. You made a mistake, confusing two different processor models.

 

No, I did not. You misunderstood my point. All I stated was I can't use some of the Apple model 6502s in the A400 because "I think it's a 6502c". Whether it's 65c02 or 6502c is irrelevant to the FACT that it cannot be used directly in A400. I knew the processor by function but did not know the name. See shakespeare analogy. I never equated the "6502c" in Apple with Atari's 6502c if that's your problem. If I was arguing over the exact name, yeah your point would be significant.

 

The link you gave does not prove them wrong.

>Why do you think it should? I gave it to back my other claim up; you know, the one with 6502A and B.

 

That link does not prove your point. I think Rybags is correct in claiming A400 CPU is stock item (standard item) which you thought it wasn't.

 

They are not blurry for that information. It's easily described-- the empty socket is from where MOS 6502 was removed from 1541 drive (http://www.krishnasoft.com/C1541MB.jpg) and top big chip of the three in the A400CPU card (http://www.krishnasoft.com/A400CPU.jpg) is where 6502 was placed, the other two chips on the card are ANTIC and GTIA. The CPU card was removed from the top slot shown in http://www.krishnasoft.com/A400MB.jpg.

 

>No, you didn't get the point. So here's the straightforward explanation: You cannot learn the location of the CPU from your photos, without actually knowing it in the first place. The only thing that would help you avoid mistaking the CPU with other chips (its name), is not on the photos. Ergo, your photos have zero value in our context.

 

I am trying to point it out by location and those pictures are helpful. I don't know why you want to make a big fuss about the name when the names vary but the processors can be the same. By the way, even in Atari XL/XE, there's no name on the chips like 6502C, "it has something like CO####". There also, it's better to refer to it by location.

 

You are assuming it's 1Mhz. Rockwell spec states up to 3 Mhz plain vanilla 6502s. Anyway, A400 is been almost constantly on since I replaced the chip and so far all okay.

>You have previously stated the chip reads "MOS, 6502", so why are you bringing up a Rockwell? Should I start calling you a Wookie?

 

They used same design so company name isn't that important. If someone buys Motorola company, you can still refer to Motorola specs.

 

>Anyway, I have found a better link that confirms the claim of normal 6502 being 1Mhz, 6502A being 2MHz and 6502B being 3MHz.

 

Good, I rather have a working A400 than a dead one. I don't see any proof that it's 1Mhz maximum speed 6502 in the 1541 given the labels vary.

 

Given widespread use of both terms (6502c and 65c02), I would say "What's in a name? That processor by any other name would be just as incompatible."

 

>1. for "widespread", see above

 

Widespread-- meaning millions of people use the name not necessarily more than people using 65c02.

 

>2. Are you saying, that confusing both processors is irrelevant and noone should correct such mistakes? If not, then please tell me what was the point of your last statement.

 

I didn't confuse the processors-- otherwise I would have just plugged in a "6502c". You are claiming all those links that I gave and Rybags have mistaken understanding, but I am stating that it's irrelevant point.

 

If there's a fire in the room and you call it same other name "agni", as long as you can get your point across, it's okay. If argument was over correct name, that would be a different story.

[atariksi]

Early Apple II ?

 

IIRC, the 6502 in the 400/800 is just off-the-shelf, whereas the later machines have Sally which is the specific model for Atari with the DMA line rather than the older off-chip bus decoupling method.

 

How many different 6502s are there? I think one Apple model has a 6502C.

 

Here's the original post. I never stated 6502C was the Atari 6502c else I would have used the word "Sally". Just pointing out that's it not the standard off-the-shelf 6502 in an Apple model.

[Kr0tki]

Some references are better than others-- your link is inferior to the links I gave. I think a better reference is there, but you did not use it.

Let me say again, I did not provide any link in regard to 6502C; only to back up a claim about 6502A anb B. So your links actually don't have any common ground with mine. What are you talking about then?

 

> You made a mistake, confusing two different processor models.

 

No, I did not. You misunderstood my point. All I stated was I can't use some of the Apple model 6502s in the A400 because "I think it's a 6502c". Whether it's 65c02 or 6502c is irrelevant to the FACT that it cannot be used directly in A400. I knew the processor by function but did not know the name. See shakespeare analogy. I never equated the "6502c" in Apple with Atari's 6502c if that's your problem. If I was arguing over the exact name, yeah your point would be significant.

You're telling me that using a wrong name to identify a processor is not a mistake? Yes it is, by definition and regardless of context. Please tell me again, why didn't you let it go?

 

That link does not prove your point. I think Rybags is correct in claiming A400 CPU is stock item (standard item) which you thought it wasn't.

It does, but in Polish. Nevertheless; I gave a better link since then. Moreover, your own words of having a Atari 400 with a broken 6502B contradict what Rybags said. So what was your point again?

 

I am trying to point it out by location and those pictures are helpful. I don't know why you want to make a big fuss about the name when the names vary but the processors can be the same. By the way, even in Atari XL/XE, there's no name on the chips like 6502C, "it has something like CO####". There also, it's better to refer to it by location.

Even you had to provide additional description, in text, to let me know what the pictures actually contain. You're contradicting yourself.

 

>You have previously stated the chip reads "MOS, 6502", so why are you bringing up a Rockwell? Should I start calling you a Wookie?

 

They used same design so company name isn't that important.

It is important; see the MOS spec for which I've provided the link. It gives different processor speeds than the Rockwell specs you quoted.

 

Good, I rather have a working A400 than a dead one. I don't see any proof that it's 1Mhz maximum speed 6502 in the 1541 given the labels vary.

You've said that your C1541 CPU reads "MOS 6502", and that precisely means that this processor is destined to work at no more than 1Mhz. You're contradicting the official MOS specs, is that your point?

 

Widespread-- meaning millions of people use the name not necessarily more than people using 65c02.

790 on most of the Internet < millions, you know?

 

I didn't confuse the processors-- otherwise I would have just plugged in a "6502c". You are claiming all those links that I gave and Rybags have mistaken understanding, but I am stating that it's irrelevant point.

Regardless of whether you knew if there exists a 6502C or not, you used its name. Thus your statement can potentially confuse others into thinking that some Apple models use an Atari-specific processor. I don't really care if the my correction has any relevancy to you personally (do you think anyone cares?); I targeted it towards all AtariAge readers to make them avoid perpetuating the same mistake again. Why are you still debating it?

 

If there's a fire in the room and you call it same other name "agni", as long as you can get your point across, it's okay. If argument was over correct name, that would be a different story.

Well, my argument was over the name, so what are you actually pointing out now?

 

Here's the original post. I never stated 6502C was the Atari 6502c else I would have used the word "Sally". Just pointing out that's it not the standard off-the-shelf 6502 in an Apple model.

So? Then I corrected the name of the processor. Did I do something wrong? I'll ask you again, why haven't you got over that yet?

Edited July 8, 2009 by Kr0tki

[atariksi]

Some references are better than others-- your link is inferior to the links I gave. I think a better reference is there, but you did not use it.

Let me say again, I did not provide any link in regard to 6502C; only to back up a claim about 6502A anb B. So your links actually don't have any common ground with mine. What are you talking about then?

...

Your link in post #6658 also refers to 6502C and your link is less authorized than the nytimes link that I gave:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/19/business...;pagewanted=all

 

> You made a mistake, confusing two different processor models.

 

No, I did not. You misunderstood my point. All I stated was I can't use some of the Apple model 6502s in the A400 because "I think it's a 6502c". Whether it's 65c02 or 6502c is irrelevant to the FACT that it cannot be used directly in A400. I knew the processor by function but did not know the name. See shakespeare analogy. I never equated the "6502c" in Apple with Atari's 6502c if that's your problem. If I was arguing over the exact name, yeah your point would be significant.

>You're telling me that using a wrong name to identify a processor is not a mistake? Yes it is, by definition and regardless of context. Please tell me again, why didn't you let it go?

 

You are making two different claims and toggling back and forth-- you are claiming that I confused two different processor models which I did not. Now your second point as far as name goes-- there are 6502C processors that are not Sallies so I don't equate 6502C with Atari specific processor like you do. That's your first mistake and your second mistake is that you think the A400 uses a non-standard 6502. And you want me to let go? Let go of what? I am labeling a processor by what some major websites are declaring it to be.

 

That link does not prove your point. I think Rybags is correct in claiming A400 CPU is stock item (standard item) which you thought it wasn't.

>It does, but in Polish. Nevertheless; I gave a better link since then. Moreover, your own words of having a Atari 400 with a broken 6502B contradict what Rybags said. So what was your point again?

 

My point is simple-- I can't take the 6502 from some Apple models to replace the A400 6502. Your link is bogus if you claim my links are bogus so you haven't backed up anything. And your so-called "better link" qualified for Chewbacca defense not my point, but I'm not desperately trying to find fault like you are.

 

I am trying to point it out by location and those pictures are helpful. I don't know why you want to make a big fuss about the name when the names vary but the processors can be the same. By the way, even in Atari XL/XE, there's no name on the chips like 6502C, "it has something like CO####". There also, it's better to refer to it by location.

 

>Even you had to provide additional description, in text, to let me know what the pictures actually contain. You're contradicting yourself.

 

Yes, text description goes with the pictures; however the fact that text description without the pictures isn't as good should prove that the pictures are helpful.

 

>You have previously stated the chip reads "MOS, 6502", so why are you bringing up a Rockwell? Should I start calling you a Wookie?

 

They used same design so company name isn't that important.

 

>It is important; see the MOS spec for which I've provided the link. It gives different processor speeds than the Rockwell specs you quoted.

 

You are contradicting yourself. If you claim 6502c is ONLY for Atari processors and think everyone who thinks a 6502C exists within some Apple computer is mistaken, then you are STILL DEAD WRONG. Your own "better link" indicates that 6502C is a 4Mhz 6502 and not necessarily a Sally.

 

Good, I rather have a working A400 than a dead one. I don't see any proof that it's 1Mhz maximum speed 6502 in the 1541 given the labels vary.

>You've said that your C1541 CPU reads "MOS 6502", and that precisely means that this processor is destined to work at no more than 1Mhz. You're contradicting the official MOS specs, is that your point?

 

No, I have made a more significant point which you missed altogether-- that they can be labeled as something and yet be incomplete to determine what they are. And another point is that it works fine on A400.

 

Widespread-- meaning millions of people use the name not necessarily more than people using 65c02.

>790 on most of the Internet < millions, you know?

 

How do you know how many people 790 links refer to? I can have one link that millions of people access and thousands of links that only a few hundred people access. You have provided no evidence that more links means more toward truth. I bet nytimes is read by more people than your links.

 

I didn't confuse the processors-- otherwise I would have just plugged in a "6502c". You are claiming all those links that I gave and Rybags have mistaken understanding, but I am stating that it's irrelevant point.

>Regardless of whether you knew if there exists a 6502C or not, you used its name. Thus your statement can potentially confuse others into thinking that some Apple models use an Atari-specific processor. I don't really care if the my correction has any relevancy to you personally (do you think anyone cares?); I targeted it towards all AtariAge readers to make them avoid perpetuating the same mistake again. Why are you still debating it?

 

Because you are mistaken and perpetuating your mistake. 6502C exists out there and it's not always a Sally. And the term also is used to refer to 65c02 which is widespread and people know what it refers to. I wasn't referring to me personally but regarding anyone replacing an A400 CPU.

 

If there's a fire in the room and you call it same other name "agni", as long as you can get your point across, it's okay. If argument was over correct name, that would be a different story.

>Well, my argument was over the name, so what are you actually pointing out now?

 

That you could not pick up from the context that I didn't mean the Sally.

 

Here's the original post. I never stated 6502C was the Atari 6502c else I would have used the word "Sally". Just pointing out that's it not the standard off-the-shelf 6502 in an Apple model.

>So? Then I corrected the name of the processor. Did I do something wrong? I'll ask you again, why haven't you got over that yet?

 

You are wrong still if you think 6502C = Sally. It doesn't. So why haven't you gotten over that yet?

[Kr0tki]

Your link in post #6658 also refers to 6502C and your link is less authorized than the nytimes link that I gave:

Who cares? I have never used that link to back up any statement regarding 6502C in context of which you are talking; that is, installing a it in an Apple. Since I did not use it that way, why are you doing it?

 

You are making two different claims and toggling back and forth-- you are claiming that I confused two different processor models which I did not.

While I've mate that statement ONCE - my mistake, I should instead said that the confusion regarded processor names only - I think that since that moment you've already made your point that it was not the case. Have you seen me questioning that point again after your clarification? No? Then why are you going back to it?

 

Now your second point as far as name goes-- there are 6502C processors that are not Sallies so I don't equate 6502C with Atari specific processor like you do. That's your first mistake

My mistake was assumig that you were talking about Sally; sorry, my bad. However, you have already stated that when you wrote 6502C, you actually meant 65C02. Are you now trying to tell that you actually meant the MOS 6502C from the start? If that is true, then one of your claims would be false: "Whether it's 65c02 or 6502c is irrelevant to the FACT that it cannot be used directly in A400" because a MOS 6502C can be installed in an Atari 400 without problems.

 

and your second mistake is that you think the A400 uses a non-standard 6502.

I've already referred to wrongly using the word "non-standard" earlier; It's the second time you're going back to an already solved case. Anyway, your own 400 used a 6502B; a 3MHz version. What part of my claim was mistaken?

 

I am labeling a processor by what some major websites are declaring it to be.

Let's see those major websites then. We have:

- an Ebay auction. The seller is probably a known collector if you think he's a reliable source of technical information; he seems to claim an Apple contains 128MB and 128KB RAM at the same time. I've seen bigger - sorry for stealing a word - bullcrap on Ebay than that.

- a Swiss website that also claims that an Apple IIc's CPU is 1.4MHz, and a Macintosh Portable hosts a 6502C processor. Good luck with reliable sources then.

- a 1986 NY Times issue, which claims that 6502 was designed by WDC, and when it talks about 6502C, it does so in context of accelerator cards for stock Apples, not in the context of being installed in a whole "Apple model" like you said at the beginning.

 

Seriously, you could provide some better references; theres around 800 on the whole Net, so searching for an appriopriate one won't take long.

 

That link does not prove your point. I think Rybags is correct in claiming A400 CPU is stock item (standard item) which you thought it wasn't.

>It does, but in Polish. Nevertheless; I gave a better link since then. Moreover, your own words of having a Atari 400 with a broken 6502B contradict what Rybags said. So what was your point again?

 

My point is simple-- I can't take the 6502 from some Apple models to replace the A400 6502.

Well, you can take a non-Sally 6502C if you find one in an Apple.

 

Your link is bogus if you claim my links are bogus so you haven't backed up anything.

I'll say that again - I have not provided any link to back up any claim about a 6502C.

 

Yes, text description goes with the pictures; however the fact that text description without the pictures isn't as good should prove that the pictures are helpful.

So you're stating that the photos support the claims, which were posted almost a day later to support the photos in the first place?

 

You are contradicting yourself. If you claim 6502c is ONLY for Atari processors and think everyone who thinks a 6502C exists within some Apple computer is mistaken, then you are STILL DEAD WRONG. Your own "better link" indicates that 6502C is a 4Mhz 6502 and not necessarily a Sally.

How many times do I have to remind you that the link was to support the claim regarding processor speeds and not the 6502C case? The only thing I claimed ONCE is explained above in this post. Get over that; I did.

 

No, I have made a more significant point which you missed altogether-- that they can be labeled as something and yet be incomplete to determine what they are.

Seems you missed that point too.

 

And another point is that it works fine on A400.

I'm not contradicting this; only repeating what the spec says.

 

>790 on most of the Internet < millions, you know?

 

How do you know how many people 790 links refer to? I can have one link that millions of people access and thousands of links that only a few hundred people access. You have provided no evidence that more links means more toward truth. I bet nytimes is read by more people than your links.

Firstly, it's not the amount of readers, but amount of writers that shows what is the popularity of a certain claim; number of readers is irrelevant because there's no evidence that everyone who reads bullcrap believes in it. Secondly, while you've started the topic of evidences; are your "millions" backed up? No? What a surprise.

 

>Regardless of whether you knew if there exists a 6502C or not, you used its name. Thus your statement can potentially confuse others into thinking that some Apple models use an Atari-specific processor. I don't really care if the my correction has any relevancy to you personally (do you think anyone cares?); I targeted it towards all AtariAge readers to make them avoid perpetuating the same mistake again. Why are you still debating it?

 

Because you are mistaken and perpetuating your mistake. 6502C exists out there and it's not always a Sally. And the term also is used to refer to 65c02 which is widespread and people know what it refers to. I wasn't referring to me personally but regarding anyone replacing an A400 CPU.

You mean that a everyone that reads AtariAge intends to replace a CPU, or that it was not a mistake that you called a 65c02 with a name of another processor?

 

>Well, my argument was over the name, so what are you actually pointing out now?

 

That you could not pick up from the context that I didn't mean the Sally.

What would you expect on an Atari-oriented site? I would expect someone might repeat the error, what's wrong with correcting it?

 

You are wrong still if you think 6502C = Sally. It doesn't. So why haven't you gotten over that yet?

No need to worry, that thing I know fortunately. Others however may not. That was my point overall; I hope you understand it now.

[atariksi]

I don't think that'd be a major problem.

 

It would only be an issue for stuff that uses INC, LSR etc on hardware registers... can't remember now if I used that in the final Interlace program.

 

Just tried out the r/m/w instructions and trapping reset and it works fine.

 

Couldn't run your interlace program. It used to work with the older version INTV3 or something like that.

[atariksi]

Your link in post #6658 also refers to 6502C and your link is less authorized than the nytimes link that I gave:

Who cares? I have never used that link to back up any statement regarding 6502C in context of which you are talking; that is, installing a it in an Apple. Since I did not use it that way, why are you doing it?

...

I'm sorry but Polish is all Greek to me. Perhaps, you want to make it clear what that website is talking about.

 

>While I've mate that statement ONCE - my mistake, I should instead said that the confusion regarded processor names only - I think that since that moment you've already made your point that it was not the case. Have you seen me questioning that point again after your clarification? No? Then why are you going back to it?

 

You want to correct my statement but then you should be mistake free.

 

Now your second point as far as name goes-- there are 6502C processors that are not Sallies so I don't equate 6502C with Atari specific processor like you do. That's your first mistake

>My mistake was assumig that you were talking about Sally; sorry, my bad. However, you have already stated that when you wrote 6502C, you actually meant 65C02. Are you now trying to tell that you actually meant the MOS 6502C from the start? If that is true, then one of your claims would be false: >"Whether it's 65c02 or 6502c is irrelevant to the FACT that it cannot be used directly in A400" because a MOS 6502C can be installed in an Atari 400 without problems.

 

If you look at context of question and answer, you will see that it can't refer to the accelerator board 6502C since we are talking standard Apple models not add-in boards. Given the context, it's the enhanced version of 6502.

 

>I've already referred to wrongly using the word "non-standard" earlier; It's the second time you're going back to an already solved case. Anyway, your own 400 used a 6502B; a 3MHz version. What part of my claim was mistaken?

 

It's a standard 6502 regardless of speed rating. So that's three strikes.

 

>Let's see those major websites then. We have:

 

It's not an exhaustive listing-- just picked a couple.

>- a 1986 NY Times issue, which claims that 6502 was designed by WDC, and when it talks about 6502C, it does so in context of accelerator cards for stock Apples, not in the context of being installed in a whole "Apple model" like you said at the beginning.

 

Glad you agree with me-- see above. Context is what makes it clear that I was referring to the enhanced version of the processor regardless of exact name. There are links for showing there are even multiple 65c02s not just 6502cs (s is for plural).

 

My point is simple-- I can't take the 6502 from some Apple models to replace the A400 6502.

>Well, you can take a non-Sally 6502C if you find one in an Apple.

 

See above about context.

 

Yes, text description goes with the pictures; however the fact that text description without the pictures isn't as good should prove that the pictures are helpful.

>So you're stating that the photos support the claims, which were posted almost a day later to support the photos in the first place?

 

No, even original message; later message is for beginners. Get to the point-- you are claiming pictures are worth ZERO; ever heard of "picture is worth a thousand words." At least it's worth a few words if not a thousand.

 

>How many times do I have to remind you that the link was to support the claim regarding processor speeds and not the 6502C case? The only thing I claimed ONCE is explained above in this post. Get over that; I did.

 

Well for someone trying to prevent confusion in trying to correct my statement "I think there's a 6502C in some apple models", you certainly contributing more to the confusion. Wasn't some other people's reply after my statement making it clear that those people did understand from context what I meant?

 

>Seems you missed that point too.

 

You can't say "too" if you don't explain another point I missed. I understood as well as I can.

 

>I'm not contradicting this; only repeating what the spec says.

 

There are chips with same name that have different specs. Sometimes, experimentally determining it is the only way to know.

 

>790 on most of the Internet < millions, you know?

 

How do you know how many people 790 links refer to? I can have one link that millions of people access and thousands of links that only a few hundred people access. You have provided no evidence that more links means more toward truth. I bet nytimes is read by more people than your links.

>Firstly, it's not the amount of readers, but amount of writers that shows what is the popularity of a certain claim; number of readers is irrelevant because there's no evidence that everyone who reads bullcrap believes in it. Secondly, while you've started the topic of evidences; are your "millions" backed up? No? What a surprise.

 

Don't ask a question and answer it for me. That's like a straw-man argument. It's the amount of readers since that makes a word widespread. If a word is misused by enough people, it becomes acceptable so context plays a bigger part. Here's another link: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/650x/Rockwel...%20(65C02).html that has a whole slew of processors but some information may be inaccurate.

 

>Regardless of whether you knew if there exists a 6502C or not, you used its name. Thus your statement can potentially confuse others into thinking that some Apple models use an Atari-specific processor. I don't really care if the my correction has any relevancy to you personally (do you think anyone cares?); I targeted it towards all AtariAge readers to make them avoid perpetuating the same mistake again. Why are you still debating it?

 

Because you are mistaken and perpetuating your mistake. 6502C exists out there and it's not always a Sally. And the term also is used to refer to 65c02 which is widespread and people know what it refers to. I wasn't referring to me personally but regarding anyone replacing an A400 CPU.

 

>You mean that a everyone that reads AtariAge intends to replace a CPU, or that it was not a mistake that you called a 65c02 with a name of another processor?

 

No, knowing something is also some people's desire not necessarily doing it. There are also various 65c02s. As I stated-- use context and you never should have bothered with me. You actually confused things even more with your own mistakes.

 

>Well, my argument was over the name, so what are you actually pointing out now?

 

That you could not pick up from the context that I didn't mean the Sally.

>What would you expect on an Atari-oriented site? I would expect someone might repeat the error, what's wrong with correcting it?

 

Look at messages right after I stated the 6502c; people already stated 65c02 (by magic) but you came in with your blunders and try to screw up everything.

 

You are wrong still if you think 6502C = Sally. It doesn't. So why haven't you gotten over that yet?

>No need to worry, that thing I know fortunately. Others however may not. That was my point overall; I hope you understand it now.

 

But your statements in this thread when you didn't know are still there to confuse people. So you should first correct yourself before trying to correct others. You need to learn to swim before you pretend to be saving people from drowning.

 

I think a lot more opinions have been stated in this thread so why you decided to take up this mission now seems to require some explanation.

[popmilo]

What is the connection between all this 6502 talk and Atari v Commodore ?

[atariksi]

What is the connection between all this 6502 talk and Atari v Commodore ?

 

I used a 6502 from Commodore 1541 drive to fix a Atari 400 machine. I increased value of C1541 drive.

[sack-c0s]

Not sure. I think some Synapse games used them.

 

They're popular in copy protection schemes. Just one of those little barriers they put up against hackers.

 

It would have been good if they upgraded the 6502 for block moves and block fills or writes to same location for I/O or other uses. It would be easier than upgrading to an accelerator.

 

Isn't the ARM (my other favourite CPU) the spiritual successor to the 6502 and has all those great things (along with others like conditional execution of all instructions)?

 

I know you can't exactly drop one of those in as a replacement but whilst we're talking dreams...

[andym00]

What is the connection between all this 6502 talk and Atari v Commodore ?

Nothing what so ever, apart from watching atariski throw internet cliches (the chewbacca defence, the straw man argument and when all else fails the fanboy suckerpunch) around as he drowns..

It's a popcorn movie, enjoy

[Rybags]

The only real connection is that the 6502 is considered RISC, although the term didn't really exist when it was designed.

 

And you can't really call it the first RISC processor because it was based on the 6800 to begin with, and you could probably equally call earlier ones like Intel 4004 RISC as well.

[andym00]

What is the connection between all this 6502 talk and Atari v Commodore ?

 

I used a 6502 from Commodore 1541 drive to fix a Atari 400 machine. I increased value of C1541 drive.

 

Nope, you increased the value of the A400

[popmilo]

What is the connection between all this 6502 talk and Atari v Commodore ?

 

I used a 6502 from Commodore 1541 drive to fix a Atari 400 machine. I increased value of C1541 drive.

Was the C1541 dead ?

 

If it was then fine...

 

If it was live and well then its murder!

[atariksi]

What is the connection between all this 6502 talk and Atari v Commodore ?

Nothing what so ever, apart from watching atariski throw internet cliches (the chewbacca defence, the straw man argument and when all else fails the fanboy suckerpunch) around as he drowns..

It's a popcorn movie, enjoy

 

What's the matter-- can't think of anything logical to say. Just insulting as usual. I never used chewbacca defense argument on him-- he was trying to invoke it on me. Learn to use your English the proper way. It is related to C64 vs. Atari much more so than some of the other stuff mentioned by others in this thread. If you need to practice your PSAT vocabulary list, try some other forum.