CompuServe Messages

Larry, I don't think choosing between the 6800/6502 was ever about speed, except perhaps in some industrial devices. Sure, it was one of those subjects cpu owners liked to argue about, but price was the main way the 6502 broke into the hobbyist market… and from there, into the later major consumer arena. With the software and knowledge base overwhelmingly seated in the 8080/6800 camps, there was NO reason to use the 6502 except because it was cheaper. We've all noted how fanatical Wozniak was over saving 10 cents on chips in his Apple designs, for example <grin>. "Cheap" was the keyword then. That was also the main reason for people buying RCA 1802 kits, of course. Even three years after its introduction, with KIM, Commodore PET, Apple II, and OSI Challenger using it, the 6502 STILL trailed in soft/hardware popularity behind the 6800 (which itself trailed far behind the Z80/808x stuff)… and 1978 computer articles cited the 6502 simply as a "practical" cpu choice in comparison to the other dozen less-popular cpu types available. Later, marketing of the computers (as is still true) decided the cpu winners. Hobbyist bus-based systems were crushed by cheaper (and more readily available) all-in-one computers like the TRS-80 and Apple II. By 1980, there were far faster and better chips than the 6502, but the success (and software) deriving from the gfx-oriented Apple had by now made the 6502 a good choice for new lowcost machines. But low cpu cost bought the original toehold, I think.