CompuServe Messages

Kev, Well, I can tell you that from personal experience, I chose the 6502 over the 6800 strictly on speed and addressing modes, and that several of my friends did the same. Another factor was that the 6502 needed only a single phase clock, and unless you were very careless in design, there was no need for any oddball voltages. I was introduced to the 6502 after having built a Signetics 2650 based machine and an 1802 based machine (yes, the 1802 was chosen strictly on price, since it had only one other thing going for it, the almost automatic DMA scheme). At the time I was introduced to the 6502, the 6800 had a good foothold, but was awkward to program and slower than molasses, and there was no way I would even consider going for any Intel chip. To show you how desparate I was to find a good chip, I was seriously considering the SC/MP and the Fairchild F8. By the time I was ready to go with the 6502, CBM answered my dilemma by releasing the PET, and that allowed me to get right up to speed without all the hassles of building/programming my own system. The problem with the software/knowledge base in the 8080/6800 camp was that it was all reinvented wheels, and not up to the level of things I had learned 10 years previous. Same went for the hardware. Kansas City Standard indeed! The articles you refer to citing the software availability and practicality of choice are no different than today's articles that completely ignore technical excellence in order to praise the latest Intel crud. The 6502 was never a 'mainstream' chip, or at least not until someone managed to overcome the Apple architecture and came out with spreadsheets. -larry