From: utzoo!utcsrgv!newman
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.appl,net.micro.atar
Title: Re: "new" CPU with 128 stacks, 16-bit registers
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1112
Posted: Fri Feb 25 17:06:40 1983
Received: Fri Feb 25 17:17:16 1983
References: watarts.1703 syteka.287


It's not immediately obvious to me that there are "more 8080/Z80's than 6502's
in this world". Consider Apple II + Apple III + PET/CBM + Atari + VIC-20 +
VIC-64 + OSI + KIM/SYM/AIM versus the CP/M market + TRS-80. I like the 6502
but I do tend to agree that there must be some reason why there are so few
big software packages like compilers, data base systems, spell systems, that
use or produce native 6502 code. I think the reason there is no standard
6502 OS is that there is no standard 6502 hardware configuration (i.e. disk
format, memory map, I/O ports) as there is sort of for CP/M; this is likely
due to the fact that 6502 I/O is memory-mapped, and all the above systems
have memory in different places and amounts, and they all refuse to give
any assistance in the area of compatibility, dictating that you MUST buy
their peripherals and their damn copy-protected software etc. I have some
experience in trying to port supposedly incompatible software, and if it
is well written there is not as much incompatibility as is claimed. There
are some C compilers for example for the 6502, but not very much else. Once
a standard or minimal hardware configuration is proposed, some progress
might result. I wonder if the lack of compilers is due to people saying,
"Well, it doesn't have any 16-bit registers, I'm not even going to TRY
and write a compiler for that thing" or whether they've actually tried and
abandoned it because of poor performance after giving it a good shot?