Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!sunspot!garfield
From: garfield@sunspot.noao.edu (Brian Armstrong)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m6809
Subject: Re: COCO and the 6309 ...
Summary: 6809E and 6309E
Keywords: COCO, 6809, 6809E
Message-ID: <3493@sunspot.UUCP>
Date: 15 Mar 90 00:16:28 GMT
References: <7104@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: garfield@sunspot.UUCP (Brian Armstrong)
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Solar Observatory, Sunspot NM
Lines: 14

I've been reading the ordeal of replacing the Color Computer CPU
with a 6309 processor.  Here's my two cents...

I think the problem here has been the use of the 6309 instead
of the 6309E.  The Color Computer was designed to use the latter
ONLY, as was the SAM chip.  Use of a non-'E' version is sure to 
cause problems.  Thus, I don't think illegal opcodes have anything
to do with it.

Try a 6309E to replace the 6809E (the original CPU), and see what happens.
(If you want to get rid on the 6309, I'll take it for a pet
project of mine!) 

Brian Armstrong, National Solar Observatory, Sunspot NM  88349