Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site uvicctr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!uvicctr!collinge
From: collinge@uvicctr.UUCP (Doug Collinge)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: 68000 vs 6502 (!)
Message-ID: <156@uvicctr.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 5-Oct-85 17:12:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: uvicctr.156
Posted: Sat Oct  5 17:12:34 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Oct-85 07:02:07 EDT
References: <151@uvicctr.UUCP> <7100003@prism.UUCP> <6012@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: collinge@uvicctr.UUCP (Doug Collinge)
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. Canada
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <6012@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:

>As I recall, the 65802 does big-memory addressing the same way the 8086
>does, i.e. by what is essentially on-chip bank switching rather than by
>actually being able to generate and manipulate 24-bit addresses as
>single entities.  
Yes, this is true.  The 65802 is to the 6502 as the 8088 is to the 8080.

>Yuck.  I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
Yes - you certainly wouldn't want to design it into anything.  If it
drops into Apples, though, I might buy one - just because it would be
easier to program.  Note that a 65802 can't address more than 64K
anyway so the yukkiness of the bank-switching is immaterial.  The
65816 is the counterpart to the 8086.
-- 
		Doug Collinge
		School of Music, University of Victoria,
		PO Box 1700, Victoria, B.C.,
		Canada,  V8W 2Y2  
		decvax!nrl-css!uvicctr!collinge
		decvax!uw-beaver!uvicctr!collinge
		ubc-vision!uvicctr!collinge