...thoughts on Retro-uC?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Daniel O'Shea
Not sure they are going to meet their funding target, but I have to
admit it is an interesting proposition - custom ASIC that can act as a
Z80 or a 6502 or a 68000!

https://www.crowdsupply.com/chips4makers/retro-uc

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

MiaM
Den Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:45:00 +0930 skrev Daniel O'Shea
<[hidden email]>:
> Not sure they are going to meet their funding target, but I have to
> admit it is an interesting proposition - custom ASIC that can act as
> a Z80 or a 6502 or a 68000!
>
> https://www.crowdsupply.com/chips4makers/retro-uc

Is there any shortage of the existing Z80, 6502 or 68k?

Especially for Z80 there are various versions.

What people might actually want is 68060 processors, but I guess this
project doesen't aim that high.

--
(\_/) Copy the bunny to your mails to help
(O.o) him achieve world domination.
(> <) Come join the dark side.
/_|_\ We have cookies.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Didier Derny
In reply to this post by Daniel O'Shea
for me it would be like  a sheep with 5 legs...

if  I want a 6502 / z80  or 68000 I take a real one....

if I want something modern I take an avr, or an arm....


I would find replacement for:  6530 /  6560 / 6561 / 6581.... more
interesting...


On 9/12/2018 7:15 AM, Daniel O'Shea wrote:
> Not sure they are going to meet their funding target, but I have to
> admit it is an interesting proposition - custom ASIC that can act as a
> Z80 or a 6502 or a 68000!
>
> https://www.crowdsupply.com/chips4makers/retro-uc
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

MiaM
Den Wed, 12 Sep 2018 21:56:06 +0200 skrev didier derny
<[hidden email]>:
> for me it would be like  a sheep with 5 legs...
>
> if  I want a 6502 / z80  or 68000 I take a real one....
>
> if I want something modern I take an avr, or an arm....
>
>
> I would find replacement for:  6530 /  6560 / 6561 / 6581.... more
> interesting...

6530, 6532, 6526, 6525 and 6523 would be rather simple to implement and
it might even be possible to do all in one chip, with some preprogram
thing to choose which of them it should be. The rom in 6530 is an
exception though, but a replacement IC could be done in a way making it
simpler to combine a separate rom with the new IC than a separate rom
with a 6532.

Didn't the 8-bit guy buy enough of those surplus VIC 20 boards to
secure a steady flow of working 6560's?

--
(\_/) Copy the bunny to your mails to help
(O.o) him achieve world domination.
(> <) Come join the dark side.
/_|_\ We have cookies.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Groepaz
Am Donnerstag, 13. September 2018, 00:02:41 CEST schrieb Mia Magnusson:

> Den Wed, 12 Sep 2018 21:56:06 +0200 skrev didier derny
>
> <[hidden email]>:
> > for me it would be like  a sheep with 5 legs...
> >
> > if  I want a 6502 / z80  or 68000 I take a real one....
> >
> > if I want something modern I take an avr, or an arm....
> >
> >
> > I would find replacement for:  6530 /  6560 / 6561 / 6581.... more
> > interesting...
>
> 6530, 6532, 6526, 6525 and 6523 would be rather simple to implement

if a 6526 clone would be simple - we'd have one by now

--

http://hitmen.eu                 http://ar.pokefinder.org
http://vice-emu.sourceforge.net  http://magicdisk.untergrund.net

The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the
question of whether a submarine can swim.
<Edsgar W. Dijkstra>





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud)
> if a 6526 clone would be simple - we'd have one by now

I see it in a different way: if there was a demand for the 6526, we would have one by now.

Take the PLA as example: there was demand for it and one or more guys cam with the EPROM solution and others various CPLD replacements. So IMHO as soon there is a real demand for it, somebody will create a replacement.


With kind regards / met vriendelijke groet, Ruud Baltissen

http://www.baltissen.org







De informatie in dit e-mailbericht is vertrouwelijk en uitsluitend bestemd voor de
geadresseerde. Wanneer u dit bericht per abuis ontvangt, verzoeken wij u contact op te
nemen met de afzender per kerende e-mail. Verder verzoeken wij u in dat geval dit
e-mailbericht te vernietigen en de inhoud ervan aan niemand openbaar te maken.
Wij aanvaarden geen aansprakelijkheid voor onjuiste, onvolledige dan wel ontijdige
overbrenging van de inhoud van een verzonden e-mailbericht, noch voor daarbij
overgebrachte virussen.

APG Groep N.V. is gevestigd te Heerlen en is ingeschreven in het
handelsregister van de Kamer van Koophandel Limburg onder nummer 14099617


The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged.
It may be read, copied and used only by the intended recipient.
If you have received it in error, please contact the sender immediately by
return e-mail; please delete in this case the e-mail and do not disclose its
contents to any person. We don't accept liability for any errors, omissions,
delays of receipt or viruses in the contents of this message which arise as a
result of e-mail transmission.

APG Groep N.V. is registered in the trade register of the Chamber
of Commerce Limburg, The Netherlands, registration number: 14099617


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Francesco Messineo
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:43 AM Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud)
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > if a 6526 clone would be simple - we'd have one by now
>
> I see it in a different way: if there was a demand for the 6526, we would have one by now.
>
> Take the PLA as example: there was demand for it and one or more guys cam with the EPROM solution and others various CPLD replacements. So IMHO as soon there is a real demand for it, somebody will create a replacement.

Well, I agree more with Ruud, but the example is not well chosen
because the PLA is easy (if we exclude timings problems, but if you
use an EPROM, you're anyway adding different timings), CPLD versions
of the PLA can be exact replacements even timing-wise.
6526 isn't so easy, it's a complex piece of statefull logic, but it's
doable. There're probably still too many real parts to start worrying.

Frank

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Didier Derny
In reply to this post by Groepaz
I tried to use this product:
https://www.enterpoint.co.uk/shop/home/25-craignell2.html to replace a 6530

but the product is really expensive, and it's difficult to have the
GND/VCC at the right place

once installed visually it's not so bad


I also tried the GODIL, easy to configure, but it's huge and ugly

and most of the time it will be impossible to close the box once the
godil is installed

and apparently the vendor seems to have stopped this product



On 9/13/2018 12:06 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, 13. September 2018, 00:02:41 CEST schrieb Mia Magnusson:
>> Den Wed, 12 Sep 2018 21:56:06 +0200 skrev didier derny
>>
>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> for me it would be like  a sheep with 5 legs...
>>>
>>> if  I want a 6502 / z80  or 68000 I take a real one....
>>>
>>> if I want something modern I take an avr, or an arm....
>>>
>>>
>>> I would find replacement for:  6530 /  6560 / 6561 / 6581.... more
>>> interesting...
>> 6530, 6532, 6526, 6525 and 6523 would be rather simple to implement
> if a 6526 clone would be simple - we'd have one by now
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Groepaz
In reply to this post by Francesco Messineo
Am Donnerstag, 13. September 2018, 07:53:46 CEST schrieb Francesco Messineo:

> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:43 AM Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud)
>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > if a 6526 clone would be simple - we'd have one by now
> >
> > I see it in a different way: if there was a demand for the 6526, we would
> > have one by now.
> >
> > Take the PLA as example: there was demand for it and one or more guys cam
> > with the EPROM solution and others various CPLD replacements. So IMHO as
> > soon there is a real demand for it, somebody will create a replacement.
> Well, I agree more with Ruud, but the example is not well chosen
> because the PLA is easy (if we exclude timings problems, but if you
> use an EPROM, you're anyway adding different timings), CPLD versions
> of the PLA can be exact replacements even timing-wise.
> 6526 isn't so easy, it's a complex piece of statefull logic, but it's
> doable. There're probably still too many real parts to start worrying.

i've seen far more dead CIAs than dead PLAs so... oh well :)

sure, its doable. but nowhere near easy, not comparable to a PLA replacement
in any way.

--

http://hitmen.eu                 http://ar.pokefinder.org
http://vice-emu.sourceforge.net  http://magicdisk.untergrund.net

To most Christians, the Bible is like a Software license. Nobody actually
reads it. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree."





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Francesco Messineo
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:50 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Am Donnerstag, 13. September 2018, 07:53:46 CEST schrieb Francesco Messineo:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:43 AM Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud)
> >
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > if a 6526 clone would be simple - we'd have one by now
> > >
> > > I see it in a different way: if there was a demand for the 6526, we would
> > > have one by now.
> > >
> > > Take the PLA as example: there was demand for it and one or more guys cam
> > > with the EPROM solution and others various CPLD replacements. So IMHO as
> > > soon there is a real demand for it, somebody will create a replacement.
> > Well, I agree more with Ruud, but the example is not well chosen
> > because the PLA is easy (if we exclude timings problems, but if you
> > use an EPROM, you're anyway adding different timings), CPLD versions
> > of the PLA can be exact replacements even timing-wise.
> > 6526 isn't so eadiesy, it's a complex piece of statefull logic, but it's
> > doable. There're probably still too many real parts to start worrying.
>
> i've seen far more dead CIAs than dead PLAs so... oh well :)

sure, same here, it's like 10 dead (or almost, actually) CIAs against
1 dead PLA, and the ratio in the good old '80s was even larger.
The reason is the CIAs are sitting naked against the external world:
joystick ports, user port, IEC bus (well, the IEC bus has some gates
between the wild world and the CIA ports anyway).
We used to experiment (most of us), connect the wrong thing on the
user port, plug and unplug things with everything powered on...
I have tens of CIAs with just one or two bits on a port broken and
otherwise working well.
PLAs on the other hand could only die because poor manufacturing
process (the CBM ones) coupled to high power dissipation, but I still
have to find a broken original programmed PLS100 or 82S100.

Frank

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

silverdr@wfmh.org.pl
In reply to this post by Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud)

> On 2018-09-13, at 07:42, Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> if a 6526 clone would be simple - we'd have one by now
>
> I see it in a different way: if there was a demand for the 6526, we would have one by now.
>
> Take the PLA as example: there was demand for it and one or more guys cam with the EPROM solution and others various CPLD replacements. So IMHO as soon there is a real demand for it, somebody will create a replacement.

The real demand is there. The replacements will eventually start to show once the prices of refurbished CIAs start exceeding the cost of a replacement BOM plus something for the effort. As of now, this is not the case yet. And the reason for PLA replacements being now available in abundance is that PLA is way easier and cheaper to build.

--
SD! - http://e4aws.silverdr.com/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Konrad B
In reply to this post by Didier Derny
Well, fast 65c02 or maybe ce02 or c816 based MCUs with internal Flash
and RAM (and not these Mitsubishi MELPs devices, which you could only
buy in zillions and had 100 Flash rewrites guaranteed or so) were
something I dreamt about... last century ;)

Now if we talk about 6530/6560-61/6581 and all these fancy CSG/MOS
chips - some time ago we learned about documents and backup tapes
being found in the abandoned GMT/MOS HQ. One gentelmen kindly
explained us that "there were no tape drives there so the tapes are
trash", but this is still something that concerns me - does anyone
know if all of these things (tapes, docs) were put in garbage bin ?

Regards,
Konrad
śr., 12 wrz 2018 o 22:10 didier derny <[hidden email]> napisał(a):

>
> for me it would be like  a sheep with 5 legs...
>
> if  I want a 6502 / z80  or 68000 I take a real one....
>
> if I want something modern I take an avr, or an arm....
>
>
> I would find replacement for:  6530 /  6560 / 6561 / 6581.... more
> interesting...
>
>
> On 9/12/2018 7:15 AM, Daniel O'Shea wrote:
> > Not sure they are going to meet their funding target, but I have to
> > admit it is an interesting proposition - custom ASIC that can act as a
> > Z80 or a 6502 or a 68000!
> >
> > https://www.crowdsupply.com/chips4makers/retro-uc
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Francesco Messineo
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:50 AM Konrad B <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Well, fast 65c02 or maybe ce02 or c816 based MCUs with internal Flash
> and RAM (and not these Mitsubishi MELPs devices, which you could only
> buy in zillions and had 100 Flash rewrites guaranteed or so) were
> something I dreamt about... last century ;)
>
> Now if we talk about 6530/6560-61/6581 and all these fancy CSG/MOS
> chips - some time ago we learned about documents and backup tapes
> being found in the abandoned GMT/MOS HQ. One gentelmen kindly
> explained us that "there were no tape drives there so the tapes are
> trash", but this is still something that concerns me - does anyone
> know if all of these things (tapes, docs) were put in garbage bin ?

I refuse to believe there's no way to read those tapes. There're a few
folks on vcfed.org forum that can surely find a way to read anything,
it's just a matter of speaking with the right persons, imho.
The problem is probably there's no chip farm with the right process
active to reproduce the old designs. I was always curious about how
would it costs to re-activate such an old process and start making
these chips again.
Also, on the purely digital chips, one would just need a bonding
machine to rewire a "modern logic implementation" to a compatible DIP
chip package.
The mixed analog/digital chips on the other hand would need to be
recreated with the old manufacturing process (SID, VIC and few
others).
I doubt however that there's enough market even to justify the
"rebonding logic" approach which should be far cheaper than setting up
a complete chip farm.
Frank

>
> Regards,
> Konrad
> śr., 12 wrz 2018 o 22:10 didier derny <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
> >
> > for me it would be like  a sheep with 5 legs...
> >
> > if  I want a 6502 / z80  or 68000 I take a real one....
> >
> > if I want something modern I take an avr, or an arm....
> >
> >
> > I would find replacement for:  6530 /  6560 / 6561 / 6581.... more
> > interesting...
> >
> >
> > On 9/12/2018 7:15 AM, Daniel O'Shea wrote:
> > > Not sure they are going to meet their funding target, but I have to
> > > admit it is an interesting proposition - custom ASIC that can act as a
> > > Z80 or a 6502 or a 68000!
> > >
> > > https://www.crowdsupply.com/chips4makers/retro-uc
> > >
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Rainer Buchty
In reply to this post by Konrad B
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Konrad B wrote:

> One gentelmen kindly explained us that "there were no tape drives
> there so the tapes are trash", but this is still something that
> concerns me - does anyone know if all of these things (tapes, docs)
> were put in garbage bin ?

I know for sure that documentation of some sort must have escaped, as
about 20+ years ago during my AMD/Vantis times we were approached by
Thomas "DCE" Dellert regarding CIA cloning -- where he showed low-level
schematics of the (IIRC) 8520.

Unfortunately, my boss knew me far too well and kept those documents
locked away (and made sure that I never got a chance to take them to the
copy machine).

Can't remember where he got them from originally, though.

Rainer


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Ruud
In reply to this post by Daniel O'Shea
Hallo Didier,


> I tried to use this product:
> https://www.enterpoint.co.uk/shop/home/25-craignell2.html to replace a
> 6530

Then may I point you to:

   http://www.baltissen.org/newhtm/6530repl.htm

The card only costs 4 Euro + P&P. You have to provide the parts
yourself but, if you want to, I can sell you a 6532 as well.


--
   
Kind regards / Met vriendelijke groet, Ruud Baltissen
www.Baltissen.org







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

Gerrit Heitsch
In reply to this post by MiaM
On 09/13/2018 12:02 AM, Mia Magnusson wrote:

> Den Wed, 12 Sep 2018 21:56:06 +0200 skrev didier derny
> <[hidden email]>:
>> for me it would be like  a sheep with 5 legs...
>>
>> if  I want a 6502 / z80  or 68000 I take a real one....
>>
>> if I want something modern I take an avr, or an arm....
>>
>>
>> I would find replacement for:  6530 /  6560 / 6561 / 6581.... more
>> interesting...
>
> 6530, 6532, 6526, 6525 and 6523 would be rather simple to implement and
> it might even be possible to do all in one chip, with some preprogram
> thing to choose which of them it should be.

Unfortunatly that's not the case. Those chips are NMOS. With their
output drivers you can do things (and they were done) that you at least
shouldn't do with CMOS drivers.

  Gerrit


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

MiaM
In reply to this post by Francesco Messineo
Den Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:15:49 +0200 skrev Francesco Messineo
<[hidden email]>:

> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:50 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, 13. September 2018, 07:53:46 CEST schrieb Francesco
> > Messineo:
> > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:43 AM Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud)
> > >
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > if a 6526 clone would be simple - we'd have one by now
> > > >
> > > > I see it in a different way: if there was a demand for the
> > > > 6526, we would have one by now.
> > > >
> > > > Take the PLA as example: there was demand for it and one or
> > > > more guys cam with the EPROM solution and others various CPLD
> > > > replacements. So IMHO as soon there is a real demand for it,
> > > > somebody will create a replacement.
> > > Well, I agree more with Ruud, but the example is not well chosen
> > > because the PLA is easy (if we exclude timings problems, but if
> > > you use an EPROM, you're anyway adding different timings), CPLD
> > > versions of the PLA can be exact replacements even timing-wise.
> > > 6526 isn't so eadiesy, it's a complex piece of statefull logic,
> > > but it's doable. There're probably still too many real parts to
> > > start worrying.
> >
> > i've seen far more dead CIAs than dead PLAs so... oh well :)
>
> sure, same here, it's like 10 dead (or almost, actually) CIAs against
> 1 dead PLA, and the ratio in the good old '80s was even larger.
> The reason is the CIAs are sitting naked against the external world:
> joystick ports, user port, IEC bus (well, the IEC bus has some gates
> between the wild world and the CIA ports anyway).
> We used to experiment (most of us), connect the wrong thing on the
> user port, plug and unplug things with everything powered on...
> I have tens of CIAs with just one or two bits on a port broken and
> otherwise working well.

To some extent people are probably more careful with their devices
today than back in the 80's.

Also mains power with ground connector is more common now than back
then.

In the 80's in many places (Sweden, the Netherlands and so on) you'd
have a 1541 hooked up to an unearthed socket leaking mains power to
signal ground. In some cases you'd have a TV where the aerial were
grounded through the cable TV or multi-apartment antenna system. In
some other cases you'd have a then modern TV with insulated chassis and
a euro connector for power, with a switch mode power supply leaking
mains power to signal ground. With the antenna grounded you'd have
current flow through signal ground from the 1541's mains filter through
the C64 to the TV. With a then modern TV (or monitor, like the
1084/8833 ranges) you'd also have a current through the same signal
ground path but this time due to that the two capacitors with identical
spec in the mains filter not being totally identical.

Nowdays you'd have a grounded socket or at least a grounded extension
cord and in many cases a grounded power lead to the TV/monitor.

Also people using 1541-II, SD2IEC, 1541 Ultimate or Pi1541 instead of a
real 1541 (or 1570 or 1571) removes the leaky power filter on one side.

(The C64 is perfectly insulated from mains power, so it in itself won't
cause this kind of problem)

(Btw it's not the current itself, but the voltage when
connecting/disconnecting cables and having contact with a signal wire
but not signal ground for a moment).

What seems to still fry C64 and VIC 20 CR is people forcing the power
DIN connector in the serial port. Most PSU's only have 4 pins and some
of them have so wobbly plastics that you don't even need much force to
force the connector in the serial port even though the pin positions
doesen't match. (I've got a cut-off connector from a C64 PSU which I've
tried in the serial port of at least two VIC 20 CR motherboards, no
unreasonable force is needed to insert it in the wrong port).

Failed CIA's due to incorrect handling are problably something that
more often happens when someone finds av C64 at a flea market or in an
attic, and then they maybe just throw it away. Failed PLA's and SID's
would rather happen when a computer is in use, and that would probably
lead to people being more inclined to get their computer repaired. But
this is just an educated guess.

> PLAs on the other hand could only die because poor manufacturing
> process (the CBM ones) coupled to high power dissipation, but I still
> have to find a broken original programmed PLS100 or 82S100.

Isn't there problems with broken 82S100's in the 8296?

--
(\_/) Copy the bunny to your mails to help
(O.o) him achieve world domination.
(> <) Come join the dark side.
/_|_\ We have cookies.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

MiaM
In reply to this post by silverdr@wfmh.org.pl
Den Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:23:54 +0200 skrev [hidden email]:

>
> > On 2018-09-13, at 07:42, Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud)
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> if a 6526 clone would be simple - we'd have one by now
> >
> > I see it in a different way: if there was a demand for the 6526, we
> > would have one by now.
> >
> > Take the PLA as example: there was demand for it and one or more
> > guys cam with the EPROM solution and others various CPLD
> > replacements. So IMHO as soon there is a real demand for it,
> > somebody will create a replacement.
>
> The real demand is there. The replacements will eventually start to
> show once the prices of refurbished CIAs start exceeding the cost of
> a replacement BOM plus something for the effort. As of now, this is
> not the case yet. And the reason for PLA replacements being now
> available in abundance is that PLA is way easier and cheaper to build.
 
The sad thing is that nowdays a C64 seems to be worth more as
known-good parts than as a functioning computer.

At least the ebay prices for a known good VIC-II and a known-good SID
together is higher than a C64 (without any accessories) is worth here
in Sweden.


--
(\_/) Copy the bunny to your mails to help
(O.o) him achieve world domination.
(> <) Come join the dark side.
/_|_\ We have cookies.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

MiaM
In reply to this post by Gerrit Heitsch
Den Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:15:42 +0200 skrev Gerrit Heitsch
<[hidden email]>:

> On 09/13/2018 12:02 AM, Mia Magnusson wrote:
> > Den Wed, 12 Sep 2018 21:56:06 +0200 skrev didier derny
> > <[hidden email]>:
> >> for me it would be like  a sheep with 5 legs...
> >>
> >> if  I want a 6502 / z80  or 68000 I take a real one....
> >>
> >> if I want something modern I take an avr, or an arm....
> >>
> >>
> >> I would find replacement for:  6530 /  6560 / 6561 / 6581.... more
> >> interesting...
> >
> > 6530, 6532, 6526, 6525 and 6523 would be rather simple to implement
> > and it might even be possible to do all in one chip, with some
> > preprogram thing to choose which of them it should be.
>
> Unfortunatly that's not the case. Those chips are NMOS. With their
> output drivers you can do things (and they were done) that you at
> least shouldn't do with CMOS drivers.

That depends on how the new IC's are being manufactured.

--
(\_/) Copy the bunny to your mails to help
(O.o) him achieve world domination.
(> <) Come join the dark side.
/_|_\ We have cookies.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

MiaM
In reply to this post by Francesco Messineo
Den Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:07:54 +0200 skrev Francesco Messineo
<[hidden email]>:

> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:50 AM Konrad B <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, fast 65c02 or maybe ce02 or c816 based MCUs with internal
> > Flash and RAM (and not these Mitsubishi MELPs devices, which you
> > could only buy in zillions and had 100 Flash rewrites guaranteed or
> > so) were something I dreamt about... last century ;)
> >
> > Now if we talk about 6530/6560-61/6581 and all these fancy CSG/MOS
> > chips - some time ago we learned about documents and backup tapes
> > being found in the abandoned GMT/MOS HQ. One gentelmen kindly
> > explained us that "there were no tape drives there so the tapes are
> > trash", but this is still something that concerns me - does anyone
> > know if all of these things (tapes, docs) were put in garbage bin ?
>
> I refuse to believe there's no way to read those tapes. There're a few
> folks on vcfed.org forum that can surely find a way to read anything,
> it's just a matter of speaking with the right persons, imho.

Today you can also just look at an IC through a good enough microscope
and reverse engineer it from that.

> The problem is probably there's no chip farm with the right process
> active to reproduce the old designs. I was always curious about how
> would it costs to re-activate such an old process and start making
> these chips again.

I'm not sure that would be needed. By looking at how analogue IC's are
being manufactured, or rather what such IC's are available, we see that
it's not an unsolveable problem to make IC's with a modern process
having signal properties compatible with the old IC's.

For CIA's and the other similar IC's (6523, 6525 and maybe 6522 if the
current production is ended) it's good enough to make something
compatible, they don't need to be identical to the old ones.

P.S. don't forget that the 6522 and 6502, at least in CMOS versions, is
still produced today.

Not sure what it would take to change todays production of 6522's into
6526's, but it can't be totally impossible.

> Also, on the purely digital chips, one would just need a bonding
> machine to rewire a "modern logic implementation" to a compatible DIP
> chip package.

Aren't DIP-40 IC's still made in enough quantities to tag alone that
production process? (For example the microcontroller in SD2IEC is afaik
DIP-40 or some similar size).

> The mixed analog/digital chips on the other hand would need to be
> recreated with the old manufacturing process (SID, VIC and few
> others).

SID is for sure hard to make a clone of using some other manufacturing
process.

I doubt that VIC-II would be much of a problem though. Afaik it only
has 4 or 5 analogue levels on the luma signal, and the color signal
seems to only be on/off (and phase selects the actual color).

Worst case a new implementation of a VIC-II could use some surface
mount case and have 2/3 digital outputs for luminance, and you'd just
need a resistor network and some simple buffer on an adapter board from
the surface mount IC and the DIL 40 socket.

> I doubt however that there's enough market even to justify the
> "rebonding logic" approach which should be far cheaper than setting up
> a complete chip farm.

Yeah, the problem is that even though it might be possible to make new
IC's, they might be more expensive than known good used parts, and then
there is no market for the new IC's.


--
(\_/) Copy the bunny to your mails to help
(O.o) him achieve world domination.
(> <) Come join the dark side.
/_|_\ We have cookies.

123