AIM 65 question

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Tue May 25 18:00:41 1999

What I meant was not that the AIM65 was CMOS, but rather, that the ROCKWELL
version of the CMOS 6502 was different from the NMOS version sold by MOS
Technology. One way of telling whether the assembler is written for the
NMOS or the CMOS version, would be to have it assemble a source file with a
few of the CMOS instructions in it and see how it handles them. What's
more, the unimplemented opcodes in their CMOS processor were all implemented
as NO-OPs while the NMOS version had that widely known (or at least
heard-of) set of odd-ball (undocumented) instructions Hans Franke wrote
about a month or two ago. You just have to look at the processor to
determine whether it's a CMOS processor, but the assembler could be for
either processor.

The BASIC is probably the version for the NMOS part. I assume that the
early release number is all one needs to tell that. Anything made after
1983-84 could go either way.

Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe <rigdonj_at_intellistar.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: AIM 65 question


>Dick,
>
> That's an interesting question! I wonder what the difference in the
>software is? I don't think I've ever heard of a CMOS AIM 65. The BASIC
>comes up as ver 1.1. I didn't see a version on the assembler. The ICs
>containing the assembler and BASIC don't have any special markings. They're
>PN is the same as the PN of the two standard ROMs except one digit is
>different.
>
> Joe
>
>At 08:31 AM 5/25/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>NOW . . . The interesting question is whether the firmware versions you
have
>>support the ROCKWELL CMOS versions or only the NMOS parts. Rockwell made
>>the AIM 65 its evaluation system for their entry in the 6502 market, but
>>their CMOS version is the one whose instruction set I thought was the best
>>of all of them. If your AIM boards have the assembler and BASIC
interpreter
>>for the CMOS version, that's something to hang onto since it's still
current
>>as far as the compatible cores are concerned.
>>
>>Dick
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Joe <rigdonj_at_intellistar.net>
>>To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
>><classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
>>Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 4:15 AM
>>Subject: Re: AIM 65 question
>>
>>
>>>They are. Two are optional BASIC and the other is optional Assembler.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>At 10:49 PM 5/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>These 24 pin chips sound to me like ROM's.
>>>>
>>>>William R. Buckley
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Joe <rigdonj_at_intellistar.net>
>>>>To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
>>>><classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
>>>>Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 2:59 PM
>>>>Subject: AIM 65 question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I picked up several AIM 65 computers. I've noticed that some of them
>>>>>have two 24 Pin ICs in the lower right corner and some have five.
Anyone
>>>>>know what the difference is? Also some have only two of the 19 pin ICs
>>in
>>>>>the top right corner and other have eitht ICs there. What's the
>>difference
>>>>>there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone know of a site where I can find out more about these and the
>>>>>commands to operate them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tue May 25 1999 - 18:00:41 BST