17 Sep
2025
17 Sep
'25
9:19 a.m.
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/the-mos-6502-how-a-25-chip-sparked-a-…
According to many 50 years ago on September 16, 1975, MOS Technology
showed the 6502 at WESCON
17 Sep
17 Sep
6:04 p.m.
As far as I know this is true. What impact is had is debatable!
Murray 🙂
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 1:11 PM Christian Liendo via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/the-mos-6502-how-a-25-chip-sparked-a-…
According to many 50 years ago on September 16, 1975, MOS Technology
showed the 6502 at WESCON
6:29 p.m.
Debatable??
Unconfirmed stories from the usual unreliable sources (Infoworld, etc.):
(find confirmation before sticking your neck out)
Steve Wozniak was going to build his own computer. That was a given.
Likely 8080, because Z80 was EXPENSIVE.
Like a good engineer, he went to WESCON.
There, he saw the 6502, and realized that it would be adequate, and save
much money. Some stories even say that he got some free samples!
(no free samples of Z80, or even 8080)
Because of that, the Apple 1 was a 6502 machine. Its success also helped
Atari and Commodore to decide that 6502 would be good, or at least
adequate.
Impact? enormous. And Intel's market share went from predicted to be
approaching monopoly, to quite healthy.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
> As far as I know this is true. What impact is had is debatable!
>
> Murray 🙂
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 1:11 PM Christian Liendo via cctalk <
> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/the-mos-6502-how-a-25-chip-sparked-a-…
>>
>> According to many 50 years ago on September 16, 1975, MOS Technology
>> showed the 6502 at WESCON
>>
6:41 p.m.
Chuck Guzis would have been able to tell us which of the stories had
validity.
We miss him.
7:02 p.m.
"Unconfirmed stories and unreliable sources" are what mass readership is
about. I'm not saying the MOS 6502 was not important but its impact does
not match the 8080. The very early days the 6502 had its day in the sun!
The INTEL monopoly was well underway solidifying with the 8088 in the PC
World. I wrote a book about the early micro-computing days as an historian
and do confirm statements I make. I agree Chuck Guzis was the expert here
and we do truly miss him.
Happy computing,
Murray 🙂
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:51 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Chuck Guzis would have been able to tell us which of
the stories had
validity.
We miss him.
8:07 p.m.
On 2025-09-17 8:02 p.m., Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
"Unconfirmed stories and unreliable sources"
are what mass readership is
about. I'm not saying the MOS 6502 was not important but its impact does
not match the 8080. The very early days the 6502 had its day in the sun!
The INTEL monopoly was well underway solidifying with the 8088 in the PC
World. I wrote a book about the early micro-computing days as an historian
and do confirm statements I make. I agree Chuck Guzis was the expert here
and we do truly miss him.
I think all the famous micros had "the right tech,
the right place and
the right time at the right price at one time.
The 8080, the concept of a personal computer with floppy disks.
The Apple, all in one box. The IBM PC,a consumer computer with home and
business software.
19 Sep
19 Sep
5:50 a.m.
On Sep 17, 2025, at 10:02 PM, Murray McCullough via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
"Unconfirmed stories and unreliable sources" are what mass readership is
about. I'm not saying the MOS 6502 was not important but its impact does
not match the 8080. The very early days the 6502 had its day in the sun!
The INTEL monopoly was well underway solidifying with the 8088 in the PC
World. I wrote a book about the early micro-computing days as an historian
and do confirm statements I make. I agree Chuck Guzis was the expert here
and we do truly miss him.
Happy computing,
Murray 🙂
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:51 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
> Chuck Guzis would have been able to tell us which of the stories had
> validity.
>
> We miss him.
>
Murray, is your book still available?
6:09 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 12:50:37PM +0000, Frank Ventura via cctalk wrote:
[...]
Murray, is your book still available?
If it's _A Historical Research Guide to the Microcomputer_, ISBN
9781411646520, then it's a print-on-demand book through Lulu with a 2-3 week
lead time. Amazon offers a preview of the first few pages, but that's mostly
front matter and not really enough of the actual content to tell me whether
I want to order a copy.
12:55 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Corlett via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 9:10 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Cc: Peter Corlett <abuse(a)cabal.org.uk>
Subject: [cctalk] Re: 50 years of the MOS 6502
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 12:50:37PM +0000, Frank Ventura via cctalk wrote:
[...]
Murray, is your book still available?
If it's _A Historical Research Guide to the Microcomputer_, ISBN 9781411646520, then
it's a print-on-demand book through Lulu with a 2-3 week lead time. Amazon offers a
preview of the first few pages, but that's mostly front matter and not really enough
of the actual content to tell me whether I want to order a copy.
Does Amazon (or anyone) offer a Kindel or another form of EBook for this?
1:07 p.m.
On 9/19/25 14:55, Frank Ventura via cctalk wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Corlett via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 12:50:37PM +0000, Frank Ventura via cctalk wrote:
[...]
Check Anna's Archive?
https://annas-archive.org
Doc
Murray, is your book still available?
If it's _A Historical Research Guide to the Microcomputer_, ISBN 9781411646520, then
it's a print-on-demand book through Lulu with a 2-3 week lead time. Amazon offers a
preview of the first few pages, but that's mostly front matter and not really enough
of the actual content to tell me whether I want to order a copy.
Does Amazon (or anyone) offer a Kindel or another form of EBook for this?
2:24 p.m.
On Sep 19, 2025, at 4:07 PM, Doc Shipley via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 9/19/25 14:55, Frank Ventura via cctalk wrote:
Thanks, I didn’t see it there but as a long shot I’ll try BookShare.
Https://bookshare.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Corlett via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 12:50:37PM +0000, Frank Ventura via cctalk wrote:
[...]
Check Anna's Archive?
https://annas-archive.org
Doc
Murray, is your book still available?
If it's _A Historical Research Guide to the Microcomputer_, ISBN
9781411646520, then it's a print-on-demand book through Lulu with a 2-3 week lead
time. Amazon offers a preview of the first few pages, but that's mostly front matter
and not really enough of the actual content to tell me whether I want to order a copy.
Does Amazon (or anyone) offer a Kindel or another form of EBook for this?
9:52 a.m.
I agree the 8080 which spawned the 8088 is a huge impact, however I
think the 6502 and subsequent MOS processors were a huge impact.
Please note, I'm not saying you are incorrect. I just have a different
perspective.
The number of consumer level devices and by consumer I mean not
hobbyist. The number of devices sold with that CPU or a variant was
large and it helped usher in home computing as we know it.
In my opinion PC really didn't do that until later, but in the
beginning you had devices from the VIC-20, Apple II, BBC Micro, etc.
Those machines created a real home market and it was people from that
market who ended up in the industry and created new technologies.
I think without the 6502 and the consumer machines based on them, that
wouldn't have happened or it would have taken longer.
By the way, I found your book and I am going to order it. I have many
books and I will enjoy reading this
https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Research-Guide-Microcomputer-2nd/dp/14116…
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:41 PM Murray McCullough via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
"Unconfirmed stories and unreliable sources" are what mass readership is
about. I'm not saying the MOS 6502 was not important but its impact does
not match the 8080. The very early days the 6502 had its day in the sun!
The INTEL monopoly was well underway solidifying with the 8088 in the PC
World. I wrote a book about the early micro-computing days as an historian
and do confirm statements I make. I agree Chuck Guzis was the expert here
and we do truly miss him.
Happy computing,
10:51 a.m.
On 2025-09-19 10:52 a.m., Christian Liendo via cctalk wrote:
I think without the 6502 and the consumer machines
based on them, that
wouldn't have happened or it would have taken longer.
Here I think the 6800 had
a big impact as the 65xx was to pin and timing
compatible device. With that memory model Apple and others developed the
video cycle on first phase of the clock and ram access on the second
half. Mostek's 4K dram was also a major factor. Two hardware
simplifications over chips using a different bus cycle.
Ben.
12:16 p.m.
The 6502 was s'posedly develeped because Motorola was upset that the 6500?
was too closely based on the 6800.
6800 never really caught on until the 6809 (a really great chip), but the
6502 was immensely popular (although, nowhere near as much as the
8080/Z80)
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2025-09-19 10:52 a.m., Christian Liendo via cctalk
wrote:
I think without the 6502 and the consumer
machines based on them, that
wouldn't have happened or it would have taken longer.
Here I think the 6800
had a big impact as the 65xx was to pin and timing
compatible device. With that memory model Apple and others developed the
video cycle on first phase of the clock and ram access on the second half.
Mostek's 4K dram was also a major factor. Two hardware simplifications over
chips using a different bus cycle.
Ben. 
4:01 p.m.
On 9/19/2025 2:16 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
The 6502 was s'posedly develeped because Motorola
was upset that the
6500? was too closely based on the 6800.
6800 never really caught on until the 6809 (a really great chip), but
the 6502 was immensely popular (although, nowhere near as much as the
8080/Z80)
Which I find ironic, because the 6809 uses big endian notation for code
and vectors, whereas the rest used little endian (and so did the 65XX,
not that anyone here didn't already know that)
That said, I wonder if the '09 interest was due to the highly orthogonal
and relocatable ISA.
Jim
--
Jim Brain
brain(a)jbrain.com
www.jbrain.com
4:23 p.m.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:
Which I find ironic, because the 6809 uses big endian
notation for code and
vectors, whereas the rest used little endian (and so did the 65XX, not that
anyone here didn't already know that)
Big-endian VS little-endian is a difficult item to get people to agree on.
The answer is not as obvious as it is for VI VS emacs
5:16 p.m.
On 2025-09-19 5:01 p.m., Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:
That said, I wonder if the '09 interest was due to
the highly orthogonal
and relocatable ISA.
Sadly it ended up how cheap could you make a 'BASIC' computer with the
Motorola
chip set, like the Coco or Dragon.
Jim
"Hal Chamberlin's home built HAL-4096 computer system" 1972
always
interested me, but sadly it was too late when I found out about to ever
get the plans.
16 bit computers was more my interest. but single chip CPU's never made
it to Radio Shack (Canada) or JAMES mail order (usa).
Ben.
2:05 p.m.
On 19/09/2025 18:51, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2025-09-19 10:52 a.m., Christian Liendo via cctalk
wrote:
Surely the real impact of the 6502 was in education. So I believe in the
USA lots of schools had Apple II machines , whereas in the UK we had the
BBC Micro. So responsible for introducing many to computing and
programming.
In rather a tenuous way, the BBC might also be considered to be a parent
of most every mobile phone, via the ARM chip. In order to cram the logic
required into the BBC B Sophie Wilson and Steve Furber used an
Uncommitted Logic Array , a chip which was a pre-cursor to the CPLD and
FPGA. It was basically a chip of logic gates where the functionality was
implemented in the "last layer". In order to design this layer Wilson
and Furber wrote a basic program.
.. so when they came to develop the the Archimedes they used High Level
Design languages to design the first ARM chips, the great grandchildren
of are in every mobile phone....
Dave
I think without the 6502 and the consumer
machines based on them, that
wouldn't have happened or it would have taken longer.
Here I think the 6800
had a big impact as the 65xx was to pin and
timing compatible device. With that memory model Apple and others
developed the video cycle on first phase of the clock and ram access
on the second half. Mostek's 4K dram was also a major factor. Two
hardware simplifications over chips using a different bus cycle.
Ben.
3:57 p.m.
Another thing showing contemporary "popularity" of those early processors
is surveys at the homebrew computer clubs. One I came across from Feb
1977 (pre Apple-2 release) had 182 responders.
Of those, 43(IMSAI)+22(Altair)+5(Sol)+5(Poly)+19(other) = 94 are marked as
8080 based, or 51%.
For 6502, there are marked 6(Apple1)+4(KIM1)+9(other) = 19, or about 10%
The rest are a combination of 6800, 1802, Z80, and a few lingering 8008's
systems.
(actually "AMI BOARD", I assume is the American Micro S6800 has a count of
20 -- so that alone actually makes the 6800 "more popular" than even the
6502 at this moment)
It is also noted that about 70% of those 182 systems still had under 16KB
RAM, and only 8% of them had disk drives (of these 182 surveyed).
This is by no means a definitive answer, just a singular insight into one
month at a West coast club in early 1977. But it does suggest the 8080
line was pretty darn popular :)
On the other hand, has the Z80 or 8080 ever had a song written about it??
See song sample entry #4 "Add With Carry" here (The Stop Bits, and of
course the "6502 song"):
https://thestopbits.bandcamp.com/album/return-from-interrupt
Have a good weekend ya'll!
-Steve
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 1:31 PM Christian Liendo via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I agree the 8080 which spawned the 8088 is a huge
impact, however I
think the 6502 and subsequent MOS processors were a huge impact.
Please note, I'm not saying you are incorrect. I just have a different
perspective.
The number of consumer level devices and by consumer I mean not
hobbyist. The number of devices sold with that CPU or a variant was
large and it helped usher in home computing as we know it.
In my opinion PC really didn't do that until later, but in the
beginning you had devices from the VIC-20, Apple II, BBC Micro, etc.
Those machines created a real home market and it was people from that
market who ended up in the industry and created new technologies.
I think without the 6502 and the consumer machines based on them, that
wouldn't have happened or it would have taken longer.
By the way, I found your book and I am going to order it. I have many
books and I will enjoy reading this
https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Research-Guide-Microcomputer-2nd/dp/14116…
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:41 PM Murray McCullough via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
"Unconfirmed stories and unreliable sources" are what mass readership is
about. I'm not saying the MOS 6502 was not important but its impact does
not match the 8080. The very early days the 6502 had its day in the sun!
The INTEL monopoly was well underway solidifying with the 8088 in the PC
World. I wrote a book about the early micro-computing days as an
historian
and do confirm statements I make. I agree Chuck
Guzis was the expert here
and we do truly miss him.
Happy computing,
4:21 p.m.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
Another thing showing contemporary
"popularity" of those early
processors is surveys at the homebrew computer clubs. One I came across
from Feb 1977 (pre Apple-2 release) had 182 responders.
a problem with self-selcting samples is that they tend to be biased
towards emotions rather than market share.
On the other hand, has the Z80 or 8080 ever had a song
written about it??
See song sample entry #4 "Add With Carry" here (The Stop Bits, and of
course the "6502 song"):
https://thestopbits.bandcamp.com/album/return-from-interrupt
Well, no
but on Futurama, once they showed that Bender's processor was 6502
5:06 p.m.
I was one who bought a month by month Altair kit. The 8080 was defective.
I never got a replacement and upgraded to a Z80 board.
Cheers, Enjoy the waning days of summer.
Jim
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 4:46 PM Steve Lewis via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Another thing showing contemporary
"popularity" of those early processors
is surveys at the homebrew computer clubs. One I came across from Feb
1977 (pre Apple-2 release) had 182 responders.
Of those, 43(IMSAI)+22(Altair)+5(Sol)+5(Poly)+19(other) = 94 are marked as
8080 based, or 51%.
For 6502, there are marked 6(Apple1)+4(KIM1)+9(other) = 19, or about 10%
The rest are a combination of 6800, 1802, Z80, and a few lingering 8008's
systems.
(actually "AMI BOARD", I assume is the American Micro S6800 has a count of
20 -- so that alone actually makes the 6800 "more popular" than even the
6502 at this moment)
It is also noted that about 70% of those 182 systems still had under 16KB
RAM, and only 8% of them had disk drives (of these 182 surveyed).
This is by no means a definitive answer, just a singular insight into one
month at a West coast club in early 1977. But it does suggest the 8080
line was pretty darn popular :)
On the other hand, has the Z80 or 8080 ever had a song written about it??
See song sample entry #4 "Add With Carry" here (The Stop Bits, and of
course the "6502 song"):
https://thestopbits.bandcamp.com/album/return-from-interrupt
Have a good weekend ya'll!
-Steve
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 1:31 PM Christian Liendo via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
here
I agree the 8080 which spawned the 8088 is a huge
impact, however I
think the 6502 and subsequent MOS processors were a huge impact.
Please note, I'm not saying you are incorrect. I just have a different
perspective.
The number of consumer level devices and by consumer I mean not
hobbyist. The number of devices sold with that CPU or a variant was
large and it helped usher in home computing as we know it.
In my opinion PC really didn't do that until later, but in the
beginning you had devices from the VIC-20, Apple II, BBC Micro, etc.
Those machines created a real home market and it was people from that
market who ended up in the industry and created new technologies.
I think without the 6502 and the consumer machines based on them, that
wouldn't have happened or it would have taken longer.
By the way, I found your book and I am going to order it. I have many
books and I will enjoy reading this
https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Research-Guide-Microcomputer-2nd/dp/14116…
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:41 PM Murray McCullough via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> "Unconfirmed stories and unreliable sources" are what mass readership
is
> about. I'm not saying the MOS 6502 was
not important but its impact
does
> not match the 8080. The very early days the
6502 had its day in the
sun!
> The INTEL monopoly was well underway
solidifying with the 8088 in the
PC
World. I
wrote a book about the early micro-computing days as an
historian
> and do confirm statements I make. I agree Chuck Guzis was the expert
and we do
truly miss him.
Happy computing,
22 Sep
22 Sep
4:13 a.m.
On 18/09/2025 02:41, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Chuck Guzis would have been able to tell us which of
the stories had
validity.
We miss him.
Oh no! I have not been keeping up with ClassicCmp and I missed the news.
Very, very sorry to hear this.
I'd exchanged some private mails with him earlier this year and I knew
he was seriously ill, but no details. Much more seriously than he gave
away, then.
Ave, atque, vale.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
<https://about.me/liamproven> ~ LinkedIn/X/FB: lproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk <mailto:lproven@cix.co.uk> ~ Google:
lproven(a)gmail.com <mailto:lproven@gmail.com>
IoM: (+44) 7624 227612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
17 Sep
17 Sep
8:19 p.m.
Mentioning the MAI JOLT, the first 6502 SBC computer advertised in Byte
(Dec 75), very similar to the soon to follow KIM. And in my area
(Philadelphia) another very early 6502 was the DATAC 1000 produced in part
by the Philadelphia Area Computer Society members from Drexel U. It looked
similar to the Apple I and had switches, not sure exactly when the DATAC
1000 was first produced, but I believe it was sold or demoed in some form
at the PC76 convention in Atlantic City NJ or maybe even the Trenton
Computer Festival in spring of 1976.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:37 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Debatable??
Unconfirmed stories from the usual unreliable sources (Infoworld, etc.):
(find confirmation before sticking your neck out)
Steve Wozniak was going to build his own computer. That was a given.
Likely 8080, because Z80 was EXPENSIVE.
Like a good engineer, he went to WESCON.
There, he saw the 6502, and realized that it would be adequate, and save
much money. Some stories even say that he got some free samples!
(no free samples of Z80, or even 8080)
Because of that, the Apple 1 was a 6502 machine. Its success also helped
Atari and Commodore to decide that 6502 would be good, or at least
adequate.
Impact? enormous. And Intel's market share went from predicted to be
approaching monopoly, to quite healthy.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
As far as I know this is true. What impact is had
is debatable!
Murray 🙂
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 1:11 PM Christian Liendo via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/the-mos-6502-how-a-25-chip-sparked-a-…
>>
>> According to many 50 years ago on September 16, 1975, MOS Technology
>> showed the 6502 at WESCON
>>
19 Sep
19 Sep
8:23 a.m.
I'll confess, I wasn't even born in 1975 :) But from what I've read...
Chuck Peddle had come up with some kind of manufacturing method that let
them mass produce enough 6502, where the initial price they offered was
about $25 for a chip. I don't know enough about all the intricacies of
those methods (and how they compared to Motorola and others existing
processes) - though I do know the 6502 was also very trimmed of features
(which made me wonder if the lesser-price was just better yields due to
just an overall simpler chip?). I didn't get the impression the Z80 was
"expensive" - contemporary prices that I found placed the Z80 at something
like $60 (or at least, under $100) and an 8080 at over $300? (but it's
hard to pinpoint individual price vs bulk order, and normalize across those
critical years of 1974-1977).
Apologies if this is all covered in your book.
It's interesting to me reading the two arcs of minicomputers and the micros
sort of eventually converging. You had minicomputers used to make Star
Wars and solve huge real-world problems, while micros clawed their way up
out of calculators. Note, there is the claim of Elon Musk and Linus
Torvald starting their computer careers using a VIC-20 (6502-based).
At Lockheed (then GD), when the F-16 was first being developed, I'm told
they used Commodore PET's to do initial aerodynamics modeling because it's
BASIC had floating point support. Obviously, that's not unique to the 6502
- but the point was they chose PET because they were so relatively
affordable and easy to use for the math-folks to figure out and simulate
their equations. (maybe the "all-in-one" ness of the PET was a factor too,
from a material purchase standpoint, I recall that being a factor whereby
they got around calling it a computer? )
-Steve
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:11 PM Murray McCullough via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
As far as I know this is true. What impact is had is
debatable!
Murray 🙂
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 1:11 PM Christian Liendo via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/the-mos-6502-how-a-25-chip-sparked-a-…
According to many 50 years ago on September 16, 1975, MOS Technology
showed the 6502 at WESCON
8:55 a.m.
Oh, to add: the Altair 8800 was artificially cheap because they got a bulk
discount on a set of 8080. Not just 10-20%, but something like 60-80%. So
the cheap $469 (thereabouts) kit was a little deceptive - it was only until
that bulk set of 8080's ran out (and note that MITS didn't last very long,
only about a year or two -- overwhelmed by IMSAI competition, and sure
other factors also). Just saying, the "cheap Altair 8800 kit" price may
have given an early impression that the 8080 was cheap. Whatever the bulk
deal was, it wasn't something that was sustainable. (I can't find my
notes on it, but it runs in my mind that bulk order was in the
low-thousands, not tens of thousands)
SWPTC around 1976 had a famous t-shirt written that the "Altair Sucks" -
since they acknowledged that to actually make it useful (teletype + disk
drive + video adapter) you'd still be up to over $3000-ish bucks.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 10:23 AM Steve Lewis <lewissa78(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'll confess, I wasn't even born in 1975 :)
But from what I've read...
Chuck Peddle had come up with some kind of manufacturing method that let
them mass produce enough 6502, where the initial price they offered was
about $25 for a chip. I don't know enough about all the intricacies of
those methods (and how they compared to Motorola and others existing
processes) - though I do know the 6502 was also very trimmed of features
(which made me wonder if the lesser-price was just better yields due to
just an overall simpler chip?). I didn't get the impression the Z80 was
"expensive" - contemporary prices that I found placed the Z80 at something
like $60 (or at least, under $100) and an 8080 at over $300? (but it's
hard to pinpoint individual price vs bulk order, and normalize across those
critical years of 1974-1977).
Apologies if this is all covered in your book.
It's interesting to me reading the two arcs of minicomputers and the
micros sort of eventually converging. You had minicomputers used to make
Star Wars and solve huge real-world problems, while micros clawed their way
up out of calculators. Note, there is the claim of Elon Musk and Linus
Torvald starting their computer careers using a VIC-20 (6502-based).
At Lockheed (then GD), when the F-16 was first being developed, I'm told
they used Commodore PET's to do initial aerodynamics modeling because it's
BASIC had floating point support. Obviously, that's not unique to the 6502
- but the point was they chose PET because they were so relatively
affordable and easy to use for the math-folks to figure out and simulate
their equations. (maybe the "all-in-one" ness of the PET was a factor too,
from a material purchase standpoint, I recall that being a factor whereby
they got around calling it a computer? )
-Steve
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:11 PM Murray McCullough via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
As far as I know this is true. What impact is had
is debatable!
Murray 🙂
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 1:11 PM Christian Liendo via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/the-mos-6502-how-a-25-chip-sparked-a-…
According to many 50 years ago on September 16, 1975, MOS Technology
showed the 6502 at WESCON
1:09 p.m.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
just an overall simpler chip?). I didn't get the
impression the Z80 was
"expensive" - contemporary prices that I found placed the Z80 at something
like $60 (or at least, under $100) and an 8080 at over $300? (but it's
hard to pinpoint individual price vs bulk order, and normalize across those
critical years of 1974-1977).
Also prices were volatile; announced at one price, and then up or down on
demand
At Lockheed (then GD), when the F-16 was first being
developed, I'm told
they used Commodore PET's to do initial aerodynamics modeling because it's
BASIC had floating point support. Obviously, that's not unique to the 6502
As did TRS80 ("Level 2 BASIC") where all numbers were single precision
floating point by default!
also AppleSoft, and many/most? of the other Microsoft BASICs.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
1:44 p.m.
On Sep 19, 2025, at 3:09 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
The timeline for the story about the F-16 & PET according to Wikipedia:
20 Jan 1974: First flight of YF-16
Jan 1977: Commodore PET debuted at CES.
—Milo
just an overall simpler chip?). I didn't
get the impression the Z80 was
"expensive" - contemporary prices that I found placed the Z80 at something
like $60 (or at least, under $100) and an 8080 at over $300? (but it's
hard to pinpoint individual price vs bulk order, and normalize across those
critical years of 1974-1977).
Also prices were volatile; announced at one price, and then up or down on demand
At Lockheed (then GD), when the F-16 was first
being developed, I'm told
they used Commodore PET's to do initial aerodynamics modeling because it's
BASIC had floating point support. Obviously, that's not unique to the 6502
As did TRS80 ("Level 2 BASIC") where all numbers were single precision floating
point by default!
also AppleSoft, and many/most? of the other Microsoft BASICs.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
2:36 p.m.
Yep, Mike Ellis was the coworker that shared the story and photos with me
(of the PETs they had acquired for the Aero division) c. 1978. YF's are
prototypes and they can fly without any combat software, then there are
Block upgrades done over subsequent years. He's long retired now, but I
may still be able to reach him. But to me the point was instead of a
$7000 single row HP, one could now get a full screen "Transactor" for
1/10th that cost.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 3:45 PM Milo Velimirović <milovelimirovic(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
on demand
On Sep 19, 2025, at 3:09 PM, Fred Cisin via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
> just an overall simpler chip?). I didn't get the impression the Z80
was
> "expensive" - contemporary prices
that I found placed the Z80 at
something
> like $60 (or at least, under $100) and an
8080 at over $300? (but it's
> hard to pinpoint individual price vs bulk order, and normalize across
those
critical
years of 1974-1977).
Also prices were volatile; announced at one price, and then up or down
> At Lockheed (then GD), when the F-16 was first being developed, I'm told
> they used Commodore PET's to do initial aerodynamics modeling because
it's
> BASIC had floating point support. Obviously,
that's not unique to the
6502
As did TRS80 ("Level 2 BASIC") where all numbers were single precision
floating point by default!
also AppleSoft, and many/most? of the other
Microsoft BASICs.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
The timeline for the story about the F-16 & PET according to Wikipedia:
20 Jan 1974: First flight of YF-16
Jan 1977: Commodore PET debuted at CES.
—Milo
3:09 p.m.
On 2025-09-19 2:09 p.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Also prices were volatile; announced at one price, and
then up or down
on demand
I thought the same was for most chips of that era, here today, gone
tomorrow,
shipping some random day every other week.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
Ben.
3:43 p.m.
Something that I could never understand, . . .
USA decided that Japanese were "dumping" chips (selling below cost to grab
market share)
So USA put a punitive tarriff on handheld power tools and LCD screens.
(NOT on the productsbeing "dumped")
USA manufacturers could no longer get good prices to get LCD screens for
their products.
Somebody (who must remain nameless, due to proximity of quote) said that
Steve Jobs had goals of USA surviving Japan, and Apple surviving IBM.
Jerry Pournelle asked how we could get Mercedes to start dumping.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, ben via cctalk wrote:
> On 2025-09-19 2:09 p.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>
>> Also prices were volatile; announced at one price, and then up or down on
>> demand
>
> I thought the same was for most chips of that era, here today, gone tomorrow,
> shipping some random day every other week.
>
>> --
>> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
> Ben.
20 Sep
20 Sep
11:33 a.m.
Only project I did for the 6502 was a multitasking forth with voice synth
for a communications system.
It felt strange after Z80 and PDP-11, but at least it was bare metal and I
owned zero page.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Something that I could never understand, . . .
USA decided that Japanese were "dumping" chips (selling below cost to grab
market share)
So USA put a punitive tarriff on handheld power tools and LCD screens.
(NOT on the productsbeing "dumped")
USA manufacturers could no longer get good prices to get LCD screens for
their products.
Somebody (who must remain nameless, due to proximity of quote) said that
Steve Jobs had goals of USA surviving Japan, and Apple surviving IBM.
Jerry Pournelle asked how we could get Mercedes to start dumping.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, ben via cctalk wrote:
tomorrow,
> shipping some random day every other week.
>
>> --
>> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
> Ben.
On 2025-09-19 2:09 p.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> Also prices were volatile; announced at one price, and then up or down
on
demand
I thought the same was for most chips of that era, here today, gone
12
days inactive
17
days old
30 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
ben -
Bill Degnan -
Christian Liendo -
David Wade -
Doc Shipley -
Frank Ventura -
Fred Cisin -
Jim Brain -
Jim Davis -
Liam Proven -
Milo Velimirović -
Murray McCullough -
Peter Corlett -
Steve Lewis