Re: ...thoughts on Retro-uC?

From: Francesco Messineo <francesco.messineo_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:53:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAESs-_yqrWq8VZzNkD2E_WJJQo-YDbZidgnppTVDTuSXrek=_g@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:43 AM Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud)
<ruud.baltissen@apg.nl> 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
Received on 2018-09-13 08:01:32

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.