On 03/08/2016 01:36, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > The whole doc is about VIC-II, so no, I don't think so. Not that this > doc explains where it got that information. My guess is that they mistook the VIC-I and VIC-II. It was common back in the day to talk about the VIC chip in the c64. Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2016-08-03 07:00:02
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.