Talk:MOS Technology 6502/Archives/2018
 | This is an archive of past discussions about MOS Technology 6502. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Photo of 6800 board
Hi. Why is there a photo of a 6800 demonstration board? Although some of the same engineers designed both, I don't think it's relevant and it should be removed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- You mean the “Motorola 6800 demonstration board built by Chuck Peddle” in the “Origins at Motorola” section. This shows that Chuck Peddle was very familiar with the 6800 processor while he worked at Motorola. There was a bit of a dust up about Chuck copying the 6800 design. The board is notable and is on display at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, but why is it in the MOS (not Motorola) 6502 (not 6800) article? The same engineer designed the Pontiac GTO and the Chevy Vega, but the Vega article doesn't have a picture of the GTO. Jeh (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- The GTO engineers did not take General Motors documents to a new company to design a lookalike car. Chuck Paddle actually built this prototype board. It shows the background experience in microprocessors of one on the 6502 designers. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that's sufficient reason. Articles should be about their subjects. The subject here is the 6502, not the 6800. Chuck Peddle is a subtopic within this article it but this demo board shows his work on a different project for another company. Per the 6800 article, he didn't design the 6800 architecture; his role in the 6502 project was different. Nobody is saying the board isn't notable or isn't worth a picture, only that its picture doesn't really add to the presentation of facts in this article. I agree that the demo board has some relationship to the 6502, but that relationship is too tenuous to support the picture being here. Why isn't there a picture of an early demo board for the 6502? Or maybe of the justly famous KIM-1? Conversely, why isn't this picture in the 6800 article? Jeh (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Apple I has jumpers to select 6502 or 6800, the pinouts are very close. I suspect other boards were designed to work for either chip. Gah4 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that's sufficient reason. Articles should be about their subjects. The subject here is the 6502, not the 6800. Chuck Peddle is a subtopic within this article it but this demo board shows his work on a different project for another company. Per the 6800 article, he didn't design the 6800 architecture; his role in the 6502 project was different. Nobody is saying the board isn't notable or isn't worth a picture, only that its picture doesn't really add to the presentation of facts in this article. I agree that the demo board has some relationship to the 6502, but that relationship is too tenuous to support the picture being here. Why isn't there a picture of an early demo board for the 6502? Or maybe of the justly famous KIM-1? Conversely, why isn't this picture in the 6800 article? Jeh (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The GTO engineers did not take General Motors documents to a new company to design a lookalike car. Chuck Paddle actually built this prototype board. It shows the background experience in microprocessors of one on the 6502 designers. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, but why is it in the MOS (not Motorola) 6502 (not 6800) article? The same engineer designed the Pontiac GTO and the Chevy Vega, but the Vega article doesn't have a picture of the GTO. Jeh (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)