234:
contributing to the ISA, with “a focus on logic design and minimization”, whereas Mensch had a predilection for low-level details. Mensch determined the design rules, ran circuit simulations on portions of the chip — limited to around 100 components at a time with the computation facilities available to MOS Technology in 1975 — and designed in the two-phase clock generator that would become the distinguishing factor between the 6501 and the 6502. (The 6501 and 6502 shared all masks except for the metal layer, which had two slightly different versions: the 6501 left the two-phase clock generator disconnected so that it was pin-compatible with the
Motorola 6800, whereas the 6502 connected the clock generator circuitry, breaking pin-compatibility. In 1976, MOS Technology agreed to cease production of the 6501 as a condition of a legal settlement with Motorola.)
230:
depletion loads (low-level circuit design). Peddle, Orgill, Mathys, and Mensch worked out the register structure and other sections of the high-level design, with Mathys translating a sequence of data transfers for each instruction into state diagrams and logic equations. Mensch and Orgill completed the translation of the register-centric design from logic equations into a circuit schematic (technically known as the “650X-C Microprocessor Logic
Diagram”) of the NMOS transistors and depletion loads, annotated with dimensions, while Wil Mathys worked on verifying the logic.
22:
71:
53:
225:
For the most part, design of the 6502 was paper-and-pencil, with some computer-assisted aspects of layout. Peddle was project leader, and focused on the business aspects; he also worked on the instruction set architecture — basically the abstract programmer’s model of how the chip worked, including
233:
Mensch describes Orgill and himself as “semiconductor engineers”, responsible for reducing logic equations to transistor-level implementation in an IC to ensure that it meets speed, size, interface compatibility, and power specifications. Orgill’s specialization was on the high-level architecture,
137:
in the template heading, since WDC is a major (the only?) developer of significant improvements to the 65xx CPU range, and still manufacturing processors and microcontrollers (mostly the latter) with the 65xx architecture. I also moved the 65802 and 816 items to the end, since those are 1) 16-bit,
229:
To reduce this to a working circuit design, the 6502 team had to come up with a digital design of instruction decoders, arithmetic/logic unit (ALU), registers and data paths (high-level register-centric design) that could be implemented using individual gates made out of the NMOS transistors and
190:
I don't take any of this personally (I hope you don't take it as a personal insult or anything that I nominated your template for deletion; you've done some good work on the MOS chip pages). Hopefully we can work out something that is mutually agreeable and looks good.
201:
No problemo, I generally appreciate sincere efforts to improve the coverage of fields of common interest. Let's see what people think/vote, and consider making changes to the template design if necessary.
306:
311:
95:
245:
mentions Dave DiOrio as chip design lead on the C128 (8502). Ask Al
Charpentier and Bil Herd while they're still alive and lucid....
78:
58:
217:
Rod Orgill belongs in this list, and probably Will Mathys as well, for the 6502, for their contributions to the 6501/6502 ISA. See
316:
33:
39:
192:
152:
91:
134:
94:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
164:
You're welcome. But I guess it remains to be seen how thankful you'll be for my vote in the pending
263:
278:
I'm not sure if there's a policy justification for this. If we can establish notability and get a
248:
141:
To better the look of the template I'll try and make similarly-sized versions of the two logos. --
267:
252:
168:... BTW, the fixing of similarly-sized logos goes for the 65xx processors template as well. --
279:
165:
287:
218:
271:
300:
203:
169:
142:
70:
52:
186:
Re: the TFD vote mentioned in
Wernher's 13 Dec comment in the previous thread:
283:
87:
276:
Add only 65xx family processor designers who have
Knowledge (XXG) articles.
291:
256:
206:
195:
172:
155:
145:
83:
282:
created for Orgill, that would detour needing to figure that out. ~
274:
enough to eventually have one. There's a comment in the template:
270:
does not have a
Knowledge (XXG) article and it is not clear he is
219:
Development of the MOS Technology 6502: A Historical
Perspective
15:
242:
151:
That's fine by me. Thanks for your efforts in this matter.
82:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
223:
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
226:the various opcodes — with Orgill and Mathys.
241:For the 6510 and 8502, it might be others...
8:
129:Why WDC should be mentioned in this template
47:
138:and 2) the latest models in the range.
133:I included the logo of, and a link to,
49:
238:(see also footnotes in this article)
104:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computing
76:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
307:Template-Class Computing articles
312:NA-importance Computing articles
69:
51:
20:
262:Orgill is already credited in
107:Template:WikiProject Computing
1:
292:15:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
257:14:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
207:01:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
196:04:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
173:03:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
156:00:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
146:23:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
98:and see a list of open tasks.
333:
64:
46:
243:http://c128.com/about-us
181:Which template(s) to use
317:All Computing articles
236:
92:information technology
79:WikiProject Computing
264:MOS Technology 6502
110:Computing articles
34:content assessment
193:Crotalus horridus
153:Crotalus horridus
126:
125:
122:
121:
118:
117:
324:
112:
111:
108:
105:
102:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
332:
331:
327:
326:
325:
323:
322:
321:
297:
296:
215:
183:
131:
109:
106:
103:
100:
99:
12:
11:
5:
330:
328:
320:
319:
314:
309:
299:
298:
295:
294:
214:
211:
210:
209:
182:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
159:
158:
130:
127:
124:
123:
120:
119:
116:
115:
113:
96:the discussion
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
329:
318:
315:
313:
310:
308:
305:
304:
302:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
244:
239:
235:
231:
227:
222:
220:
212:
208:
205:
200:
199:
198:
197:
194:
188:
187:
180:
174:
171:
167:
163:
162:
161:
160:
157:
154:
150:
149:
148:
147:
144:
139:
136:
128:
114:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
275:
247:
240:
237:
232:
228:
224:
216:
189:
185:
184:
140:
132:
77:
40:WikiProjects
29:
301:Categories
268:Rod Orgill
213:Designers
101:Computing
88:computing
84:computers
59:Computing
166:TFD case
30:template
280:WP:STUB
272:notable
249:Arghman
204:Wernher
170:Wernher
143:Wernher
90:, and
36:scale.
28:This
288:talk
284:Kvng
253:talk
135:WDC
303::
290:)
266:.
255:)
221::
202:--
86:,
286:(
251:(
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
