timswift "Better" is open to a wide set of interpretations.
The Z80 was had more CPU functions than the MOS Tech 6502 although the 6502 enjoyed more success at the time because of Apple, Acorn, and Atari (400, 800) usage. The 6509 and 6510 were quite successful as part of the Commodore CBM and 64 computers respectively. One wonders why MOS Tech did not conquer more of the world. Probably set back significantly when IBM went with the Intel 8088.
DAB - At Datapoint Corp in the early 1980s, we used a 6MHz version ("Z80B") on the Datapoint model "2200" small business computer. I don't think that Zilog sold significant numbers of the "Z80H" which ran at the "break-neck" speed of 8MHz - maybe in the Bally game center machines?
Back in my Assembly Language programming days, my favorites were definitely the Z80 and the Intel UARTs and USARTs.
timswift "Better" is open to a wide set of interpretations.
The Z80 was had more CPU functions than the MOS Tech 6502 although the 6502 enjoyed more success at the time because of Apple, Acorn, and Atari (400, 800) usage. The 6509 and 6510 were quite successful as part of the Commodore CBM and 64 computers respectively. One wonders why MOS Tech did not conquer more of the world. Probably set back significantly when IBM went with the Intel 8088.
DAB - At Datapoint Corp in the early 1980s, we used a 6MHz version ("Z80B") on the Datapoint model "2200" small business computer. I don't think that Zilog sold significant numbers of the "Z80H" which ran at the "break-neck" speed of 8MHz - maybe in the Bally game center machines?
Back in my Assembly Language programming days, my favorites were definitely the Z80 and the Intel UARTs and USARTs.
Top Comments
-
Former Member
-
Cancel
-
Vote Up
+4
Vote Down
-
-
Sign in to reply
-
More
-
Cancel
Comment-
Former Member
-
Cancel
-
Vote Up
+4
Vote Down
-
-
Sign in to reply
-
More
-
Cancel
Children