[Coco] Artifacting on LCD?

[jdaggett at gate.net]

John

The MC68486/7 were designed to work with the MC68K series of processors as well the 
MC6809. It was touted to work with both 15 and 6 bit databuss processors. That would 
include the MC68008 processor. In that aspect it was backwards compatible with the 
MC6809. I don't think that Motorola ever released that chip set and if they did it was not for 
long

Yep that all changed when the HCMOS proccessors came out. HC11 and HC05 lines ended 
up using three digits to denote EPROM/FLASH instead of mask ROM. The the trailing 
letters and numbers for the various flavors. 

I worked 23 yrs in Paging Products Division, and about five or six other names were were 
called back then, and we used a lot of HC05 and HC11 varieties. 

james

On 8 Apr 2009 at 22:27, LinuxRules wrote:

> Mike Pepe wrote:
> > Oh, and let's not forget the 68486/68487 SAM/VDG replacements- that
> > would have been a fixed VDG as well.
> >
> > Too bad I lost the datasheets for those, I would be curious to
> > remember how they were structured and what features they would have
> > given us if they had actually been produced.
> >
> > Maybe John knows :)
> >   
> No, I've never heard of those chip numbers.
> In fact, they strike me as odd. Once the 68k was in production,
> management decreed that 5 digit numbers (68xxx) would be reserved for
> 16-32 bit chips and 8bit chips would be 4 digit numbers. (all changed
> with the CMOS MCUs.). At the time of the 68K introduction, IIRC the
> only 8bit chip with a 5 digit number was the 68488 (GPIB controller).
> If '486 and '487 numbers were assigned after the 68K, I would expect
> them to be 16-32 bit chips. If assigned before the 68K, I never heard
> a peep about them. Odd, but not impossible, that I wouldn't
> have...........
> 
> 
> cheers,
> johnd
> JohnDumas at austin.rr.com
> 
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco