[Coco] 68B09E on coco2

[Arthur Flexser]

The chip should definitely work, just not give any particular advantage
over the slower version in that machine.  If the original 6809 works okay,
I'd see no reason to reorder, unless you want to just have a spare around.

Art

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 2:44 AM, embsys dev <embsysdev at gmail.com> wrote:

> After reading this
>
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~yakowenk/coco/text/speed.html
>
> I understand what is technically possible, what is useful, and the
> underlying reasons why.
>
> Can anybody confirm that a *genuine* MC68B09E *should* boot a coco2 at
> 0.89M?  If that is so, then it seems reasonable to conclude my chip is
> mislabeled and order another from somewhere else.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Arthur Flexser <flexser at fiu.edu> wrote:
>
> > I know of no advantage to using a 68B09E in a CoCo 1 or 2.  It does not
> > allow "stable operation at 1.7 MHz".  The video at that speed will be
> just
> > as unstable as with a regular 6809.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:11 AM, embsys dev <embsysdev at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > coco2, 26-3026 (socketed chips, melted kbd), 64k ram.
> > >
> > > I recently bought an MC68B09E from Jameco, but when I swapped it in
> all I
> > > got was interesting colors and patterns, no sign on.  I understood
> > (perhaps
> > > wrongly?) this was a drop-in upgrade that would allow stable operation
> at
> > > 1.7MHz.  I noticed some list discussion about Jameco having mislabeled
> > > chips,  any way to rule this in/out by inspection?
> > >
> > > Comments and advice?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Darryl
> > >
> > > --
> > > Coco mailing list
> > > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > > https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> >
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>