The 6502 is so primitive that it runs on an Atari equipped with 128 bytes of RAM.<p>Yes, 128 bytes. Used for code, data, video, and everything else.<p>(But it can address 64 KB)<p>It is so primitive that it is unable to multiply integers. If you want to multiply, you have to write your own algorithm.
<a href="https://codeberg.org/TechPaula/LT6502b" rel="nofollow">https://codeberg.org/TechPaula/LT6502b</a><p>Specs:<p>* 65C02 running at 10MHz<p>* 46KByte of user RAM<p>* EhBASIC 22p2 with custom extensions<p>* eWOZMON<p>* Compact Flash for storage<p>* Built in battery (7400mAh currently)<p>* USB-PD Rechargable<p>* 10.1" Screen with 1024x600 and 256 colours<p>* WiFi Modem (based on this - <a href="https://github.com/dhansel/WifiModem" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/dhansel/WifiModem</a>)<p>* nanoSwinSID for sound (as well as beeps)
I'm trying to figure out the video part, there is a demo screen that is showing pretty high res in color, and this says 1024x600 and 256 colours- that is mighty impressive for a 6502, that is driving way more pixels that I ever saw in that era, so I was expecting there was some other chip being used as a screen buffer and graphics chip...<p>but it looks like the LCD has to be bit banged by the CPU data bus directly? I see the 8 bit data bus is going straight to the LCD thru a buffer IC.<p>I don't see where in the memory map there would even be enough space for a screen buffer that large to be located, so I take it you have to write you own graphics handling yourself and pick a spot in memory for it all?
I wondered the same thing, and it looks like it uses this CMOS-compatible high level TFT driver: <a href="https://www.raio.com.tw/en/RA8889.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.raio.com.tw/en/RA8889.html</a> with a character generator, geometry primitives, etc.
Interesting spec. Why go for 48K of RAM and not at least 64K (the full address space without paging)?<p>Back in the day 48K got used as a way of binning in the ZX Spectrum (Z80 based) to make use of cheap "bad" memory. Surely RAM prices aren't that crazy now? :P
"Let's see if it looks cool. It's very important that it looks cool!"<p>Turns out it looks awesome. I wasn't expecting such a striking design.
Very interesting project. It'd be nice to see video of it in action and what use cases the author had in mind. A pic in a different post shows the 48k ram chip, and not far away is an SD card of 1 <i>gigabyte</i> - that's a dramatic contrast. The storage can hold the contents of ram 21,845 times over. If an 8GB laptop today had the equivalent storage, it would be a disk of 174TB.<p>Browsing by tag 'lt6502b' gives other posts that have pictures of the motherboard. <a href="https://www.maddox.pro/?cat=65" rel="nofollow">https://www.maddox.pro/?cat=65</a> (update: the codeberg link has all the relevant pics)
In the retro world we’ve already had the incongruent “64k RAM vs 8GB Storage” conundrum to deal with for decades.<p>My Oric Atmos with LOCI rig has every bit of software every developed for the Oric, ever, stored on its 8GB USB stick and literally has ~8GB left in storage. It used space is more like a rounding error at this point.<p>I hope that changes, though! ;)<p>Old computers never die - their users do!<p>Paula’s intention, I believe, is to make computing approachable again - her many, many synthesizer designs encode a form of nostalgic whimsy for older technology, and she produced a full-scale CPU project using only logic chips for the purposes of education - and as I know she is a huge UFO (TV Series) fan, she’s got a fair bit of creative potential being applied to the alt-computing track of things.<p>As a retro- nerd myself, I hope to see her laptop in action in real life some day. Would be awesome to see an Oric-1/Atmos ROM for it ..
<i>A pic in a different post shows the 48k ram chip, and not far away is an SD card of 1 gigabyte - that's a dramatic contrast</i><p>Incidentally, cheap MP3/MP4 players in the last decade had a few hundred KB of RAM, an 8-bit CPU at a few dozen MHz, and a few GB of NAND flash: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1_MP3_player" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1_MP3_player</a>
The 6502 can't actually address more than that. The flash controller built into modern SD cards are also going to be significantly more powerful than the 6502. And I'm surprised you can even buy SD cards that small still!
> The 6502 can't actually address more than that.<p>Unless you use bank switching, which historically a lot of 6502 machines did use (e.g. Apple III/IIe/IIc, BBC Master 128, Commodore 128, Commodore CBM-II, etc)
Bank switching is how nearly all the major computers and consoles managed to address larger than 64k carts and memory.<p>The C64 actually had 64K of ram, 4k of devices (graphics, sound etc) and 16K of ROM.
That's a CompactFlash card. You often see them used in places where an IDE drive would have been.
While not "portable" in the common modern sense, we also had:<p>Apple IIc (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIc" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIc</a>)<p>and it's younger and final brother Apple IIc Plus (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIc_Plus" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIc_Plus</a>)
Well, there was the Commodore SX 64. Not exactly lap sized but portable for sure.<p><a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_SX-64" rel="nofollow">https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_SX-64</a>
Of course, is's great for executive poolside work, see also <a href="https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_uk/photo/c/commodore-/commodore-sx-64-1984_drz6.1024.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_uk/photo/c/commodore-/commodore...</a>
Not much later there was the Radio Shack Model 100, and a bit after that the Gateway portables, and of course, eventually the NEC Ultralite and eventually the Sharp PC-6220 (which was available under two other brands as well).<p>Also, for those with deep pockets there were the GRiD laptops....
It weighed 23 pounds. It was approximately as portable as a tower PC. You <i>could</i> schlep one around, but it'd get heavy after a while.
Beat the heck out of dragging a 1702, a 1541 and a C64 around, though. I have three and they made regular trips to vintage fests because they were easy to set up. They can easily be connected to more drives or a bigger screen. Their only major drawback, and this is a big one, is that you can fry the SID if you plug in the external monitor with the power on. I did that once to my horror, and so have others.
What an interesting layout for a mobile site. It had the archive and a bunch of other stuff before the post. I thought OP linked something wrong.
There's gotta be some reason she's not using a 65c816 but I can't think of one
Many of the cheap "educational toy laptops" which were somewhat common before "real" ones took over, also used a 6502-based SoC: <a href="https://github.com/davidgiven/vtech6502" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/davidgiven/vtech6502</a><p>The Z80 has likewise experienced the same use: <a href="https://hackaday.io/project/166921-v-tech-genius-leader-precomputer-hacking" rel="nofollow">https://hackaday.io/project/166921-v-tech-genius-leader-prec...</a>
This is a cool project. The AI banner looks awful.
"Getting it to at least run BASIC" is a common theme with DIY enthusiasts. Why is that?
It's traditional:) The original machines with simpler hardware <i>largely</i> converged to BASIC, so it's a nice benchmark for "is this a Real Computer™"
A lot of machines based on this CPU booted a ROM that ran a BASIC. It seems more of a challenge than running a Forth.
A 6502 is capable of most actual workloads people have, whose profiles actually haven’t changed much. Almost all of our compute goes to GUI and rendering stacks that decorate our actual work.
My first job was writing barcode printing software for the Apple II. One of my last jobs 42 years later was also related to printing barcodes.<p>It sometimes seems that all we have done over that period is add layers and layers of complexity.
The superpower of the PC over the previous generation was an order of magnitude more memory.<p>The machine itself was not necessarily faster, but the extra memory was a real game changer.<p>Even segmented like on the 8086 was a better solution than the banking options on 8 bit hardware. The ‘86 segment registers were much more flexible.<p>Long term, 640k may not have been enough, but in a text based environment, 640k is just so much more from both a data and code aspect to be really empowering.<p>256k and Lotus 1-2-3 was much more capable than anything an Apple could do. Having much more room for more capable code aspect as well as richer and more data.<p>You could do gymnastics with code overlays and data paging, but that was hard software to write and just painfully slow.<p>Extra memory just made things that much better.
Are segments really more flexible? I wrote some 8086 assembly back in the day, and they are a pain in the ass to work with. Code that spans segments has exactly the same problems bank switched systems have. I think the main benefit of segments is that only the CPU needs to worry about the segments, whereas with (most if not all?) bank switched systems, the whole computer sees banks being switched, which is a problem for DMA.
I favor simpler machines, but that seems a bit of a stretch. Most people would like to communicate over the internet without every intermediate hop seeing their traffic (so, their emails, their chats, their credit card number, ...), therefore they want TLS which I don't <i>think</i> is practical on a 6502? To say nothing of watching videos and listening to music.
I'd compare to a z80 with 64k of memory, which would be enough to run CP/M. That wouldn't allow TLS, or music playback, but it would allow wordperfect, turbo pascal, a bunch of old C-compilers, and a spreadsheet or two.<p>I don't think anybody would use such a machine full-time, but with a radio and a cabin it would suffice for offline work.<p>Of course there's no native CP/M for the 6502, but remakes have been made..
That's not entirely true. A quick search turned up a few projects, e.g. this one:
<a href="https://github.com/davidgiven/cpm65" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/davidgiven/cpm65</a>
(it's a port, so I would consider that to be 'native' rather than a 'remake')
>or music playback<p>We had record players for that, and Walkmans for when we were out and about.
> I don't think anybody would use such a machine full-time, but with a radio and a cabin it would suffice for offline work.<p>As late as 1997 I was repairing Amstrad PCWs that were still in Real Live Active Service on oil platforms.<p>And then after that, I was reading those funny 3" disks in and converting them to WordPerfect.<p>And then from WordPerfect to Word, a little later.<p>Be the guy selling shovels I guess.
Those people you speak of, how big are their numbers all in all you think? And is that a subgroup of a subgroup?<p>Because most people I know certainly have different workloads and need their rendering as part of the work, not to decorate it nicely.<p>But for keeping a distraction free digital diary, it might be a nice device.
Zoom calls?<p>Maybe Bullshit Jobs was onto something, it seems that my entire work day consists of work decoration.
Here is what I get confused about...<p>Surely a laptop prototype based on such a tested and well-worn CPU with 48K of RAM would be cool, but shouldn't it sip power? Like shouldn't it last for like months on a charge? Or am I revealing my very meager and outdated understanding of engineering with only a bachelor in computer science from like 2004?
It's gotta be integrated together (and possibly be at a smaller process size) before you get all the power savings. If you have a real 6502, it has no internal RAM or cache, and you need to send power back and forth to the RAM chips. (I presume it's SRAM, but it could also be PSRAM)<p>If you ran a 6502 emulator on a cheap ARM SOC, it would be much lower power.
There used to be small IBM PC compatible "palmtop" computers capable of running for many days on a pair of AA batteries. HP 200LX was pretty cool. I think it had 80C186 running at 10 MHz or thereabouts, with 1MB of RAM, monochrome graphic LCD and PCMCIA cards for storage. Norton Commander and Turbo C run on it without any problems.
The display also takes power, quite a lot actually - 2-5W
When I saw the domain name, I thought this might be:<p><a href="https://basharchive.org/#s/Maddox" rel="nofollow">https://basharchive.org/#s/Maddox</a>
It’s Paula Maddox, who has for decades now done all kinds of wild and wonderful projects - she is a synthesizer designer, her works resulted in the Modal Electronics company and its line of synths, prior to that she had her own cottage synth product line. She also designed a full-scale working CPU out of chips, an excellent education project.<p>(Disclaimer: I’m a huge fan of her work, still get one of the original Monowave prototypes in my rack, I delight in seeing her projects come to fruition)
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
It’s not a laptop! It’s just a desktop in a ugly fat laptop-ishy case.