Talk:Motorola 6800 family

This article is based on material taken from Motorola+6800 at the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-11. The result of the discussion was Rename to Motorola 6800 family.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

lumping in the 65xx series is silly.

Quite frankly, lumping in the 65xx processors with the 68xx is somewhat disingenuous; while W D Mensch did do a fair amount of design on both, it's quite a leap from 'similarities of design' to 'derivative design'. One might as well lump the 68k series in with the VAX, as the former took many design cues from the latter. --moof 08:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Motorola 6800 article doesn't agree with you.

"Competitor MOS Technology came up with a architectural relative of the 6800, with its 6502 and successors." -- Geo Swan 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I regard the 'cloned' section of the 6800 article to be patent nonsense. What makes things even worse is that most of the info seems directly pulled from the Motorola 6809 article; there's very little substantive info that's in the former that's not in the latter. --moof 07:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from FOLDOC: http://foldoc.org/foldoc.cgi?query=6800&action=Search — 132.205.45.148 18:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Technology 6502 states the compatibilty of the family. If you take x86, you get the V20, which is akin to what the 6502 is to the 6800. 132.205.45.148 18:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD result

This article was nominated for deletion on December 1, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

— JIP | Talk 19:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge or move or delete or something!

The deletion debate seemed pretty bogus to me… there is no "68h" series except for in this article. The debate was carried out carelessly with most of the keep comments coming from folks who obviously didn't follow the links, or have no prior knowledge of these chips.

The 6800/6502 families are very similar but slightly different because of incestuous engineering teams. (Namely, Chuck Peddle left Moto for MOS Technologies after the 6800's release.) The 6501 "belonged" in the 6800 family but this resulted in a lawsuit, settled by purposely making the 6502 incompatible. Because of these subtle differences, the processors aren't really in the same family and hence the common term 6800/6502.

Check these google results: 68h microprocessor 6800 6502 -wiki -wikipedia gives 79 hits but the first few obviously mirror us. 6800/6502 gives 342 and 6502/6800 gives 801 (which says something about the relative popularity of the original :vP ).

So -

Move the article to 6800/6502 microprocessor families until
It can be merged somewhere more appropriate.

Just browsing through this general neighborhood, all these µP/µC articles could use a good scrub. We need stubs for all the chips mentioned in this article and a category to unify them, more than a (misleading) overview article like this one.

Potatoswatter 11:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is not an article... delete it. Matan 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand

70.55.85.43 (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitachi

The Hitachi chips should be mentioned. 70.55.85.43 (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially since Wikipedia has a specific page for the Hitach 6309. I've added a link for this. Cjs (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6804

I think the 6804 should be mentioned here. It was meant to be a cost-reduced 6805, even if it has a different architecture from other members of the family. (Harvard architecture, internally serial) Motorola put it in the same family tree in the data books. More info here Fmpalazzolo (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]