free 8085 microprocessor assembler for windows

Does anyone still use the 8085?

Ian

Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very important CPU for that OS

Norm

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but what on earth would you do with it?

Bob

Wasn't it used in the Mars rovers by NASA? IIRC it was the only micro available that was radiation hard. (is that the correct expression?).

Meindert

There are quite a few Radiation hardened MCU about.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

I have two Marconi 2019A signal generators that use it. They are rather old, though.

Leon

I've got an old Windows PC that might as well use an 8085, based on the speed it runs programs!

But honestly, a lot of us old timers still play with these devices. They're a LOT easier to use than PICs.

And the Rabbit Internet devices use a Z-80 superset...

Eric wrote: >

No, the Rabbit uses an incompatible subset, and doesn't even include all the 8080 instructions. This makes it binary incompatible with any software ever built for 8080, 8085, z80,

64180, z180, etc. A very foolish decision, IMO.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
  the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on
  "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
  "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at:

I partly agree, except I would have thought the 8051 was a). a closer competitor to PICs and b). available around the time of the 8085 and still in volume production by several manufacturers.

Ian

Legacy systems, such as long life-cycle military devices, still may have

8085s. Had to do some firmware maintenance on one a couple of years ago.

--
Rich Webb   Norfolk, VA

Sure it was a dumb decision, but ZWorld had the "incompatible subset" precedent of Dynamic C :)

I hear they'll ship the Rabbit 4000 in 2006.

Kelly

On 30/12/2005 the venerable Ian Bell etched in runes:

. . .

I think Intel were making the 8048 when the 8085 was young. The 8051 came later. I believe the 8085 was the first micro with a multiplexed address/data bus and ALE signal, but that may just be old age talking.

--
John B

AFAIR (and I was there) the 8080 came out around 1976 and I am certain the

8051 came out in 1980. I suspect the 8085 came out somewhere between the two but there was not much in it. The 8051 seems to me to be the oldest surviving single chip microcontroller and easily gives the PIC a run for its money.

Ian

The 8085 became popular because it only needed a single power supply, but was otherwise an 8080. The mux'ed addr bus opened up some more pins that made it good for control apps.

The 8051 was a incredible chip, and is still competitive due to the many enhancements a lot of companies have made. It was the barrel shifter and internal UART that made the things fly off the shelf. Then the CMOS version added more life to it, and I liked the Dallas parts that cut down the internal clock cycles to make them 4X faster.

Now you can get 8051's with just about anything integrated into it: USB, Ethernet, etc.

I think they will still be around many years from now. That kind of momentum doesn't stop easily.

For what its worth, I switched to the 68hc11 some years back, and now I use the newest 9s12 devices. These trace their roots back to the 6800, which is just a little newer than the 8080. I don't remember when the

6800 came out, exactly, but I used one in 1978 if I remember correctly.

Eric

I went to the web site.

Could not find the assembler. ( lots of x86 assemblers tho )

Has anyone located it there ??

thanks

donald

Barrel shifter? You mean bit operations? Intel used to call those a "boolean processor".

If they hadn't priced the CMOS EPROM versions into the stratosphere initially (I recall about $40 each in small quantities) it would have gone a lot further. That short-sighted strategy allowed many other competitors to get into the market.

I think it came out around '76 at the then-bargain price of only $395/chip. It also needed a nasty two-phase clock that had to swing very quickly and tightly to the rails with a heavy capacitive load.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

I am pretty sure the 6800 and 8080 were around at the same time because I built an 8080 system and a mate built a 6800 one. I remember the 8080 needed a clock ship and a control signal decoder chip and THREE power rails. The 6800 has a single 5V rail but a strange synchronous bus.

Ian

It's been a while comming - first talked about in the press back in April 2003. The sparse info suggests it has NO (significant) on chip memory (?), so that makes it a 3 die/chip solution [CPU+FLASH+RAM] - which is not as appealing as the Zilog, Freescale, or even Maxim DS80C40x Ethernet variants. Plus they now have to go against the tide of ARM releases...

-jg

later.

That should be about the right time line.

When the 8048/8748 was introduced the architecture was so horrible that I did not want to touch it even with a long stick.

When the 8051 was introduced with claims of 8048 "compatibility", I did not even bother to study it any more deeper and just wondered, why the 8x51 became so popular.

However, last year I looked a bit closer at the 8051 architecture and instruction set and it appears to be at least half decent (at least compared to the PIC :-).

Thus promoting that your product is compatible (whatever that means) with your previous product can work for you or against you.

Paul