free 8085 microprocessor assembler for windows

Started by panpipe2005 December 29, 2005
free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is
available at 
http://www.planet-source-code.com

panpipe2005 wrote:

> free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is > available at > http://www.planet-source-code.com
Does anyone still use the 8085? Ian
"panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is > available at > http://www.planet-source-code.com >
Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very important CPU for that OS Norm
On 29 Dec 2005 19:49:05 -0800, panpipe2005 wrote:

> free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is > available at > http://www.planet-source-code.com
Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but what on earth would you do with it? Bob
"Ian Bell" <ruffrecords@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dp3dpb$lb7$1@slavica.ukpost.com...
> panpipe2005 wrote: > > > free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is > > available at > > http://www.planet-source-code.com > > Does anyone still use the 8085?
Wasn't it used in the Mars rovers by NASA? IIRC it was the only micro available that was radiation hard. (is that the correct expression?). Meindert
In article <11rair7opf7u852@corp.supernews.com>, Meindert Sprang
<mhsprang@NOcustomSPAMware.nl> writes
>"Ian Bell" <ruffrecords@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:dp3dpb$lb7$1@slavica.ukpost.com... >> panpipe2005 wrote: >> >> > free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is >> > available at >> > http://www.planet-source-code.com >> >> Does anyone still use the 8085? > >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:
 >
> 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...
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: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Eric wrote:

> 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. >
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
"Jim Stewart" <jstewart@jkmicro.com> wrote in message
news:cKydnVAXtrca8ETeRVn-sQ@omsoft.com...
> > http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html
Thanks for that link Jim. This brings back some memories! I still have an old Panasonic JD-840 lying around in the attick (securing the house by it's weight). I also maintain an access-control system I designed years ago, running a stripped-down CP/M kernel so I could use Pascal/MT+ from MT MicroSYSTEMS to compile the code. This compiler could generate rommable code and I ran it in a CP/M emulator (ZRUN) on DOS. I still keep a Windows 95 installed on a laptop to run this, since 95 is the last OS that supports FCB's..... Meindert
ziggy wrote:

> In article <1138244799.967725.281570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>ziggy wrote: >> >>> Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to >>>someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M. >>> >>>CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing. >>>8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory.. >> >> >>No, not the 8051. The 8051 was quite different from the 8080 >>compatible processors. The 8080, 8085 and Z-80 (and a few compatibles) >>all executed the 8080 instruction set as a base, but all (except the >>8080, of course) had various additional instructions. The Z-80 >>extensions were quite large. The 8051 is for embedded applications and >>is a totally different ISA. > > > yes, it also used a harvard arch natively.. but it could be made to run > like a more traditional cpu too, with a few tricks. > > While it might not be an easy weekend project, cpm could be done..
No. CP/M 2.2, the most common flavor, was written in 8080 assembly language. Assuming you bought the source from Digital Research, you'd still have to hand-translate it to another instruction set. I don't recall any automated conversion tools for the 8051 in that day. I worked at Digital Microsystems where we purchased the source for BDOS and ended up doing a complete rewrite because of the unsupportable quality of the code. And we paid something like $5000 for it. It would have been great fun hand- translating that code to an 8051. http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html
ziggy wrote:
> In article <1138244799.967725.281570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > ziggy wrote: > > > Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to > > > someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M. > > > > > > CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing. > > > 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory.. > > > > > > No, not the 8051. The 8051 was quite different from the 8080 > > compatible processors. The 8080, 8085 and Z-80 (and a few compatibles) > > all executed the 8080 instruction set as a base, but all (except the > > 8080, of course) had various additional instructions. The Z-80 > > extensions were quite large. The 8051 is for embedded applications and > > is a totally different ISA. > > yes, it also used a harvard arch natively.. but it could be made to run > like a more traditional cpu too, with a few tricks. > > While it might not be an easy weekend project, cpm could be done..
Well, sure, but it would have been a complete rewrite, just like the 8086 and 68K versions of CP/M. And running a more traditional OS and applications with a more traditional view of memory would have been painful to say the least. Just think about how painful references to memory past the first 128/256 bytes on an 8051 are. Everything has to be done as indirect references with MOVX through DPTR. Admittedly with a unified address space you could also do indexed indirect loads view DPTR or PC, but that's not going to help much. Could be done, and reasonable to do are often different things. The 8051 is really not targeted at this market and the architecture reflects it.
In article <1138244799.967725.281570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> ziggy wrote: > > Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to > > someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M. > > > > CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing. > > 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory.. > > > No, not the 8051. The 8051 was quite different from the 8080 > compatible processors. The 8080, 8085 and Z-80 (and a few compatibles) > all executed the 8080 instruction set as a base, but all (except the > 8080, of course) had various additional instructions. The Z-80 > extensions were quite large. The 8051 is for embedded applications and > is a totally different ISA.
yes, it also used a harvard arch natively.. but it could be made to run like a more traditional cpu too, with a few tricks. While it might not be an easy weekend project, cpm could be done..
ziggy wrote:
> Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to > someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M. > > CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing. > 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory..
No, not the 8051. The 8051 was quite different from the 8080 compatible processors. The 8080, 8085 and Z-80 (and a few compatibles) all executed the 8080 instruction set as a base, but all (except the 8080, of course) had various additional instructions. The Z-80 extensions were quite large. The 8051 is for embedded applications and is a totally different ISA.
In article <gYydnXTGgo7zakreRVn-gQ@omsoft.com>,
 Jim Stewart <jstewart@jkmicro.com> wrote:

> ziggy wrote: > > In article <firBf.534512$zb5.54009@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > > "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote: > > > > > >>"ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message > >>news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net... > >> > >>>In article > >>><yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > >>>"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>"panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>>> > >>>>>free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is > >>>>>available at > >>>>>http://www.planet-source-code.com > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very > >>>>important CPU for that OS > >>>> > >>>> Norm > >>> > >>>Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people. > >> > >>That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the > >>SpaceByte comes to mind. > >> > >> Norm > > > > > > Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to > > someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M. > > > > CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing. > > 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory.. > > Are you sure? I was deeply involved with CP/M > in the late 70's - early 80's and I don't recall > seeing it run on anything but an 8080/Z80. > > CP/M-86 would indeed run on an 8086 and run well, > but it was a totally different animal than CP/M > 1.4 or 2.2, which I presume we were talking about.
I do agree that the other versions were 'different', as they did use different machine code, but the OS calls were the same at least. I wasnt so much talking a particular version, as the 'concept' of CP/M. i dont have examples at this stage of the game, its been too long. But i do remember seeing it on chips in the same sort of loose family. Im sure they never were of much use due to the binary incompatiblites.
ziggy wrote:
> In article <firBf.534512$zb5.54009@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote: > > >>"ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message >>news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net... >> >>>In article >>><yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, >>>"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>>>free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is >>>>>available at >>>>>http://www.planet-source-code.com >>>>> >>>> >>>>Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very >>>>important CPU for that OS >>>> >>>> Norm >>> >>>Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people. >> >>That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the >>SpaceByte comes to mind. >> >> Norm > > > Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to > someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M. > > CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing. > 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory..
Are you sure? I was deeply involved with CP/M in the late 70's - early 80's and I don't recall seeing it run on anything but an 8080/Z80. CP/M-86 would indeed run on an 8086 and run well, but it was a totally different animal than CP/M 1.4 or 2.2, which I presume we were talking about.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:50:47 GMT, ziggy wrote:

> too bad IBM chose dos.. might have been a different world today.
Amen
In article <firBf.534512$zb5.54009@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
 "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:

> "ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message > news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net... > > In article > > <yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > > "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote: > > > >> "panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is > >> > available at > >> > http://www.planet-source-code.com > >> > > >> > >> Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very > >> important CPU for that OS > >> > >> Norm > > > > Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people. > > That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the > SpaceByte comes to mind. > > Norm
Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M. CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing. 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory.. But by far the z80 was the king of the hill .. too bad IBM chose dos.. might have been a different world today.
"ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message 
news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net...
> In article > <yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote: > >> "panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is >> > available at >> > http://www.planet-source-code.com >> > >> >> Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very >> important CPU for that OS >> >> Norm > > Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people.
That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the SpaceByte comes to mind. Norm