Talk:Intel MCS-48

message: Was it really _the_first_ microcontroller? Are the ROM and RAM both on-chip?--Anonymous
:Thanks for the highly relevant questions. The 8048 was Intel's first µC but the TMS 1000 is reported to have been the first µC as such. And the ROM was in fact external; this is now corrected in the article. --Wernher 16:15, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  8048 the 1st µC? 

message: :To my best knownledge the 8049 DOES have internal ROM, consult the relevant Intel device datasheets if you don't believe me (note that IBM AT Keyboards manufacturered before 1996 usually have this MCU, and i have never encountered a KB with ROM on-board :-D :lol:)  -- BKiL 19:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the table; I guess we'll have to fix the article (again) then... :-) --Wernher 21:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the IBM documentation for the original PC (available from the Retrocomputing Archive - http://www.retroarchive.org/dos/docs/ - the original IBM PC keyboards actually have an 8048 in them for generating the scan-codes. -- Dshadowwolf (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  8049's internal ROM 

message: The hunt for the PROM version revealed information about other derivatives. The updated table contains additional UPIs. -- Arnim
 Device  Internal           Memory       Remarks
 8021    1K x 8 ROM         64 x 8 RAM   Subset of 8048, 28 pins
 8041    1K x 8 ROM         64 x 8 RAM   Universal Peripheral Interface (UPI)
 8041AH  1K x 8 ROM        128 x 8 RAM   UPI
 8741A   1K x 8 EPROM       64 x 8 RAM   UPI, EPROM version of 8041
 8741AH  1K x 8 OTP EPROM  128 x 8 RAM   UPI, OTP EPROM version of 8041AH
 8042AH  2K x 8 ROM        256 x 8 RAM   UPI
 8742    2K x 8 EPROM      128 x 8 RAM   UPI, EPROM version
 8742AH  2K x 8 OTP EPROM  256 x 8 RAM   UPI, OTP EPROM version of 8042AH
 8648    1k x 8 OTP EPROM   64 x 8 RAM   Factory OTP EPROM
Table added --JWBE (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Derivatives 

message: This seems like very odd language - an EPROM that can actually only be programmed once screams "PROM" to me. Unless we're getting our acronyms mixed up, it's electronically programmable, and someone's therefore knocked out the second E ("erasable") of EEPROM rather than the first?
Given the discussion above, does anyone mind if I'm "bold" and just change that? If the Intel spec sheets actually do say "OTP EPROM" then feel free to revert it... 91.125.59.216 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the "OTP" makes the EPROM a "PROM" (but it's not derived from an EEPROM, but rather from an UV-erasable EPROM). The term "OTP EPROM" provides more information than just PROM, because there's many technical variants of a PROM (e.g. bipolar fusable...). Here we're talking about an EPROM (which could be erased optically!), but since it does not have an opaque window, the UV-light could not reach the memory cell. Hence it's an "OTP". --Wosch21149 (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "OTP EPROM"? 

message: MIPS usually refers to performance relative to a VAX 11/780 not literal instructions, and most instructions don't execute in one cycle anyway. 24.93.185.231 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIPS? 

message: The Intel datasheet (page 2) lists the 8242 as a version of the 8042 but preprogrammed with keyboard controller firmware. Drahtlos (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, looks like you are right. Strange for Intel to be selling it with someone else's software inside it but there it is.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  8242 

message: Regarding this: "The 8048 was used in the Magnavox Odyssey² video game console, the Korg Trident series,[8] and the Korg Poly-61,[9] Roland Jupiter-4 and Roland ProMars[10] analog synthesizers."
Certainly the Jupiter-4, judging by its service notes, used NEC's μPD8048.  Judging by the numbers and specs of the μPD8048, μPD8748, and μPD8035L, they're very likely MCS-48 series clones.  (NEC's data sheets don't mention Intel by name, but do mention "compatability with the industry standard 8048".)  I haven't checked the others, but it wouldn't surprise me if Japanese companies were pretty routinely using the NEC clones rather than the Intel originals.
ZoeB (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesisers 

message: and I are having a MOS:BOLDSYN disagreement. I'm not sure what I've misinterpreted but this article also covers specific members of the family. They are mentioned in the lead and these terms redirect to this article. Per MOS:BOLDSYN the should appear in bold in the lead. The terms in dispute: 8048, 8035, 8748. ~Kvng (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'm a bit confused as to where you're confused. The article text correctly says about the MCS-48 series, "its first members were 8048, 8035 and 8748". 8048, 8035 and 8748 are not alternative names for the MCS-48 family, they're just members or it. 8035 is a component, one without program memory. 8748 is a different component, one with EPROM. MOS:BOLDSYN states "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names are placed in bold" (emphasis theirs). So the article text is fine as it stands and the alteration is incorrect for MOS:BOLDSYN. My change comments noted that.--ToaneeM (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles like this are about multiple topics; in this case the processor family and the individual processors in the family. A reader searching for "8048" will be redirected to this article and may be confused that the title of the article is different from what they searched for. The purpose of the bolded text in the lead is to orient the reader and avoid unnecessary WP:ASTONISHMENT. See WP:RPLA. ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: , Ahh. First off, I failed to check if 8048, 8035, 8748 and 8049 redirect to this page, so apologies there as your explanation makes sense now. I've reinstated your first edit with a change note explaining why. Secondly, I'm afraid it didn't help much that you putting change notes of just (bold redirects) then of (MOS:BOLDSYN) on your two edits. More detail on either edit note would have helped understanding and saved us both some time. And third, thanks very much for a friendly and reasoned exchange. It's appreciated and sped us to a good resolution for us and the site.--ToaneeM (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that my edit summaries were too terse in this case. I don't think I'm as bad as some of these suggestions. Happy editing! ~Kvng (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative names