dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (02/24/91)
Is anyone working on (or have for distribution) a C128 emulator? I know
about the C64 emulator, and I would think that all you would need to make
a 64 emulator into a 128 emulator is a bit more memory, a few more routines
(for 80-column mode & the MMU), and ROM emulation... ('course, "FAST" would
no doubt be a no-op...)
--
Dave Schaumann | Is this question undecidable?
dave@cs.arizona.edu |JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (02/24/91)
I doubt a C-128 emulator will show up soon or at all. BASIC 7.0 alone
would be a major stumbling block; that's a LOT of commands to implement!
The 64 emulators out there aren't doing the greatest job in the world;
a C-128 emulator would likely be worse; slower and less compatible.
Mind you, if you did a C-128 bridgeboard of sorts, with the actual
chips on a board like the 8088 and 2286 bridgeboards, that would be
very compatible and speedy, but I would doubt there is much of a
market at all.
Kurt
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll ||
|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || deny it's what the fighting's ||
|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || all about? - Pink Floyd ||
|| jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------||
|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) (02/25/91)
In article <91054.231708JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: } }Mind you, if you did a C-128 bridgeboard of sorts, with the actual }chips on a board like the 8088 and 2286 bridgeboards, that would be }very compatible and speedy, but I would doubt there is much of a }market at all. Depends on how you did it. Now, if you took the path that some IBM-PC hw-emulators have taken and put the thing on the A500's internal expansion board, along with the standard expansion memory, it might be marketable as an easy upgrade path for current C64/128 owners. Of course, you'd still have to work out the disk interface...do you provide a connection for the old 1541/71 drives, or work out a way to use the A500's drive (which causes some problems for copy-protected programs or fast-loaders). And what about cartridges? Lance -- Lance T. Franklin +----------------------------------------------+ (ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org) | "You want I should bop you with this here | NC Microproducts, Inc. | Lollipop?!?" The Fat Fury | Richardson, Texas +----------------------------------------------+
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (02/25/91)
In article <300@ncmicro.lonestar.org> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes: >Of course, you'd still have to work out the disk interface...do you >provide a connection for the old 1541/71 drives, or work out a way >to use the A500's drive (which causes some problems for copy-protected >programs or fast-loaders). Isn't this pretty much solved? I believe the A64 emulator (when the shareware fee is paid :) comes with a widget to plug into the serial port so you can use 64/128 style peripherals with your Amiga... > And what about cartridges? Gah. If cartridges were my main concern, I'd keep my 128. >Lance T. Franklin +----------------------------------------------+ -- Dave Schaumann | Is this question undecidable? dave@cs.arizona.edu |
groenewo@fwi.uva.nl (Ferry van het Groenewoud) (02/26/91)
It's so funny. Simulating a good old C64 turns out to be more difficult and slower than emulating IBMs, Atari STs, or Macs. I'm waiting for the Sparcstation 1+ simulator for my A500 now! :-) -- Mac. The noise of a wrong calibration. PS/2. You can't see the new thing. IBM. The toys of a dead generation. Sun. You can't feel the beating. NeXT. The choice cause of bad information. Atari. You'll need some healing.
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (02/26/91)
In article <1991Feb25.211337.16437@fwi.uva.nl>, groenewo@fwi.uva.nl (Ferry van het Groenewoud) says: > >It's so funny. Simulating a good old C64 turns out to be more difficult >and slower than emulating IBMs, Atari STs, or Macs. Well.... IBM "emulation" on Amiga is done by putting an entire IBM in the box. If you are referring to Transformer, it's not all that compatible and IS slow. Mac "emulation" has hardware involved, and Mac and Atari emulators have three distinct advantages over a C64 emulator: 1) The machines being emulated use the same CPU so ML code is not in need of translation 2) There is much more market for a Mac emulator 3) The Mac and Ataris cost much more than a C64 ie. Why pay $400 for a C64 emulator when a C64 only costs $100? That's not a bargain. Paying $400 for a Mac emulator when a real Mac costs $1000 is a bargain though. And there are many more folks out there looking to buy a Mac - it's a much more state-of- the-art machine than a C-64. All things considered, I'm not surprised the C64 emulation is weak. Kurt -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll || || 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || deny it's what the fighting's || || Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || all about? - Pink Floyd || || jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || -----------------------------------------------------------------------
davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) (02/27/91)
>>>>> On 25 Feb 91 14:16:45 GMT, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) said: Dave> In article <300@ncmicro.lonestar.org> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Dave> Franklin) writes: Lance> Of course, you'd still have to work out the disk interface...do you Lance> provide a connection for the old 1541/71 drives, or work out a way to Lance> use the A500's drive (which causes some problems for copy-protected Lance> programs or fast-loaders). Dave> Isn't this pretty much solved? I believe the A64 emulator (when the Dave> shareware fee is paid :) comes with a widget to plug into the serial Dave> port so you can use 64/128 style peripherals with your Amiga... Shareware?!!? Isn't the A64 emulator a product of Readysoft (the makers of AMAX)? That emulator has a serial cable that hooks up to the Amiga's parallel port and then hooks up to 1541 disk drives. The emulator works well, but it is not 100% emulation (maybe 80%-90%). -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. (415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (02/27/91)
In article <91056.225758JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >In article <1991Feb25.211337.16437@fwi.uva.nl>, groenewo@fwi.uva.nl (Ferry van >het Groenewoud) says: >>It's so funny. Simulating a good old C64 turns out to be more difficult >>and slower than emulating IBMs, Atari STs, or Macs. >Well.... IBM "emulation" on Amiga is done by putting an entire IBM >in the box. If you are referring to Transformer, it's not all that >compatible and IS slow. Transformer is a bad example. There are much better ones being popularized on various workstations these days. Thing is, a PC emulation IS easier than a C64 emulation in many respects. The C64 has more sophisticated video hardware than an PC, for example (don't read that as "better"; obviously a PC with a VGA display has a much better display for many purposes, but it is more architecturally primitive in some ways). And "C64" is a very, very precise description of a piece of hardware. Basically, the speed of CPU execution, VIC chip raster timing, sprite behavior, the entire ROM code (including character ROM), etc. are a required part of the C64 hardware specification. And any deviation from these things will cause a C64 program to fail. A PC, on the other hand, can be an original XT with MDA display, or a '486 with gobs of cache and a TIGA display. So, in general, PC programs have been forced to tolerate a bit more difference in underlying hardware. Any visible difference between C64 revisions is generally a problem. These are both true emulations. First of all, you're emulating the 6510 from the C64 or the 8088 from the PC. Secondly, since both of these machines rely completely on the underlying hardware, you're emulating various chips, at the register level. That, especially, is why full emulations are hard to do. On the C64, for example, there are quite a few programs out there that use hardware in a rather evil way. For example, a VIC raster interrupt, which calls a software timing loop hand calculated to maybe split the screen or double-time a sprite. That's practically impossible to emulate, since it all must be done at a the VIC's register level -- there's no way to detect "intent" and use the Copper for this, even though that kind of thing would be a slam dunk for the Copper to do. On PC emulators, you get evil things like programs that constantly strobe the keyboard for interrupts, rather than using the MS-DOS input routine. Since it takes lots of CPU time just to emulate the changing register bits, this kind of program can run 10 times slower in an emulator, or possibly even break the emulation, versus a program that calls the proper routine. >Mac "emulation" has hardware involved, and Mac and Atari emulators >have three distinct advantages over a C64 emulator: [...] Mac and Atari "emulators" really aren't emulators. The only thing that's emulated, if any, is a small bit of hardware or display stuff. I call those things "hostile ports" -- A-MAX is really a port of the Mac OS to the Amiga. Only, since Apple doesn't want anyone to port the Mac OS to the Amiga like one would UNIX, ReadySoft had to be clever about it. Pretty much the same is true about running GEM and Tramiel Operating System on the Amiga. You're not emulating much, if anything, simply patching the OS to replace Mac or ST specific routines with Amiga specific routines. >|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll || -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
jeremym@chopin.udel.edu (Jeremy A Moskowitz) (02/28/91)
>Shareware?!!? Isn't the A64 emulator a product of Readysoft (the makers of >AMAX)? That emulator has a serial cable that hooks up to the Amiga's parallel No... the A64 emulator is PD/Sharware type deal. When you register, they throw in the latest version of the program along with a cable to hook thru parallel port. Readysoft *DOES* have their own 64 emulator, but, it's cruddy, as far as I can tell. Annd A64 is abailable thru ftp. I should know - I put it there. Look for THEA64PACKAGE.ZIP on ab20's. Monitor of Comp.sys.amiga.emulations -Jeremy >David Masterson Consilium, Inc. >uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 -- E Pluribus // Contacts: jeremym@brahms.udel.edu or jeremym@chopin.udel.edu or Unix // jeremy@freezer.it.udel.edu (line 1 = jeremym) \\ // --->Monitor of comp.sys.amiga.emulations<--- \X/ 2001 Dalmations - My stars, its full of dogs...
v089pfrb@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Jeffrey C Murphy) (03/01/91)
In article <CIMSHOP!DAVIDM.91Feb26164752@cimshop3.uunet.UU.NET>, cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) writes... ->>>>>> On 25 Feb 91 14:16:45 GMT, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) said: -> ->Dave> In article <300@ncmicro.lonestar.org> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance ->Dave> Franklin) writes: -> ->Dave> shareware fee is paid :) comes with a widget to plug into the serial ->Dave> port so you can use 64/128 style peripherals with your Amiga... -> ->Shareware?!!? Isn't the A64 emulator a product of Readysoft (the makers of Nope: That's GO64 (I believe..) A64 is a shareware program that can be found on the ab20 archives. It seems pretty good (I haven't really played with it) and you get a 1541/71 interface when you pay the shareware fee. Jeff M SUNY at Buffalo Engineering JCMurphy@eng.buffalo.edu