Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.apple2 > #25474 > unrolled thread

Porting GSOS to Single board computers

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.apple2

Contents

  Porting GSOS to Single board computers TheJ <thej@shaw.ca> - 2015-08-05 20:27 +0000
    Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Steve Nickolas <usotsuki@buric.co> - 2015-08-06 06:01 +0200
      Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-08-05 23:46 -0500
        Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers TheJ <thej@shaw.ca> - 2015-08-06 05:22 +0000
          Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Stavros Karatsoridis <skaratso@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 06:31 -0700
            Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers TheJ <thej@shaw.ca> - 2015-08-06 17:28 +0000
              Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Stavros Karatsoridis <skaratso@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 13:19 -0700
              Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-08-06 17:55 -0700
    Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2015-08-06 11:30 +0000
    Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Benoit0123 <bgilon@free.fr> - 2015-08-10 14:56 +0000
      Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers sicklittlemonkey <nick.westgate@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 05:18 -0700
        Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers David Schmidt <schmidtd@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-12 16:00 -0400
        Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-08-13 00:22 -0400
          Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-08-12 17:49 -0700
            Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers misterlott@gmail.com - 2015-10-26 14:47 -0700
              Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-10-26 15:27 -0700
            Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers John Brooks <jbrooks@blueshiftinc.com> - 2015-10-26 16:24 -0700
              Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2015-10-27 14:29 +0000
                Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-10-27 17:08 -0500
                  Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2015-10-28 00:51 +0000
                    Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 15:06 -0500
                Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers misterlott@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 12:40 -0700
              Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-10-28 17:43 +0000
                Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-28 14:59 -0400
                  Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-10-29 16:16 +0000
                    Re: Porting GSOS to Single board computers Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2015-11-01 10:55 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#25474 — Porting GSOS to Single board computers

A thought experiment...

Now that the full source for GSOS is available, what would the likelyhood of
it being ported to a single board computer like the Raspberry Pi be?

What would the major sticking points be?

I, personally, would LOVE to see ANYTHING OTHER THAN LINUX on these devices.
I think that it could make the actual hardware more accessible to far more
users that Linux could ever hope to.

I would also LOVE to see, once again, a TRULY PERSONAL computer be available
again.

What do you think???

J

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#25475

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, TheJ wrote:

> A thought experiment...
>
> Now that the full source for GSOS is available, what would the likelyhood of
> it being ported to a single board computer like the Raspberry Pi be?
>
> What would the major sticking points be?

RPi has a completely different CPU arch and I think a good chunk of the OS 
is written in ASM. If you were talking a 65C816-based SBC, it might be 
another story.

-uso.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25476

Steve Nickolas <usotsuki@buric.co> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, TheJ wrote:
> 
>> A thought experiment...
>> 
>> Now that the full source for GSOS is available, what would the likelyhood of
>> it being ported to a single board computer like the Raspberry Pi be?
>> 
>> What would the major sticking points be?
> 
> RPi has a completely different CPU arch and I think a good chunk of the
> OS is written in ASM. If you were talking a 65C816-based SBC, it might be another story.
> 
> -uso.

But the graphics architecture would remain a big issue, and a 65C816
doesn't have enough horsepower to emulate the IIgs graphics (not to mention
the Ensoniq chip). 

Consider that the IIgs is *already* a single-board computer. And also
consider running a good IIgs emulator on the RPi--like Apple Pi.

Porting a complete GUI OS to a very different architecture when portability
was never a design consideration is a high difficulty job. 
-- 
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25477

What caught my attention is that in the video displaying GS.OS 6.0.2 being
built, it is being done in MPW32.
As far as I can tell, MPW never supported 65816 assembly. It supported 68K
and PowerPC assembly, as well as C, C++ and Pascal. So if it the code isn't
65816 ASM, then it is quite possibly Pascal or C. There ARE files in the
video that have "C" and "PASCAL" references in the names.

The whole point of my post is: if it is being compiled from a high level
language, what's stopping it from being targeted to a different hardware
platform?

Michael pointed out the sound and graphics would be a problem since the
hardware is different.

J

Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> Steve Nickolas <usotsuki@buric.co> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, TheJ wrote:
>> 
>>> A thought experiment...
>>> 
>>> Now that the full source for GSOS is available, what would the
>>> likelyhood of
>>> it being ported to a single board computer like the Raspberry Pi be?
>>> 
>>> What would the major sticking points be?
>> 
>> RPi has a completely different CPU arch and I think a good chunk of the
>> OS is written in ASM. If you were talking a 65C816-based SBC, it might be
>> another story.
>> 
>> -uso.
> 
> But the graphics architecture would remain a big issue, and a 65C816
> doesn't have enough horsepower to emulate the IIgs graphics (not to
> mention
> the Ensoniq chip). 
> 
> Consider that the IIgs is *already* a single-board computer. And also
> consider running a good IIgs emulator on the RPi--like Apple Pi.
> 
> Porting a complete GUI OS to a very different architecture when
> portability
> was never a design consideration is a high difficulty job. 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25479

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 1:24:10 AM UTC-4, TheJ wrote:
> What caught my attention is that in the video displaying GS.OS 6.0.2 being
> built, it is being done in MPW32.
> As far as I can tell, MPW never supported 65816 assembly. It supported 68K
> and PowerPC assembly, as well as C, C++ and Pascal. So if it the code isn't
> 65816 ASM, then it is quite possibly Pascal or C. There ARE files in the
> video that have "C" and "PASCAL" references in the names.

There most certainly was a 65816 assembler for MPW. There was a whole toolset available for MPW that allowed for cross-platform development of IIgs software on the Macintosh.

MPW had MPW IIgs Pascal, MPW IIgs assembler, and I think there was even a C compiler for it as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25481

My whole "thought experiment" was based on the possibility that it was at
least partly written in a high level language. 
Porting from assembly would be a small nightmare I'm sure.

j

Stavros Karatsoridis wrote:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 1:24:10 AM UTC-4, TheJ wrote:
>> What caught my attention is that in the video displaying GS.OS 6.0.2
>> being
>> built, it is being done in MPW32.
>> As far as I can tell, MPW never supported 65816 assembly. It supported
>> 68K
>> and PowerPC assembly, as well as C, C++ and Pascal. So if it the code
>> isn't
>> 65816 ASM, then it is quite possibly Pascal or C. There ARE files in the
>> video that have "C" and "PASCAL" references in the names.
> 
> There most certainly was a 65816 assembler for MPW. There was a whole
> toolset available for MPW that allowed for cross-platform development of
> IIgs software on the Macintosh.
> 
> MPW had MPW IIgs Pascal, MPW IIgs assembler, and I think there was even a
> C
> compiler for it as well.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25482

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-4, TheJ wrote:
> My whole "thought experiment" was based on the possibility that it was at
> least partly written in a high level language. 
> Porting from assembly would be a small nightmare I'm sure.
> 

Yeah, portions of GS/OS were written in a high level language, but much of the lower-level stuff was written in 65816 machine code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25483

Am Freitag, 7. August 2015 02:30:17 UTC+9 schrieb TheJ:
> My whole "thought experiment" was based on the possibility that it was at
> least partly written in a high level language. 
> Porting from assembly would be a small nightmare I'm sure.

It was quite common back in the 60's and 70's to port software written in
assembly language from one computer to another by simply rewriting it with
direct reference to the original code.

Even Unix itself -- famously portable due to being written mostly in C --
came with a lot of software written in assembly language, which had to
be rewritten when it was ported. Of course, those rewrites often were
from assembly to C, which then further enhanced the portability of the
system.

So I'd say it is definitely within the realm of possibility to "port" GS/OS
to some other system. However, I'm not really sure why one would want
to do it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25478

In article <thej-1438806539@macgui.com>, TheJ  <thej@shaw.ca> wrote:
>A thought experiment...
>
>Now that the full source for GSOS is available, what would the likelyhood of
>it being ported to a single board computer like the Raspberry Pi be?
>
>What would the major sticking points be?
>
>I, personally, would LOVE to see ANYTHING OTHER THAN LINUX on these devices.
>I think that it could make the actual hardware more accessible to far more
>users that Linux could ever hope to.
>
>I would also LOVE to see, once again, a TRULY PERSONAL computer be available
>again.
>
>What do you think???

There are several alternatives to Linux for the Pi. FreeBSD is one,
and RISC-OS is another. RISC-OS if you don't know it, is a single-user,
co-operatively multitasking OS with a graphical front-end. It's probably
the closest thing you'll get to GSOS.

Personally, I think the actual hardware is pretty much fully accessible to
everyone, no-matter which OS you use. There is a lot of work underway to
open up the GPU side it of too with many working examples now. (Although
I've not been keeping up for some time). The ARM and GPIO side is fully
accesible (under Linux and other OSs)

There are now more than 5 million Pi's out there...

Gordon
(Who mainains one of the GPIO libraries for the Pi and has written
shed-loads of code for it in the public domain and not so public too,
including a BASIC interpreter with a few nods to Applesoft FWIW)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25499

TheJ wrote:
> A thought experiment...
> 
> Now that the full source for GSOS is available, what would the likelyhood
> of
> it being ported to a single board computer like the Raspberry Pi be?
> 
> What would the major sticking points be?
> 
> I, personally, would LOVE to see ANYTHING OTHER THAN LINUX on these
> devices.
> I think that it could make the actual hardware more accessible to far more
> users that Linux could ever hope to.
> 
> I would also LOVE to see, once again, a TRULY PERSONAL computer be
> available
> again.
> 
> What do you think???
> 
> J
>
I would suggest that people looking for alternative to linux on the R-Pi
will get a look at RISC OS: a system:
a) specially designed for this family of processors (optimized)
b) with a vivid community for upgrading the OS or still creating new
applications;
c) offering a shared source initiative on the whole operating system;
d) PRMs (programming reference manuals) are available in PDF format for easy
reference.
http://www.riscosopen.org
OK it's not GS/OS but is as user friendly and more capable for nowadays
challenges. It has not only been ported to R-Pi but to other Soc/devboards
as well.



-- 
Growing old is mandatory..
growing up is optional..
But the other way round is as true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25506

On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 02:57:42 UTC+12, Benoit Gilon  wrote:
> I would suggest that people looking for alternative to linux on the R-Pi
> will get a look at RISC OS

Yeah, RISC OS was great back in the day, and it felt great to boot it up again on the Pi.

About porting assembly above, a friend and I ported a game we wrote - coincidentally from ARM to x86. I just typed up a simple mapping for the most common instructions and stuck it on the wall. Most of our library was ported in a couple of weeks. (The game itself was in C, so it worked when the library was done.)

Anyway, the porting was simple translation for logic stuff, but as soon as you hit hardware access it was down the rabbit hole. I expect it would be much the same with an OS.

And what would be the point? All current GS software is targeted at 65816. I suppose you could dream up some kind of binary translator for stuff that can't be recompiled ... But I think it will remain that. Just a dream. ; - )

In fact RISC OS came with a nice BBC (6502) emulator in ROM. We wrote an Apple II emulator in ARM assembly which was a lot of fun.

Cheers,
Nick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25507

On 8/12/2015 8:18 AM, sicklittlemonkey wrote:
> And what would be the point? All current GS software is targeted at 65816.

And that's a good point right there.  Once you have the OS running, 
which might be visually nice, you are still starting from scratch with 
porting all apps, including all the tools to build those apps.  The CP/M 
68k guys have this same bootstrapping problem.  While the BDOS calls are 
the same, all the assembly code surrounding them in a compiled app is 
targeted at the wrong processor.  So then you need a cross-compiler that 
targets the right processor.  Then you have to compile an editor, and a 
native assembler... lather, rinse, repeat.  Fun stuff for sure, but 
don't forget the depth of the commitment.

And of course translators are fine and dandy when you have limitless 
space (and CPU horsepower) to do all that work for you.  But that kind 
of defeats the purpose of targeting a different CPU in the first place.  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25510

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, sicklittlemonkey wrote:

> On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 02:57:42 UTC+12, Benoit Gilon  wrote:
>> I would suggest that people looking for alternative to linux on the R-Pi
>> will get a look at RISC OS
>
> Yeah, RISC OS was great back in the day, and it felt great to boot it up again on the Pi.
>
> About porting assembly above, a friend and I ported a game we wrote - coincidentally from ARM to x86. I just typed up a simple mapping for the most common instructions and stuck it on the wall. Most of our library was ported in a couple of weeks. (The game itself was in C, so it worked when the library was done.)
>
> Anyway, the porting was simple translation for logic stuff, but as soon as you hit hardware access it was down the rabbit hole. I expect it would be much the same with an OS.
>
> And what would be the point? All current GS software is targeted at 65816. I suppose you could dream up some kind of binary translator for stuff that can't be recompiled ... But I think it will remain that. Just a dream. ; - )
>
> In fact RISC OS came with a nice BBC (6502) emulator in ROM. We wrote an Apple II emulator in ARM assembly which was a lot of fun.
>
And yet, when Apple came along with the Power PCs, they included an 
emulator to run 68000 programs.  The idea was to make sure there were 
programs that could run on the new computers, and emulation was the way 
initially.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25511

Am Donnerstag, 13. August 2015 09:33:34 UTC+9 schrieb Michael Black:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, sicklittlemonkey wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 02:57:42 UTC+12, Benoit Gilon  wrote:
> >> I would suggest that people looking for alternative to linux on the R-Pi
> >> will get a look at RISC OS
> >
> > Yeah, RISC OS was great back in the day, and it felt great to boot it up again on the Pi.
> >
> > About porting assembly above, a friend and I ported a game we wrote - coincidentally from ARM to x86. I just typed up a simple mapping for the most common instructions and stuck it on the wall. Most of our library was ported in a couple of weeks. (The game itself was in C, so it worked when the library was done.)
> >
> > Anyway, the porting was simple translation for logic stuff, but as soon as you hit hardware access it was down the rabbit hole. I expect it would be much the same with an OS.
> >
> > And what would be the point? All current GS software is targeted at 65816. I suppose you could dream up some kind of binary translator for stuff that can't be recompiled ... But I think it will remain that. Just a dream. ; - )
> >
> > In fact RISC OS came with a nice BBC (6502) emulator in ROM. We wrote an Apple II emulator in ARM assembly which was a lot of fun.
> >
> And yet, when Apple came along with the Power PCs, they included an 
> emulator to run 68000 programs.  The idea was to make sure there were 
> programs that could run on the new computers, and emulation was the way 
> initially.

So why not just run GSPort on your RPi and be done with it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26084

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-4, wss...@gmail.com wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 13. August 2015 09:33:34 UTC+9 schrieb Michael Black:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, sicklittlemonkey wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 02:57:42 UTC+12, Benoit Gilon  wrote:
> > >> I would suggest that people looking for alternative to linux on the R-Pi
> > >> will get a look at RISC OS
> > >
> > > Yeah, RISC OS was great back in the day, and it felt great to boot it up again on the Pi.
> > >
> > > About porting assembly above, a friend and I ported a game we wrote - coincidentally from ARM to x86. I just typed up a simple mapping for the most common instructions and stuck it on the wall. Most of our library was ported in a couple of weeks. (The game itself was in C, so it worked when the library was done.)
> > >
> > > Anyway, the porting was simple translation for logic stuff, but as soon as you hit hardware access it was down the rabbit hole. I expect it would be much the same with an OS.
> > >
> > > And what would be the point? All current GS software is targeted at 65816. I suppose you could dream up some kind of binary translator for stuff that can't be recompiled ... But I think it will remain that. Just a dream. ; - )
> > >
> > > In fact RISC OS came with a nice BBC (6502) emulator in ROM. We wrote an Apple II emulator in ARM assembly which was a lot of fun.
> > >
> > And yet, when Apple came along with the Power PCs, they included an 
> > emulator to run 68000 programs.  The idea was to make sure there were 
> > programs that could run on the new computers, and emulation was the way 
> > initially.
> 
> So why not just run GSPort on your RPi and be done with it?

Emulation ain't real.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26087

In article <32e82662-29c4-4992-a63d-f881d8fc4e17@googlegroups.com>,
 misterlott@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-4, wss...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 13. August 2015 09:33:34 UTC+9 schrieb Michael Black:
> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, sicklittlemonkey wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 02:57:42 UTC+12, Benoit Gilon  wrote:
> > > >> I would suggest that people looking for alternative to linux on the 
> > > >> R-Pi
> > > >> will get a look at RISC OS
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, RISC OS was great back in the day, and it felt great to boot it 
> > > > up again on the Pi.
> > > >
> > > > About porting assembly above, a friend and I ported a game we wrote - 
> > > > coincidentally from ARM to x86. I just typed up a simple mapping for 
> > > > the most common instructions and stuck it on the wall. Most of our 
> > > > library was ported in a couple of weeks. (The game itself was in C, so 
> > > > it worked when the library was done.)
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the porting was simple translation for logic stuff, but as soon 
> > > > as you hit hardware access it was down the rabbit hole. I expect it 
> > > > would be much the same with an OS.
> > > >
> > > > And what would be the point? All current GS software is targeted at 
> > > > 65816. I suppose you could dream up some kind of binary translator for 
> > > > stuff that can't be recompiled ... But I think it will remain that. 
> > > > Just a dream. ; - )
> > > >
> > > > In fact RISC OS came with a nice BBC (6502) emulator in ROM. We wrote 
> > > > an Apple II emulator in ARM assembly which was a lot of fun.
> > > >
> > > And yet, when Apple came along with the Power PCs, they included an 
> > > emulator to run 68000 programs.  The idea was to make sure there were 
> > > programs that could run on the new computers, and emulation was the way 
> > > initially.
> > 
> > So why not just run GSPort on your RPi and be done with it?
> 
> Emulation ain't real.

If I hang a keyboard, mouse, and monitor out of a box that you don't get 
to look inside, and the screen shows you what a GS would show you when 
you click the mouse or punch the keys, I defy you to give me a valid 
reason you should care (1) whether it's a "real" GS, or something - 
anything from a PC or RPi to a half a dozen ultra-genius fieldmice - 
running a GS emulation?


(1) The *ONLY* possible exception I can come up with that isn't pure BS 
nitpickery that deserves a slap upside the head would be if it's a 
concept of "I've got an Original Apple //GS in mint condition for sale" 
when there's actually an RPi or some similar "That ain't what you said 
you were selling me" substitute inside the box.

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26088

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 5:49:23 PM UTC-7, wss...@gmail.com wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 13. August 2015 09:33:34 UTC+9 schrieb Michael Black:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, sicklittlemonkey wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 02:57:42 UTC+12, Benoit Gilon  wrote:
> > >> I would suggest that people looking for alternative to linux on the R-Pi
> > >> will get a look at RISC OS
> > >
> > > Yeah, RISC OS was great back in the day, and it felt great to boot it up again on the Pi.
> > >
> > > About porting assembly above, a friend and I ported a game we wrote - coincidentally from ARM to x86. I just typed up a simple mapping for the most common instructions and stuck it on the wall. Most of our library was ported in a couple of weeks. (The game itself was in C, so it worked when the library was done.)
> > >
> > > Anyway, the porting was simple translation for logic stuff, but as soon as you hit hardware access it was down the rabbit hole. I expect it would be much the same with an OS.
> > >
> > > And what would be the point? All current GS software is targeted at 65816. I suppose you could dream up some kind of binary translator for stuff that can't be recompiled ... But I think it will remain that. Just a dream. ; - )
> > >
> > > In fact RISC OS came with a nice BBC (6502) emulator in ROM. We wrote an Apple II emulator in ARM assembly which was a lot of fun.
> > >
> > And yet, when Apple came along with the Power PCs, they included an 
> > emulator to run 68000 programs.  The idea was to make sure there were 
> > programs that could run on the new computers, and emulation was the way 
> > initially.
> 
> So why not just run GSPort on your RPi and be done with it?

The RPi is very much a moving target compared to a real GS. There are multiple hardware configs of the RPi (& Orange Pi, Banana Pi, etc), and a ton of hw/linux/driver variations which can cause compatibility and usage problems.

But yes, it would be possible in theory to standardize the RPi HW, OS, USB devies, & drivers. But what about users who have data on 5.25, 3.5, Iomega ZIP drives, or custom I/O cards?

The next difference is going to be look & feel. The mechanical keyboard, location of the CTRL & ESC keys, the analog joystick and/or paddles, the aspect ratio of the screen, pixel size, and phosphor latency all affect the user experience. Some people won't care. Others will care a lot.

And then there's the reliability of the emulators. I'm often bumping into compatibility problems with current emulators. If you want to make the Apple II do something cool and novel the emulators cannot be trusted to be 100% accurate.

-JB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26090

John Brooks <jbrooks@blueshiftinc.com> wrote:
> 
> And then there's the reliability of the emulators. I'm often bumping into
> compatibility problems with current emulators. If you want to make the
> Apple II do something cool and novel the emulators cannot be trusted to be 100% accurate.
>

Worth repeating as it's the reason why I use emulators as little as
possible, and don't do any development on them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26093

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:
> John Brooks <jbrooks@blueshiftinc.com> wrote:
>> 
>> And then there's the reliability of the emulators. I'm often bumping into
>> compatibility problems with current emulators. If you want to make the
>> Apple II do something cool and novel the emulators cannot be trusted to be 100% accurate.
>> 
> 
> Worth repeating as it's the reason why I use emulators as little as
> possible, and don't do any development on them.
> 

Interesting. 

I frequently use AppleWin for development, and have not encountered any
accuracy issues. 

I doubt that heavily used emulators have many significant bugs, or they
would have been reported and fixed. Of course, subtle timing errors might
go undetected/uncorrected for some time, because very little software
depends on them. 

If you find any errors, please report them so they can be fixed--the
community is ultimately responsible for testing!

And finally, even though I do most development on an emulator, I would not
release software without full testing on real machines. (And any
discrepancies would be reported as errors.)
-- 
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II:  http://michaeljmahon.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26094

Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:
>> John Brooks <jbrooks@blueshiftinc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> And then there's the reliability of the emulators. I'm often bumping
>>> into
>>> compatibility problems with current emulators. If you want to make the
>>> Apple II do something cool and novel the emulators cannot be trusted to
>>> be 100% accurate.
>>> 
>> 
>> Worth repeating as it's the reason why I use emulators as little as
>> possible, and don't do any development on them.
>> 
> 
> Interesting. 
> 
> I frequently use AppleWin for development, and have not encountered any
> accuracy issues. 
> 

I've been doing a lot of development for the Uthernet II recently….. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.apple2

csiph-web