Apple IIgs OS updated unofficially in... 2017?

[tokafondo]

Sorry if this is old news. I did a light search and found nothing about it.

The last release for the Apple IIGS (you know, '816 based) was System 6.0.1.

Then I found that someone kept working on the source code and released some updates. The last one seems to be this one:

The Source Is Strong With This One – System 6.0.4.

I'm downloading an emulator to test it.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

tokafondo wrote:

The last release for the Apple IIGS (you know, '816 based) was System 6.0.1.

Then I found that someone kept working on the source code and released some updates.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the ][GS operating system source code had been made available. It would be interesting to study it, especially the interrupt-handling portions.

Quote:

I'm downloading an emulator to test it.

You mean you are downloading a simulator. An emulator would be hardware.

[tokafondo]

A simulator, then... GSplus does it.

Well, I uploaded in another thread what I believed It was the source code of the SANE floating point library that belongs to that operating system.

[tokafondo]

Anyway, the archive does have it.

https://archive.org/details/GSOS_6.0.1_source

[BigDumbDinosaur]

tokafondo wrote:

Anyway, the archive does have it.

https://archive.org/details/GSOS_6.0.1_source

I have to confess I've not paid much attention to Apple over the years. In the heyday of eight-bit computers I worked with the C-64 and C-128, especially the latter, whose capabilities were never fully exploited.

It's a shame Apple intentionally crippled the ][GS by limiting the clock speed. Didn't want the Mac to look like the slug it was at the time.

[BigEd]

(It's fine to say emulator - it's more than fine, it's normal. It's also OK to say simulator.)

[BigDumbDinosaur]

BigEd wrote:

(It's fine to say emulator - it's more than fine, it's normal. It's also OK to say simulator.)

It's not fine to use the wrong terminology and confuse those who are not aware of the substantial difference between simulation and emulation.

[jds]

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the ][GS operating system source code had been made available.

I don't think it was officially made available, it's more of a leak, or possibly even a bit of a grey area as I don't think Apple appears to care, but it is a very useful resource for looking at what is probably one of the largest and most used 65816 code bases. It used to be quite hard to find the source.

[tokafondo]

I've been playing with the Apple ][gs GS plus [si,e]mulator and I'm impressed with the software. I even got WordPerfect running there.

I visited one website with a lot of software written for this machine. There are also a lot of hardware expansions that cover everything both standard and advanced users could need. I can't wonder anything but how it was this CPU largely ignored by computers designers or manufacturers.

[BigEd]

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

BigEd wrote:

(It's fine to say emulator - it's more than fine, it's normal. It's also OK to say simulator.)

It's not fine to use the wrong terminology and confuse those who are not aware of the substantial difference between simulation and emulation.

Indeed, confusion is not good, and there is such a thing as technical vocabulary. There's also such a thing as a dialect. See Prescriptivism.

By insisting on your own dialect, you knock back conversations which could proceed quite happily, and by bothering to mention it, you promote your own preference over that of others.

I'd really rather never mention this again, but whether you do it with a smiley or without, it's still annoying, and you do it rather often.

This is a case of both being right. You have a preference, but you are not any more correct than the other party.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

tokafondo wrote:

I can't wonder anything but how it was this CPU largely ignored by computers designers or manufacturers.

Timing and name recognition were not in the 65C816's favor. At the time of its release, which was late 1984, the 816 was already technologically behind the competition, namely the 68000 and 80286 (although the 816 could outperform both of those MPUs in some areas). The 816 was "too powerful" for the home computer market of the time (which was dominated by the Commodore 64), but not powerful enough to satisfy the emerging business market.

Also, WDC lacked the resources needed to get the 816 into new designs—the large sales budget of an Intel or Motorola wasn't there. My understanding of the adoption of the 816 by Apple was that happened only because Apple wanted to extend the life of the Apple ][ series (which was financing the development of the Mac), and the 816 was a relatively inexpensive way to do it. In a sense, the ][GS was to the Apple ][ lineup as the C-128 was to the Commodore lineup: the final iteration of an architecture that was a dead end.

Apple didn't market the ][GS all that aggressively, and hamstrung the machine to avoid making the slower (at the time) Mac from looking like a bad value. Doing so obviously didn't do anything for the 816's reputation, which I think ultimately doomed any chance of the 816 being adopted for future computer designs.

[rpiguy2]

Quite a few things worked against it as mentioned.

It also came into production just as the MHZ wars were starting. On a per clock basis the 65C816 will clean the clock with its contemporaries. In 1986 you had the 386 coming into play at a very high price, but even that averaged 1 MIPS for every 6mhz. On 16-bit code nothing could execute as efficiently as the 65C816.

But it ran at a lower MHZ and required faster RAM than its 68X and X86 equivalents.

As noted, the 65X line lacked floating point, memory management, and a number of other features that were required for "big" micros.

For example, the IBM PC had DMA from the start because Intel knew the value of a full line of peripheral chips for that sort of "big-system" thing, even if the DMA was primitive.

[GARTHWILSON]

rpiguy2, are you sure? The earliest data sheet I have for the '816 is 1987, from GTE Microcircuits, and they have it at 8MHz. The '386 was introduced at 12MHz a year after the '816 was (Intel tried for 16 but the yield was too poor), and it did not have a floating-point coprocessor yet. If you wanted a coprocessor, you'd use the '287 (because the '387 was not out yet), and the '386 and '287 were paired at 10MHz.

[floobydust]

BigEd wrote:

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

BigEd wrote:

(It's fine to say emulator - it's more than fine, it's normal. It's also OK to say simulator.)

It's not fine to use the wrong terminology and confuse those who are not aware of the substantial difference between simulation and emulation.

Indeed, confusion is not good, and there is such a thing as technical vocabulary. There's also such a thing as a dialect. See Prescriptivism.

By insisting on your own dialect, you knock back conversations which could proceed quite happily, and by bothering to mention it, you promote your own preference over that of others.

I'd really rather never mention this again, but whether you do it with a smiley or without, it's still annoying, and you do it rather often.

This is a case of both being right. You have a preference, but you are not any more correct than the other party.

I don't know why this has to be a dart tossing contest... they are different, and the differences are well documented, here's one that quite good:

https://saucelabs.com/blog/simulators-v ... nce-anyway

Peace... or should that be Piece?

[BigEd]

(I should have linked earlier to a thread made for the purpose.)