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.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

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.

Anyway, the archive does have it.

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

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

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

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

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.

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.

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.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

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.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

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?

_________________
Regards, KM
https://github.com/floobydust

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