Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!jkt100 From: JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.emulations Subject: Re: C128 emulator? Message-ID: <91056.225758JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> Date: 26 Feb 91 03:57:58 GMT References: <930@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <91054.231708JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> <1991Feb25.211337.16437@fwi.uva.nl> Organization: Penn State University Lines: 34 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 || -----------------------------------------------------------------------