Hey guys, I have finally created the Codeplex site for this project.
You can check it out at:

http://cbm11.codeplex.com/

Background: Something Ive always been interested in, is seeing VICE as
an operating system instead of just an emulator. This project
basically boots up an emulated 6502.   It doesn't emulate the other
chips, just a raw CPU, RAM, and I/O. It's the start for a blank slate
for building 8-bit OSes on modern hardware.   Not too practical, but
fun nonetheless.  It rides on the Cosmos project, noted on the site.
A bootable ISO is included in the Release folder.

This is the first release of the CBM11 OS (v0.1.0.0). It will boot to
a ML monitor with the following instructions:

M XXXX - Display memory at location XXXX
M XXXX BB - Change memory at location XXXX to BB
S XXXX - Start execution at location XXXX in step mode. After the next
instruction, just enter S alone to single step the next instruction
G XXXX - Go - Start execution until BRK
A XXXX opcode param - Assemble opcode to XXXX
F XXXX XXXX - Fill memory from 1st parm to 2nd param

Known issues:
Since Cosmos does not yet support filesystems, you are limited to in
memory assembly - no load or save yet.
No disassembler yet
Some opcodes incomplete, notably Decimal mode opcodes like ADC.

Anxiously awaiting the upcoming releases of Cosmos, to add I/O support
so it can boot kernals and other code.  Dont get me wrong - this has a
LOOOONG way to go to become a bootable Super C64, but it's taking
shape. Mr Peddle had to start somewhere with the KIM1 :)

"xlar54" <scott.hutter@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:8a3437e8-d05b-4c4b-bcbe-f8d965478bf9@z20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> Hey guys, I have finally created the Codeplex site for this project.
> You can check it out at:
>
> http://cbm11.codeplex.com/
>
> Background: Something Ive always been interested in, is seeing VICE as
> an operating system instead of just an emulator. This project
> basically boots up an emulated 6502.   It doesn't emulate the other


I've been following your posts and this is a wacky project (therefore I like 
it!)

Would you be able to extend it to 65816 emulation?  I'm thinking 
SuperCPU....

-Leif 

> I've been following your posts and this is a wacky project (therefore I l=
ike
> it!)
>
> Would you be able to extend it to 65816 emulation? =A0I'm thinking
> SuperCPU....
>
> -Leif

Thanks Leif - it is kind of crazy, but fun.  Its definitely nothing
profound - just merging two ideas together and seeing what comes out
of it.  But the possibilities here, at least in my mind, are pretty
cool.  I *hate* x86, love operating system development, and really
like the simplicity of the 6502.  Many of the things, like speed and
access to modern devices, that keep the 64/128 from being used as
modern machines, this kind of thing may help clear the way, and may
even be partially compatible.

Ive been reading up on the 65816.  It definitely is a possibility.
The 65816 seems to be a very nice logical evolution of the 6502.  I
had originally considered using some undocumented opcodes and the 5th
SR bit to enable switch RAM in and out, and even possibly enable
multitasking.  I still have some work to do on the standard emulation,
and clean up the code in some areas, but 65816 sounds like a good
target.

This project sort of reminds me of a project I started a few years
back, see screenshots here:

http://galaxy22.dyndns.org/admiral64/

The idea was to boot a regular PC to a native operating system based
on Commodore BASIC, but not necessarily compatible with Commodore
BASIC.  In theory, had I ever gotten it finished, you would have been
able to write code in BASIC that would perform so fast it would
probably out-run assembler code written on an original C64.

On Feb 13, 11:39=A0am, David Murray <adri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This project sort of reminds me of a project I started a few years
> back, see screenshots here:
>
> http://galaxy22.dyndns.org/admiral64/
>
> The idea was to boot a regular PC to a native operating system based
> on Commodore BASIC, but not necessarily compatible with Commodore
> BASIC. =A0In theory, had I ever gotten it finished, you would have been
> able to write code in BASIC that would perform so fast it would
> probably out-run assembler code written on an original C64.

I do remember this project!  Ill admit, it's part of what inspired me
to work on CBM11.  Nice job!

With dedication and some time, I think you might just see Microsoft
Basic running in native 6502 on the x86 PC pretty soon.  Im really
anxious for the Cosmos folks to get disk I/O working, so it can
actually load a kernel.   Actually, I have a copy of "Enhanced BASIC"
which universally runs on any 6502 processor (just give it the JSR
routine for CHRIN and CHROUT) - no other system calls are needed.  I
may even play with loading it up and creating a build with BASIC built
in.  Problem is, I need a way to convert the binary code back to
hexadecimal to include it in an array for  the CBM11 source. I could
code something to do that I suppose.  Hmm.. ideas :)

> in. =A0Problem is, I need a way to convert the binary code back to
> hexadecimal to include it in an array for =A0the CBM11 source. I could
> code something to do that I suppose. =A0Hmm.. ideas :)

Yep - I've faced that dilemma before.  I seem to recall downloading a
program (although I can't remember what it is called at the moment)
which creates an ASCII file with HEX numbers for just such a purpose.
I also wrote one myself many years ago that runs in DOS but I can't
find it now.

I'll have to look into this "enhanced Basic"

I actually abandoned my Admiral 64 project.  It was actually capable
of running simple code, but I ran into several problems. I was writing
it in C and the compiler I was using was ancient, designed for DOS and
it wouldn't allow me to do some of the things I needed.  I think in
the end, if I ever wanted that program to succeed I'd need to write in
in X86 assembler.

Here's the link to Enhanced Basic: http://members.multimania.co.uk/leeedavi=
son/6502/ehbasic/

Looks like it should work, with some tweaks anyway.  Im opening a
dialog with the developer.  According to his license, should be fine
as long as the source is mentioned.

And I hear ya on the Admiral project.  But man...x86 is painful :)

>
> Yep - I've faced that dilemma before. =A0I seem to recall downloading a
> program (although I can't remember what it is called at the moment)
> which creates an ASCII file with HEX numbers for just such a purpose.
> I also wrote one myself many years ago that runs in DOS but I can't
> find it now.
>
> I'll have to look into this "enhanced Basic"
>
> I actually abandoned my Admiral 64 project. =A0It was actually capable
> of running simple code, but I ran into several problems. I was writing
> it in C and the compiler I was using was ancient, designed for DOS and
> it wouldn't allow me to do some of the things I needed. =A0I think in
> the end, if I ever wanted that program to succeed I'd need to write in
> in X86 assembler.

On Feb 17, 11:45=A0pm, xlar54 <scott.hut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the link to Enhanced Basic:http://members.multimania.co.uk/leeedav=
ison/6502/ehbasic/

Wow.. that guy has a serious problem with the ads on his website..
They are all scams and giant intrusive flashing things telling you
that you have won an iPod, etc..  very annoying to even read the site.

Op 20-Feb-11 6:27, David Murray schreef:
> On Feb 17, 11:45 pm, xlar54<scott.hut...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Here's the link to Enhanced Basic:http://members.multimania.co.uk/leeedavison/6502/ehbasic/
>
> Wow.. that guy has a serious problem with the ads on his website..
> They are all scams and giant intrusive flashing things telling you
> that you have won an iPod, etc..  very annoying to even read the site.

This site looks just fine with Firefox and the Adblock Plus plugin; no 
ads whatsoever ;-)