I have posted about this before, a year or two ago.   But I wanted to
revisit the idea and add some new thoughts to the project.  First, a
recap of my idea.  I'd like to design something akin to an operating
system for the PC which would boot directly to a screen which looked
and behaved like Commodore BASIC.  It would look sort of like you were
running a DOS based C64 emulator but everything would be running in
native X86 code.  Obviously, it would run wickedly fast on a Pentium
or higher CPU.  You would be able to write programs in BASIC just like
you always did on the C64 but this time you'll have better graphics at
your disposal and your programs will actually run very fast.  (even
faster than using VICE and setting the CPU to 1000%)  If everything is
done correctly, you could probably even run simple Commodore BASIC
programs AS-IS as long as they don't use any peeks/pokes.

I would love to be able to sit down and write games and other programs
using the familiar and friendly Commodore BASIC and screen editor.
And that is really what its all about.

But one idea I had the other day was maybe create this as a virtual
machine instead.  I'll be the first to admit I don't have the
programming skills to make that happen.  But the advantage would be
that you'd be able to include lots of standard commands for graphics
and networking and they'd work on any machine you run it on.    So we
could actually develop software in this environment that would be able
to take advantage of modern hardware.

I could probably sit down and design the screen-editor in a day or two
and have it be able to process simple commands.   But as far as
emulating the entire command set of Commodore BASIC, that would take
some time.  In fact, it'd be great to have the original source code to
work from, converting it to X86 code.

"David Murray" <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> I could probably sit down and design the screen-editor in a day or two
> and have it be able to process simple commands.   But as far as
> emulating the entire command set of Commodore BASIC, that would take
> some time.  In fact, it'd be great to have the original source code to
> work from, converting it to X86 code.

Some of the VICE source code might make a good starting point.  Just an 
idea...  Keep the parts you like, and redo the parts you don't like.  Just be 
sure to give credit to the VICE team for the parts you use.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines! 

"David Murray" <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:71a3b9b8-242f-4417-8d0f-cb0b77510f48@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> I have posted about this before, a year or two ago.   But I wanted to
> revisit the idea and add some new thoughts to the project.  First, a
> recap of my idea.  I'd like to design something akin to an operating
> system for the PC which would boot directly to a screen which looked
> and behaved like Commodore BASIC.  It would look sort of like you were
> running a DOS based C64 emulator but everything would be running in
> native X86 code.

As long as you're going through all that work, I'd rather see C128 BASIC 
than
C64 BASIC.  It's much more capable.  Maybe with BASIC-8 compatibility 
included!
(Isn't blue-skying wonderful?)

Tom Lake 

 > Some of the VICE source code might make a good starting point.

A lazier idea: using cbmbasic[.sourceforge.net], and putting it onto a
Linux bootfloppy/cd/dvd/usb/pigeon, with /etc/inittab calling /bin/cbmbasic.

-- 
Chris

On Aug 31, 7:39=A0am, Chris Baird <ab...@brushtail.apana.org.au> wrote:
> =A0> Some of the VICE source code might make a good starting point.
>
> A lazier idea: using cbmbasic[.sourceforge.net], and putting it onto a
> Linux bootfloppy/cd/dvd/usb/pigeon, with /etc/inittab calling /bin/cbmbas=
ic.

I've played with that, but that is not what I'm looking for.  Although
that program has Commodore BASIC, it is nothing like working on a real
Commodore.  I want the full screen-editor, PETSCII characters, etc.

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--1749432381-605254815-1251728614=:17034
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE



On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, adric22 wrote:

> On Aug 31, 7:39=C2=A0am, Chris Baird <ab...@brushtail.apana.org.au> wrote=
:
>> =C2=A0> Some of the VICE source code might make a good starting point.
>>
>> A lazier idea: using cbmbasic[.sourceforge.net], and putting it onto a
>> Linux bootfloppy/cd/dvd/usb/pigeon, with /etc/inittab calling /bin/cbmba=
sic.
>
> I've played with that, but that is not what I'm looking for.  Although
> that program has Commodore BASIC, it is nothing like working on a real
> Commodore.  I want the full screen-editor, PETSCII characters, etc.

Reprogramming the VGA to get PETSCII's not too hard.  And using the same=20
trick you could implement the switch from uppercase/graphics to mix case.

As for the full screen editor, GWBASIC did it better - it could chain up=20
to, I think, 240 chars, rather than only 80 in C64 BASIC.  But I know=20
where you're coming from with this.  (You know, I tried to do it myself=20
about 8 years ago and failed miserably!  But then, I've never been able to=
=20
program a BASIC interpreter successfully.)

-uso.
--1749432381-605254815-1251728614=:17034--

Replying to myself.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, lyricalnanoha wrote:

> Reprogramming the VGA to get PETSCII's not too hard.  And using the same 
> trick you could implement the switch from uppercase/graphics to mix case.

Here's how you do it in Borland C:

void ldfont (void)
{
  _BP=FP_OFF(font);
  _ES=FP_SEG(font);
  _AH=0x11;
  _AL=0x10;
  _BH=16;
  _BL=0;
  _CX=255;
  _DX=0;
  geninterrupt(0x10);
}

Shouldn't be too hard to do it with another compiler, and you can prolly 
make ASM of that easy enough.  This code actually comes from a Commodore 
PET emulator I wrote a few years back, and the effect is pretty nice.  The 
emulator itself used a Commodore font which I padded out, giving it a 
"raster burn" effect (every other line was blank).  You can see a 
screenshot of it with some other emulators (working and nonworking) on 
http://usotsuki.info/someemusiwasworkingon.png

I don't have a lot of code that would be of use to such a project but 
anything I have that would be of use to it, anyone'd be welcome to use.

-uso.

> As for the full screen editor, GWBASIC did it better - it could chain up
> to, I think, 240 chars, rather than only 80 in C64 BASIC. =A0But I know
> where you're coming from with this. =A0(You know, I tried to do it myself
> about 8 years ago and failed miserably! =A0But then, I've never been able=
 to
> program a BASIC interpreter successfully.)

Well, what I'm hoping to do is design a screen-editor and a "kernel"
first.  But at this point I plan on having it run in DOS so it won't
need much of a kernel.  That would also make it a lot easier to open/
save files to the disk.  But I need the screen environment to include
PETSCII characters but also color-change codes (so when you hit
control-2 you get white, etc..) and don't forget things that are
unique to commodore such as using cursor keys and other screen codes
inside of quotes of print statements, etc.    Then I was hoping to
actually track down the actual code to Commodore BASIC and start
converting it line-by-line to X86 assembly. Obviously making changes
where BASIC communicates with other parts of the system too.

Some issues I'm not sure about, though... a PC has a lot more RAM than
a C64.   I'm not entirely sure how to work around that.  I mean a POKE
statement would be huge with a larger address area.  Also I was
thinking of taking BASIC from the VIC-20 since it is probably simpler
in terms of memory management.

adric22 wrote:
> Also I was
> thinking of taking BASIC from the VIC-20 since it is probably simpler
> in terms of memory management.

the vic20 basic is almost exactly the same as the one used in the c64 :)

-- 

http://www.hitmen-console.org    http://magicdisk.untergrund.net
http://www.pokefinder.org        http://ftp.pokefinder.org

Ich habe das Wort "Europa" immer im Munde derjenigen Politiker gefunden, die
von anderen Maechten etwas verlangten, was sie im eigenen Namen nicht zu
fordern wagten. 
<Otto von Bismarck, November 1876>

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, adric22 wrote:

> Well, what I'm hoping to do is design a screen-editor and a "kernel"
> first.  But at this point I plan on having it run in DOS so it won't
> need much of a kernel.  That would also make it a lot easier to open/
> save files to the disk.

Would also make it easier to code as you could use existing DOS C 
compilers and runtimes.

> But I need the screen environment to include PETSCII characters but also 
> color-change codes (so when you hit control-2 you get white, etc..) and 
> don't forget things that are unique to commodore such as using cursor 
> keys and other screen codes inside of quotes of print statements, etc.

That's prolly not too hard either.  Might take intercepting the keyboard 
(as Dapple did), or might be simpler.

> Then I was hoping to actually track down the actual code to Commodore 
> BASIC and start converting it line-by-line to X86 assembly. Obviously 
> making changes where BASIC communicates with other parts of the system 
> too.
>
> Some issues I'm not sure about, though... a PC has a lot more RAM than
> a C64.   I'm not entirely sure how to work around that.  I mean a POKE
> statement would be huge with a larger address area.

You could do DEF SEG like GW-BASIC?

> Also I was thinking of taking BASIC from the VIC-20 since it is probably 
> simpler in terms of memory management.

I think it's exactly the same apart from minor cosmetic differences.

-uso.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, adric22 wrote:

> Then I was hoping to actually track down the actual code to Commodore 
> BASIC and start converting it line-by-line to X86 assembly. Obviously 
> making changes where BASIC communicates with other parts of the system 
> too.

This has at least one version of the PET's BASIC in it, I think.

http://www.pagetable.com/?p=46

I think it has the 2001's and 30xx's BASICs?  That might get you most of 
what you need.

-uso.

 > I've played with that, but that is not what I'm looking for. Although
 > that program has Commodore BASIC, it is nothing like working on a
 > real Commodore. I want the full screen-editor, PETSCII characters,
 > etc.

Start small? A complex system that works always starts off as a simple
system that works.

-- 
Chris

Id just go a step further, and modify VICE to be a full fledged
operating system.  Modify the MMU code to allow bank switching for ALL
the ram in the computer, access real drives instead of emulated ones,
and voila - you have a new Super 128 :)

On Sep 2, 7:50=A0am, xlar54 <scott.hut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Id just go a step further, and modify VICE to be a full fledged
> operating system. =A0Modify the MMU code to allow bank switching for ALL
> the ram in the computer, access real drives instead of emulated ones,
> and voila - you have a new Super 128 :)

Unfortunately, the CPU processes and video would still be emulated.
The idea is to get the code running native on the intel processor.
And the video access would be native as well.  That's how to get the
best speed.   I bet you could write programs in BASIC on a low-end
pentium that would probably run faster than a ML program on a real C64.

"adric22" <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> On Sep 2, 7:50 am, xlar54 <scott.hut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Id just go a step further, and modify VICE to be a full fledged
>> operating system. Modify the MMU code to allow bank switching for ALL
>> the ram in the computer, access real drives instead of emulated ones,
>> and voila - you have a new Super 128 :)
>
> Unfortunately, the CPU processes and video would still be emulated.
> The idea is to get the code running native on the intel processor.
> And the video access would be native as well.  That's how to get the
> best speed.   I bet you could write programs in BASIC on a low-end
> pentium that would probably run faster than a ML program on a real C64.

ML is a lot faster than Basic on a C64, but I agree, C64 ML would be no match 
for Basic programs running on a Pentium.

Years ago I wrote some simple Basic programs for the C128 and also a 25 MHz 
386 I had at the time.  I also had a 10 MHz XT Clone then.  The C128 was 
actually a little faster than the XT Clone, but the 386 was much faster than 
either of them.

Later, when I got a 133 MHz Pentium, I found it would run circles around the 
386.

The test programs were not anything fancy.  Just repetitive multiplications, 
string manipulations, and that sort of thing.  I used the native Basic at 2 
MHz on the C128, and QuickBasic on the other machines.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines! 

Sam Gillett wrote:
> "adric22" <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>
>> On Sep 2, 7:50 am, xlar54 <scott.hut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Id just go a step further, and modify VICE to be a full fledged
>>> operating system. Modify the MMU code to allow bank switching for
>>> ALL the ram in the computer, access real drives instead of emulated
>>> ones, and voila - you have a new Super 128 :)
>>
>> Unfortunately, the CPU processes and video would still be emulated.
>> The idea is to get the code running native on the intel processor.
>> And the video access would be native as well.  That's how to get the
>> best speed.   I bet you could write programs in BASIC on a low-end
>> pentium that would probably run faster than a ML program on a real
>> C64.
>
> ML is a lot faster than Basic on a C64, but I agree, C64 ML would be
> no match for Basic programs running on a Pentium.
>

Very true,  since the first good emulator I found could run at 60fps on my 
Pentium 75,   I just wish I could remember the name,  it was something like 
ACE or ALE or something like that,  it been discontinued for a very long 
time. 

Quantum Leaper wrote:
> Sam Gillett wrote:
>> "adric22" <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>> On Sep 2, 7:50 am, xlar54 <scott.hut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Id just go a step further, and modify VICE to be a full fledged
>>>> operating system. Modify the MMU code to allow bank switching for
>>>> ALL the ram in the computer, access real drives instead of emulated
>>>> ones, and voila - you have a new Super 128 :)
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the CPU processes and video would still be emulated.
>>> The idea is to get the code running native on the intel processor.
>>> And the video access would be native as well.  That's how to get the
>>> best speed.   I bet you could write programs in BASIC on a low-end
>>> pentium that would probably run faster than a ML program on a real
>>> C64.
>>
>> ML is a lot faster than Basic on a C64, but I agree, C64 ML would be
>> no match for Basic programs running on a Pentium.


> Very true,  since the first good emulator I found could run at 60fps
> on my Pentium 75,   I just wish I could remember the name,  it was
> something like ACE or ALE or something like that,  it been
> discontinued for a very long time.

Early versions of CCS64 ran very well on old hardware. Sure, SID accuracy 
and some tricks didn't work or showed some incompatibilities but considering 
it ran on a 486, it was pretty impressive.

Clocky wrote:
> Quantum Leaper wrote:
>> Sam Gillett wrote:
>>> "adric22" <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 7:50 am, xlar54 <scott.hut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Id just go a step further, and modify VICE to be a full fledged
>>>>> operating system. Modify the MMU code to allow bank switching for
>>>>> ALL the ram in the computer, access real drives instead of
>>>>> emulated ones, and voila - you have a new Super 128 :)
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the CPU processes and video would still be emulated.
>>>> The idea is to get the code running native on the intel processor.
>>>> And the video access would be native as well.  That's how to get
>>>> the best speed.   I bet you could write programs in BASIC on a
>>>> low-end pentium that would probably run faster than a ML program
>>>> on a real C64.
>>>
>>> ML is a lot faster than Basic on a C64, but I agree, C64 ML would be
>>> no match for Basic programs running on a Pentium.
>
>
>> Very true,  since the first good emulator I found could run at 60fps
>> on my Pentium 75,   I just wish I could remember the name,  it was
>> something like ACE or ALE or something like that,  it been
>> discontinued for a very long time.
>
> Early versions of CCS64 ran very well on old hardware. Sure, SID
> accuracy and some tricks didn't work or showed some incompatibilities
> but considering it ran on a 486, it was pretty impressive.

Your right that is a very good emulator also, I used that one also and it 
still available.   Now all I use is Vice,  since it has high compatibilities 
and run at full speed on my current computer.
Saying it run on a 486 is kind of misleading,  my friend 486DX 100MHz (it 
might have been a 486 120MHz from AMD) run at almost speed as my P75. 

> Saying it run on a 486 is kind of misleading, =A0my friend 486DX 100MHz (=
it
> might have been a 486 120MHz from AMD) run at almost speed as my P75.

I specifically remember running an emulator called C64s and I used it
all the time on my laptop which was a 486 @ 33 Mhz.   I used to play
gianna sisters on it and it had sound and everything.  VICE may be
more accurate but it does require around 500 Mhz or so to work well.

> Unfortunately, the CPU processes and video would still be emulated.
> The idea is to get the code running native on the intel processor.
> And the video access would be native as well.  That's how to get the
> best speed.   I bet you could write programs in BASIC on a low-end
> pentium that would probably run faster than a ML program on a real C64.

Even an emulated C64 in VICE on a Pentium runs BASIC programs 
much faster them ML on a 1 MHz 64.

Tom Lake

 

adric22 wrote:
>> Saying it run on a 486 is kind of misleading, my friend 486DX 100MHz
>> (it might have been a 486 120MHz from AMD) run at almost speed as my
>> P75.
>
> I specifically remember running an emulator called C64s and I used it
> all the time on my laptop which was a 486 @ 33 Mhz.   I used to play
> gianna sisters on it and it had sound and everything.  VICE may be
> more accurate but it does require around 500 Mhz or so to work well.

I stand corrected, C64S is the emulator I was thinking of, not CCS64 and yes 
it did run on minimal hardware. I think it even ran pretty well on a 386.

Quantum Leaper wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>> Quantum Leaper wrote:
>>> Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>> "adric22" <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 2, 7:50 am, xlar54 <scott.hut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Id just go a step further, and modify VICE to be a full fledged
>>>>>> operating system. Modify the MMU code to allow bank switching for
>>>>>> ALL the ram in the computer, access real drives instead of
>>>>>> emulated ones, and voila - you have a new Super 128 :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, the CPU processes and video would still be
>>>>> emulated. The idea is to get the code running native on the intel
>>>>> processor. And the video access would be native as well.  That's
>>>>> how to get the best speed.   I bet you could write programs in
>>>>> BASIC on a low-end pentium that would probably run faster than a
>>>>> ML program on a real C64.
>>>>
>>>> ML is a lot faster than Basic on a C64, but I agree, C64 ML would
>>>> be no match for Basic programs running on a Pentium.
>>
>>
>>> Very true,  since the first good emulator I found could run at 60fps
>>> on my Pentium 75,   I just wish I could remember the name,  it was
>>> something like ACE or ALE or something like that,  it been
>>> discontinued for a very long time.
>>
>> Early versions of CCS64 ran very well on old hardware. Sure, SID
>> accuracy and some tricks didn't work or showed some incompatibilities
>> but considering it ran on a 486, it was pretty impressive.
>
> Your right that is a very good emulator also, I used that one also
> and it still available.   Now all I use is Vice,  since it has high
> compatibilities and run at full speed on my current computer.
> Saying it run on a 486 is kind of misleading,  my friend 486DX 100MHz
> (it might have been a 486 120MHz from AMD) run at almost speed as my
> P75.

I had a brainfart, I meant C64S, not CCS64. C64S ran very well on my 386DX40 
even.

http://www.censor.net/newdesign/tools/download/c64s/c64s.readme

Tom Lake wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the CPU processes and video would still be emulated.
>> The idea is to get the code running native on the intel processor.
>> And the video access would be native as well.  That's how to get the
>> best speed.   I bet you could write programs in BASIC on a low-end
>> pentium that would probably run faster than a ML program on a real
>> C64.
>
> Even an emulated C64 in VICE on a Pentium runs BASIC programs
> much faster them ML on a 1 MHz 64.
>
> Tom Lake

I'm not so sure, it would be an interesting experiment though. 

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--1749432381-2041851512-1252196235=:28689
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE



On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, adric22 wrote:

>> Saying it run on a 486 is kind of misleading, =C2=A0my friend 486DX 100M=
Hz (it
>> might have been a 486 120MHz from AMD) run at almost speed as my P75.
>
> I specifically remember running an emulator called C64s and I used it
> all the time on my laptop which was a 486 @ 33 Mhz.   I used to play
> gianna sisters on it and it had sound and everything.  VICE may be
> more accurate but it does require around 500 Mhz or so to work well.

I used PC64.  Nice and fast, if inaccurate.

-uso.
--1749432381-2041851512-1252196235=:28689--

"Clocky" <nicetry@migo.com> wrote in message 
news:002c8017$0$2970$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Tom Lake wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, the CPU processes and video would still be emulated.
>>> The idea is to get the code running native on the intel processor.
>>> And the video access would be native as well.  That's how to get the
>>> best speed.   I bet you could write programs in BASIC on a low-end
>>> pentium that would probably run faster than a ML program on a real
>>> C64.
>>
>> Even an emulated C64 in VICE on a Pentium runs BASIC programs
>> much faster them ML on a 1 MHz 64.
>>
>> Tom Lake
>
> I'm not so sure, it would be an interesting experiment though.

You're right.  I was thinking of a Pentium II.

Tom Lake 

I'd love to see it on my Commodore PC-10.

"David Murray" <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:71a3b9b8-242f-4417-8d0f-cb0b77510f48@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>I have posted about this before, a year or two ago.   But I wanted to
> revisit the idea and add some new thoughts to the project.  First, a
> recap of my idea.  I'd like to design something akin to an operating
> system for the PC which would boot directly to a screen which looked
> and behaved like Commodore BASIC.  It would look sort of like you were
> running a DOS based C64 emulator but everything would be running in
> native X86 code.  Obviously, it would run wickedly fast on a Pentium
> or higher CPU.  You would be able to write programs in BASIC just like
> you always did on the C64 but this time you'll have better graphics at
> your disposal and your programs will actually run very fast.  (even
> faster than using VICE and setting the CPU to 1000%)  If everything is
> done correctly, you could probably even run simple Commodore BASIC
> programs AS-IS as long as they don't use any peeks/pokes.
>
> I would love to be able to sit down and write games and other programs
> using the familiar and friendly Commodore BASIC and screen editor.
> And that is really what its all about.
>
> But one idea I had the other day was maybe create this as a virtual
> machine instead.  I'll be the first to admit I don't have the
> programming skills to make that happen.  But the advantage would be
> that you'd be able to include lots of standard commands for graphics
> and networking and they'd work on any machine you run it on.    So we
> could actually develop software in this environment that would be able
> to take advantage of modern hardware.
>
> I could probably sit down and design the screen-editor in a day or two
> and have it be able to process simple commands.   But as far as
> emulating the entire command set of Commodore BASIC, that would take
> some time.  In fact, it'd be great to have the original source code to
> work from, converting it to X86 code.