Atari ++, Atari 800win+ and sio2pc cable

[carmel_andrews]

I remember reading somewhere that Atari ++ and atari 800win both use the same emulation engine at it's core (atari 800 dos)

 

If that is so, why is it that Atari ++ supports the sio2pc cable and atari800win+ doesnt

[fox]

I remember reading somewhere that Atari ++ and atari 800win both use the same emulation engine at it's core (atari 800 dos)

954574[/snapback]

Not true.

[Wrathchild]

Also, I believe the Atari++ PC-cable-drive support is only available under Linux and not Windows.

The new 1.44 release is out and is worth getting:

http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~thor/atari++/

 

Mark

 

FYI: I've also submitted a patch to support 8Mb (1MB) FlashCarts rather than just the 1Mb (128KB) ones. If anyone wants the compiled exe (VC6) then let me know.

[Chrodegang]

I remember reading somewhere that Atari ++ and atari 800win both use the same emulation engine at it's core (atari 800 dos)

 

There have been some discussions about this topic in the 8bit-newsgroups some time ago. Thomas Richter, the author and maintainer of Atari++, was accused, by some Atari people, of using licensed code of the Atari800win core without crediting the authors/license. Thomas then replied that he wrote every piece of code for the Atari++ emulator from scratch. Since the source code (C++) of both, Atari++ and Atari800win, is freely available you can compare and decide by yourself.

 

Noteworthy: Thomas also implemented an OS-emulation, i.e., there is no need to use copy protected Atari-ROMs any longer.

 

For all who are interested in trying out Atari++: Homepage

[carmel_andrews]

Also, I believe the Atari++ PC-cable-drive support is only available under Linux and not Windows.

The new 1.44 release is out and is worth getting:

http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~thor/atari++/

 

Mark

 

FYI: I've also submitted a patch to support 8Mb (1MB) FlashCarts rather than just the 1Mb (128KB) ones. If anyone wants the compiled exe (VC6) then let me know.

954607[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I D/L'd it yesterdayt thanks, on my pc now

[fox]

Thomas then replied that he wrote every piece of code for the Atari++ emulator from scratch.

 

Maybe 95%, but surely not 100%. There were same typos in "his" code

as in Atari800, would you believe he hasn't copied it?

 

Anyway, the war between Atari800 team and Thomas is now history

and I wish Atari++ well.

 

Noteworthy: Thomas also implemented an OS-emulation, i.e., there is no need to use copy protected Atari-ROMs any longer.

 

Probably "most of the time" rather than "at all".

 

Atari800 has "emuos" that is enough for running some games.

[Chrodegang]

Maybe 95%, but surely not 100%. There were same typos in "his" code

as in Atari800, would you believe he hasn't copied it?

 

I don't want to judge about what Thomas did or not, because I didn't follow the longish discussion in the newsgroup from a certain point on (also, I didn't look through the source codes at that time).

 

Probably "most of the time" rather than "at all".

 

Could you give some examples, please?

[fox]

Probably "most of the time" rather than "at all".

Could you give some examples, please?

 

One example would be "Muad Dib Demo" which is crypted using

XL/XE OS contents - it needs the original ("old" version) OS to run.

 

I'm sure there are many programs which use unofficial addresses

in OS, not only for routines, but also lookup tables

(e.g. $80,$40,$20,$10,$08,$04,$02,$01).

 

Another class of programs is these which copy the original ROM

contents to RAM and then patch it.

 

I also doubt if Atari++'s OS emulation is 100% compatible

with the original OS (including details like C flag set when returning

from SIO - some programs really rely on this).

[Chrodegang]

Thanks!