C64 Emulator Finally Approved For iPhone

Gi0 writes "After a couple of months of rejection, the C64 Emulator has finally been approved for the iPhone (and is available at the app store now). 'BASIC has been removed for this release; however, we hope that working with Apple further will allow us to re-enable it. Despite its absence, BASIC is not our focus; ultimately, fans of the C64 want games.' It comes with 5 bundled games and will certainly give you that retro fix for your iPhone."

Comments

Turtle Neck Gestapo

[Anonymous Coward]

"No programming on your iPhone, poseurs.

The iPhone is only to be used for gay, Apple approved activities, like soliciting meth and sex on Cragslist. "

-Steve Jobs
9/7/2009

Re:Turtle Neck Gestapo

[Anonymusing]

That's probably why the app has been removed from the App Store, as of this morning.

Re:Turtle Neck Gestapo

[Big Hairy Ian]

Hmmm no C64 basic????
Surely this should be a selling point :)
Tempted to start boning up my 6502 skills haven't used them in about 20 years

C64 without BASIC?

[damn_registrars]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't the C64 pretty much just a BASIC interpreter? I thought just about everything for the C64 was written in BASIC; and IIRC the start prompt on the C64 took BASIC code natively.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[lbalbalba]

Obviosuly, you never knew about BASICS's 'peek' and 'poke', in order to get assembly.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Cmdr-Absurd]

It booted into the basic interpreter by default, leaving you with 38K for basic. You could configure the memory differently. Writing in assembly not only offered a huge improvement in speed, but freed up the memory range from B000 to Bfff. (And the C000 range was often used by calls to machine language subroutines from basic.)
So, no, it was not just a basic interpreter.
There's at least one running as a web server now.
I won't post the link to it. It takes very little to induce the slashdot effect on that hardware.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Jeek Elemental]

Commercial software was mostly in machine code, basic was too slow and ate too much memory.
Basic was great for beginners and for trying out the programs listed in magazines etc.
And yes, it was also the shell, needed for loading from tapes and discs.

For an emulator tho you can populate the memory before starting, so you dont really need the basic.

If theres no basic ROM it will break some programs that used routines from there to save space tho.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[cupantae]

I don't know all that much about computers, but is "Bfff" kind of like BFF's but moreso?

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Carthag]

Pretty much everything commercial, be it games or productivity software, was written in assembly, usually via machine code monitors.

The BASIC interpreter was pretty bare bones (no sprites/sound/graphics), if you wanted to write games that weren't either text-based adventures or had your character as a horse simulated by the Ï character, you were pretty much required to use machine code. Note that sound/sprites/graphics could be done via PEEK/POKE as mentioned, but was a total chore without a proper monitor/assembler. It would also require a stack of graphing paper for drawing the sprites & determining the binary values.

Debugging something like

1000 DATA 123, 6, 43, 69, 240, 122, 51
2000 DATA 120, 120, 85, 239, 4

is for suckers

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[mwvdlee]

BASIC was the "command line language" for C64 and was pretty much useless for any serious application. Most were done in assembly.
That being said, to the best of my knowledge, quite a few C64 programs used the BASIC subsystems so the ommission of BASIC may still cause problems.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Anonymous Coward]

The commodore ROMs and the individual games were licensed, but they had to remove the BASIC interpretor. The C64 interpretor said "Commodore BASIC, V2", but it was written by a little company that made money selling its version of 6502 BASIC.

I always knew which company made the barebones BASIC in the C64 because it had the same "print asc(0)" bug that the company provided in Atari, Apple, Amiga and IBM PC BASIC. The company also put an easter egg into Commodore 64 BASIC. When Commodore's Jack Tremail found out this OS vendor had wasted dozens of bytes of his precious ROM for their easter egg, he was furious. It's possible that Apple is still afraid of the license Jack Tramial signed in the early 80s because the little company which put bugs and easter eggs in their BASIC ROM is now a big company known as Microsoft! But more likely, Apple just doesn't want you to be able to run arbitrary applications on their iPhone. They want to control every end of the software development process and if you're able to type your own low-res game, chat application or amortization schedule in Commodore BASIC, Apple doesn't get any royalties. And we can't do fun things like:

10 poke 53265,59

20 wait 60,1

30 poke 53265,27

But frodo64 has provided FULL C64 emulation for Nokia phones for at least 3 years. I think I've run it on a pre 20th century Nokia phone. Nice try Apple, but if you open your OS development environment to those who don't buy your latest OS and hardware and/or if you allow Java applications, you might eventually have as many applications as other phones in the global marketplace. They might not be as flashy or have as polished of an interface, but they will work for the user and for the author.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to be on the East Coast next weekend, come
by the Vintage Computer Festival:

http://www.vintage.org/2009/east/

and see how it compares to the real thing. There will be several
C64s on display, up and running.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[lxs]

I think I've run it on a pre 20th century Nokia phone.

Did it have a big crank on the side?
"Operator! I want to speak to Frantic Freddy!"

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>isn't the C64 pretty much just a BASIC interpreter? I thought just about everything for the C64 was written in BASIC

Oh my. I will assume you are less than 30, and forgive your ignorance. Yes the C=64 came with BASIC but most everything was *not* written in that because it was too darn slow. Most programs ran directly on the hardware.

>>Obviosuly, you never knew about BASICS's 'peek' and 'poke', in order to get assembly.

Those commands, being part of the Microsoft Basic set, would not be included in this Iphone emulator. Usually when you run games, word processors, internet browsers, or other programs on a C64 you type LOAD "PROGRAM",8,1 which directs the external drive to load that code directly into memory - overwriting everything that's present including the MS-BASIC. The computer than executes instructions directly at the maximum speed possible (i.e. no interpeter to slow things down).

Using this trick, programs can occupy all of the computer's memory except about 5 kilobytes (the screen space, interrupt handlers, and so on).

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[dachshund]

Debugging something like
1000 DATA 123, 6, 43, 69, 240, 122, 51
2000 DATA 120, 120, 85, 239, 4
is for suckers

My debugging process --- deleting lines of code at random --- was simple and 100% effective. Sooner or later I always got something that "worked".

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I won't post the link to it. It takes very little to induce the slashdot effect on that hard

A wise man. But here's some other cool Commodore=64 stuff to check out. Remember this stuff all works on a machine with only a 0.001 gigahertz processor and 0.064 megabytes of RAM.

- A web browser - http://www.armory.com/~spectre/cwi/hl/
- A 1984 Mac-style OS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8-bit_operating_system)
- A true multitasking OS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Contiki-C64.png
- A photo viewer for your porn... oops, JPEGs - http://www.ffd2.com/fridge/jpeg/
- Okay here you go (NSFW) - http://girls.c64.org/ :-)

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

Hey! The guy on the bottom left looks like me! - http://girls.c64.org/title_c64classbyitself.jpg I had that exact-same shirt. Man I was stylin'

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Cmdr-Absurd]

LOAD "PROGRAM",8,1 which directs the external drive to load that code directly into memory

Almost.
the ,8 specified device 8 (generally the primary floppy drive) rather than the default cassette tape drive.
(The under 30 drive probably has no idea what either device looks like)
the ,8,1 specifies not only device 8, but that code should load not to the default memory loading location (where basic expects it to be) but rather where the code "wants" to live -- the programmer saves with similar options so the code will load into memory ranges used by the programmer when s/he wrote the code.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[thelexx]

"Those commands, being part of the Microsoft Basic set, would not be included in this Iphone emulator."

This is totally confusing. What does Microsoft have to do with anything?

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

LINK to Commodore 64 peripherals (tape drives, disk drives, et cetera): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64_peripherals

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[QuantumLeaper]

Microsoft wrote the original Basic version 1 for the Pet computer all the rest of the versions where written my Commodore but they were based on the MS Basic on the Pet. Just check the C128 screen after you boot, it says Copyright Microsoft and Commodore.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[NotBornYesterday]

Back then, Microsoft had versions of BASIC for various platforms, including the Apple ][ plus I had, and for the C64. Back before they started trying to kill the rest of the computing world, they had stuff that would run on different platforms. I even had a version of MS Flight Simulator for the Apple. Mmmm, sweet monochrome wireframe graphics. Ah, memories ...

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Carthag]

I doubt that. Usually DATA statements were read in a for loop that assumed a length of the data, so deleting anything would result in

?OUT OF DATA ERROR AT line#

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[QuantumLeaper]

I think I've run it on a pre 20th century Nokia phone

What is the Nokia phone steam powered or does it have a hand crank?

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Dogtanian]

Usually when you run games, word processors, internet browsers, or other programs on a C64 you type LOAD "PROGRAM",8,1 which directs the external drive to load that code directly into memory - overwriting everything that's present including the MS-BASIC.

Which essentially means that- like most 8-bit computers of that era- you need to enter the BASIC interpreter, however briefly, to load what are otherwise entirely machine code programs.

The Atari 8-bit computers (400, 800, XL and XE) were notable for *not* requiring that. In fact, on the original 400 and 800, BASIC came on a separate cart and was an optional and non-essential extra.

Disc software simply booted. Tape software required holding "Start" on power-up, then play (on tape) then return. Easy!

Although later versions (XL and XE) did include BASIC, it still wasn't required for loading non-BASIC games. In fact, you often had to disable it (by also holding down "Option" on power-up) for some games to run.

The Atari computers were released almost 3 years before the C64, but while this method of loading may have originally been a necessity due to BASIC not being included by default, it seems like (a) a simpler and (b) a "cleaner" way to do it, rather than having the OS built around one particular language as an ersatz command line.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

More worthless trash-and-trivia:

This Iphone app emulates the world's most popular CPU - the Commodore/MOS 6502 (and other variants). This processor was the heart of machines like the VIC-20 (10 million sold), C=64 or 128 (40 million), Atari 400/800 computers, Apple I/II/IIc/IIe computers, BBC Micro, Atari VCS/2600 and 5200 game consoles (40 million), Colecovision (10 million), Nintendo Entertainment System (60 million), plus many other applications like store registers and handheld calculators. In total over 200 million 6502s sold.

The 16-bit version called the 65816 (with 6502 backwards compatibility) ran the Apple IIgs, the SuperCPU C=64, and the Super Nintendo, and then the design was retired.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[mvario]

Wait a minute, I remember my C64 having "GW Basic"

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[DiegoBravo]

> For an emulator tho you can populate the memory before starting, so you dont really need the BASIC.

Several games (like the popular Sid Meier's Pirates) were a mix of Basic and machine code.

Of course, the "game" may include the BASIC rom files provided there is some standardized way to install them.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. The C64 had a cartridge slot. As it bank-switched, cartridges could "take over" and hide the basic rom

Alternative (less godawful than microsoft's) BASICs (Simons BASIC), Forth implementations, and _many_ games were released in cartridge form, though disk and tape were always more popular for simple cost reasons. There was even a keyboardless cartridge-only C64 "game system" console released, at least here in Europe. I'm not sure if the C64GS even had BASIC roms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64_Games_System

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[dachshund]

Hence the quotes around "worked".

(Admittedly, this technique was more effective for debugging the logic in Tim Hartnell's Big Book of Games, which didn't use DATA statements at all. You'd often end up with a Chess AI that wasn't too picky about the rules of the game.)

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Zerth]

If you played it on an Apple(or an Atari or an Amiga), it wasn't MS sim, it was still Bruce Artwick's. MS licensed it, and later bought it when they started going all monopolistic.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[MBGMorden]

GW BASIC was the BASIC that shipped with DOS prior to version 5.0 (at which time they switched to QBASIC). It wouldn't have come on a C64.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[catmistake]

BASIC is there... not hard to get it to work. Just runstop a game and when the emu reboots, brings it right up
proof here
Even more interestingly, the app is totally hackable (assuming your iPhone is jailbroken). I got Castle Wolfenstein, Ghostbusters, Impossible Mission, all working. Mildly painful, but doable.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Hal_Porter]

It would be cool if someone wrote a C64 ROM which exploits a hole in the emulator to load native ARM code and thereby allowed people to run non App Store code. I.e. you'd load it into the emulator and then your phone would be jailbroken.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Hal_Porter]

Actually DOS used to run on a variety of x86 machines, not just IBM PCs. E.g. RM Nimbus machines were x86 but not IBM PC compatible - they had different hardware and a different Bios.

NT based OSes don't require IBM PC compatibility either. 16 bit Windows also ran on the RM Nimbus and Japanese PC98, both of which were x86 based but not PC compatible. Still there Dos needed to be MSDOS because Windows patched great chunks of code when it took over. Dos would also patch Windows. Someone described this as 'burrowing' code - i.e. code which nominally runs on top of something else but actually rewrites it and takes over completely.

It's quick to release - you could run Windows on top of an old version of Dos which did not know about Windows and thus did not export interfaces Windows needed. Of course it was also good for Microsoft - rather than a well defined INT 21 API, any Dos that run Windows also needed to keep its data segment organised in a particular way and implement the API in the way the DOS patching functions in Windows expected.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Oh my. Is it bad that I know all those "games" ?

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Anonymusing]

...and Microsoft Excel was released on the Mac roughly two years before it appeared on Windows (1985 vs 1987).

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

>>>The Atari computers were released almost 3 years before the C64, but while this method of loading may have originally been a necessity due to BASIC not being included by default, it seems like (a) a simpler and (b) a "cleaner" way to do it,
>>>

The only reason Atari computers don't have Microsoft's BASIC is because they contracted MS to do it, but MS produced code that was too big to fit inside the 4K ROM (typical Microsoft bloat). ;-) Atari was forced to abandon the idea of including Basic inside the machine. Otherwise the Ataris were supposed to be just like every other 8-bit machine, with a built-in language for the users to write their own programs.

As for the iPhone Commodore emulator, most of them have dropdown menus to "mount and load" the disk image so maybe the lack of LOAD command is not an issue. Or maybe the LOAD command is included, and the programmers were able to convince Apple that "load" was part of the 1541 DOS commands, not basic. Who knows?

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

That's a pretty lousy emulator. Why does the first line and first character of text run off the screen? They need to adjust the overscan on that set so the border is visible.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[rgviza]

Nope 6510 assembler.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[thelexx]

Since Commodore licensed it in perpetuity for a flat fee and modified it heavily, I still fail to see what they have to do with whether PEEK and POKE are included in the emulator. If that's what the original message actually implied.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Timex]

You're a rare one, and likely at the youngest age (give or take a few years) to have a clue what they are without using a search engine to find out about them.

Though I never had a C=64 (I had an Apple II), my cousin had one. I had to learn about it for occasions when he got stuck.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Timex]

I remember my C64 having "GW Basic"

As I recall, GW BASIC was on the PC and compatibles.

As a complete side-bar, I found the GW BASIC dialect very easy to learn, due to many similarities to BASIC+, which I learned on a DEC PDP 11/70.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[sbeckstead]

Thanks for the info but as an iPhone developer I'll keep Apple's current formula.
Allows me to still make money and reduces the competition.
Sorry if it thwarts the public's desire for better software for free but I gotta eat too.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[sbeckstead]

This is why they pulled it this morning I bet!

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Dogtanian]

Um. The C64 had a cartridge slot. As it bank-switched, cartridges could "take over" and hide the basic rom

No doubt (the Atari worked the same way with carts), but despite what you say, the total *proportion* of C64 cart games was relatively small versus those on tape and disk- particularly in later years.

As for the C64GS, yeah, I remember that. It was a major flop. They released it ridiculously late in the day, around the same time as Amstrad's even more derided CPC-based console.

If they'd released it earlier and/or the C64 had already had a large library of cart-based games (and that didn't require keyboard input!), they might have sold some, but the market was almost exclusively cassette and disk based at that stage.

Even if it had been a good idea, anyone with any sense could have seen that the 8-bit market was in its final stages by then. I mean, it came out almost simultaneously with the European release of the Mega Drive, and the Amiga was approaching its mainstream peak. Even as a cheap cash-in it didn't make sense.

BTW, Atari did the same thing with the 400/800/XL/XE; they released the XE Games System, but at least they did that three years earlier when the market was still healthy, even if it *was* a lame attempt to cash in on Nintendo's success with reissues of old games (and hence a lukewarm seller at best). The C64GS, with a potential library of easy ports, might have succeeded if it had been released then, particularly in Europe where Nintendo's disinterest led to the NES being in second place to the Sega Master System(!) and consoles in general weren't as big as the US until the 16-bit era.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Drummergeek0]

I am only 26 as well, and my first system was the Commodore VIC20, to this day it is one my favorites to ever have used.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Dogtanian]

The only reason Atari computers don't have Microsoft's BASIC is because they contracted MS to do it, but MS produced code that was too big to fit inside the 4K ROM (typical Microsoft bloat). ;-) Atari was forced to abandon the idea of including Basic inside the machine.

You're correct about MS's inability to make their BASIC small enough for Atari. But the rest is somewhat muddled.

Atari BASIC- or rather, the implementation that Atari chose as standard (albeit optional) for their computers- was *not* based on MS's version. It was developed by another company along different lines.

Apparently Atari had originally intended getting MS to fit their 8K implementation into an 8K (not 4K) ROM, but due to the 6502's less dense instruction set, it worked out closer to 9K, and that was without the required graphics commands.

So Atari BASIC's optional status wasn't due to MS, as it wasn't their implementation that was chosen anyway.

I don't know that Atari ever considered doing a BASIC in 4K; that's a very limited amount of space and would probably have limited the power of what was then a state-of-the-art machine.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Dogtanian]

Oh, and FWIW, Atari *did* eventually release versions of MS BASIC, originally on disk, and later on cart, but I never heard about them being used much.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[catmistake]

You noticed that too? There's another mode that removes the rounded corner facade (when held horizontally). If you ever used a C64 attached to an old TV, it is faithful to how that displays... not everyone could dedicate a square corner trinitron for hobby computing back then. I think that's called overscan, and all older TV's do cut pixels off around the edges.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[khellendros1984]

My first computer was a couple years later...an IBM PC Jr. Still, I had friends with C64s (as recently as 1995), and I've got a couple Atari systems sitting in my living room. I grew up using Apple IIe's and IIc's at school. I definitely recognized the C64 and its peripherals...I've considered tracking one down to play around with, then decided I've already got enough old pieces of equipment that I'm never going to *seriously* use. I guess I'm a little unusual, but I don't think that "age >=30" is a requirement for knowing what a data cassette drive looks like.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[khellendros1984]

Really, the way an emulator works is pretty simple. It's just a state machine with a large section of memory. It's very easy to control which states that machine can enter, and to make sure that "exploiting a hole" is impossible. Even the app (the emulator) is incapable of running arbitrary code on the iPhone; it has to stay within the public API.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[khellendros1984]

It's a number, giving a memory address. BFFF is 49,151 in decimal.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Hal_Porter]

Really, the way an emulator works is pretty simple. It's just a state machine with a large section of memory. It's very easy to control which states that machine can enter, and to make sure that "exploiting a hole" is impossible. Even the app (the emulator) is incapable of running arbitrary code on the iPhone; it has to stay within the public API.

People have found exploits for things like the JVM is an emulator and which should be a lot more secure by design than native code like this emulator. Anyway good emulators are not just interpreters - a lot of them will JIT code from the instruction set they are emulating to native. If you can convince the JITer to generate code that jumps into the middle of data you control, you have your exploit.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

The Commodore 64 makes a great game machine.

I stopped doing serious stuff with my C=64 once I got an Amiga, but still have it for playing those classic games. If you're into retro-gaming I highly recommend adding it to your Atari, Nintendo, Sega collection of consoles.

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Atari BASIC was *not* based on MS's version.

I didn't say it was. All I said was that Atari contracted Microsoft for the job, but Microsoft couldn't make it fit, so Atari could not include the language with the machine. Instead they developed their own language (hence ATARI basic rather than MS basic).

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[commodore64_love]

>>>not everyone could dedicate a square corner trinitron for hobby computing back then.

Yeah and I still have my old 1970s set with the rounded corners, but that's why Commodores, Ataris, Amigas, and other computers of that time included the border. The border would cover the overscan zone of the television while the text remained in the "safe zone" in the middle. Therefore none of the text should be cutoff in the emulator.

BTW modern HDTVs also have overscan, per the ATSC specification. The 10% area at the edge of the image is considered "throwaway" and should not contain any important information (like titles or captions).

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[bjb]

Minor correction: the ColecoVision was a Z80 based computer. Though the ADAM BASIC looked identical to AppleSoft (the Apple II's Microsoft produced 6502 FP BASIC), it was indeed a Z80 chip inside.

For what its worth, I'm not sure that there are that many ColecoVisions in existence anyway - I think I last read a count around 3-4 million?

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[itsanx]

That's the second most interesting /. comment I've ever read!

Re:C64 without BASIC?

[Timex]

I guess I'm a little unusual, but I don't think that "age >=30" is a requirement for knowing what a data cassette drive looks like.

You're right, of course. You have to admit that the younger the age these days, the less likely it will be that one is familiar with the equipment, and that is what I was getting at. :)

My first data storage device at home was a cassette tape player connected to a TI 99/4A. It served its purpose, even though my school used Apple II computers. After my sister trashed it by "accidentally" dumping soda pop on the keyboard, I set my sights on the Apple IIgs that I have still.

Commodore 64?

[camperdave]

Commodore 64 emulator? You'd think they'd do an Apple II emulator.

Re:Commodore 64?

[Abreu]

Either in C64 emulation or in Apple II emulation, I would like to play Karateka!

Re:Commodore 64?

[EdIII]

I hated that *^*%* game!

Played it for about a week just trying to get to the end. It required split-second skills to get past some of the guys. One night I finally get past the last guy and when I finnnaaallly get to the girl... she knifes me.

I was so pissed, I literally threw the floppy disk out the window. Nearly 20 years later I learned it was some dude in drag, and the real girl was behind "him".

Ohhh, and fuck that bird.

Video games have not been that hard for a long time.

Re:Commodore 64?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully, yes. But the 64 had a different fan base. While the ][ fanbase moved on to the Mac, a good chunk of the 64 hacking fanbase held on. The 64 went from popular platform to popular retro platform almost seamlessly. No surprise it got emulated first.

A ][ emulator shouldn't be far behind, but I'll love it if someone comes along with a Palm Pilot emu first.

Re:Commodore 64?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Apple II emulation

I tried an Apple II emulator one time, but it gave me horrible flashbacks to my middle school years which is something no one should have to relive. Grades 6,7,and 8 (ages 12,13,14) were an awkward time for me. I have no problems using Apple Macs (reminds me of my college years), but those ancient IIc and IIe machines are tinged with bad memories of boring schoolwork, embarrassing encounters with girls, and scary teachers.

Ahhhh! (runs away)

In contrast my Commodore 64 was what I used at home, so it's mostly good memories about playing games, typing book reports, learning to program, and just generally goofing-off.

Re:Commodore 64?

[commodore64_love]

>>>While the ][ fanbase moved on to the Mac, a good chunk of the 64 hacking fanbase held on.

That's not quite true. The Commodore 64 is the world's best-selling computer, but the second-best selling computer was the Amiga 500. Why? Because just as Apple users remained loyal to Apple, most of the Commodore users remained loyal and when they upgraded, they moved from one multimedia machine (the 64) to another (the Amiga).

At least that was the case with everyone I knew. I've never met a 64 owner who didn't also own an Amiga at some point.

Then Amiga died, and we moved to IBM PCs (wipes away a tear).
So sad. Just like the ending of Braveheart. The man beat us down.

Re:Commodore 64?

[Onymous Coward]

You're kidding, right?

Princess Mariko is a badass in her own right. You should try the game again today, with that in mind.

Re:Commodore 64?

[mdwh2]

Well, are you willing to take the time to write/port an Apple II Emulator, knowing that you'll have to wait months for corporate approval, and it may even be rejected altogether?

Re:Commodore 64?

[teridon]

Is this a joke? The game wasn't that hard.

If you approach the girl in a fighting stance, she kicks you in the face for attempting to fight her and you die.

If you stand up and run at her, you end up in a happy embrace -- THE END.

http://www.virtualapple.org/karatekadisk.html

Re:Commodore 64?

[k8to]

I've played the c64 and apple 2 versions and .. well.. It doesn't require split second skills. There are some parts that are frustrating and/or annoying. The gate that drops on you is somewhat obnoxious. The bird that attacks you between fights in the second area can bother. But there's really only two secrets to know in the game: trigger the gate then run through, and shift out of combat stance when meeting the lady.

The lady knifed you because you approached her in combat stance. She thought you were going to attack. When meeting the damsel in distress it is customary to shift to a relaxed posture to indicate that you mean no harm.

There is no drag.

Re:Commodore 64?

[gmhowell]

Gotta be the Apple ii version so that if you play with the iPhone screen pointing down (say, while lying on a couch) it should flip the gameplay upside down.

Re:Commodore 64?

[EdIII]

LOL. No. I mean playing on the original Apple IIe hardware back in the early 80's.

The post inspired me to do some research and you may be referring to the "April Fools" joke where they had different code on these dual sided floppies. If you had the floppy turned upside down, the game code was such that the game itself was upside down on the screen.

My challenge was apparently being one of the few people that had an Apple IIe and played games on it. Without the Internet, or even good BBS's back then, I just had no way of figuring out that trick at the end. On the Apple IIe it *really* did require some interesting timing to get your kicks to go right. I think the emulators today give it a little more speed and less controller latency then there actually was on original hardware.

Anyways, after all that work of getting to the end and having that "bitch" kill me with one kick I just figured it was a sick, sick, sick twisted programming joke and threw it out the window. Obviously, I am still carrying a little of that frustration since nearly 30 years later I *instantly* recognized the title Karateku. It was like being in that little apartment over all again trying to defeat that stoopid game.

P.S - It would be many years later I saw the title for the NES. I nearly threw it across the store that day too.

Re:Commodore 64?

[commodore64_love]

Nice way to provide a link to a website people can not view. Here's a better link: http://www.c64endings.freeolamail.com/endings/k/karateka/karateka.htm

Re:Commodore 64?

[Timex]

While the ][ fanbase moved on to the Mac

Ummm... No. Not all of the ][ fanbase moved on.

I was very bitter at Apple over killing the ][ series. I kept my ][gs (I still have it), and it wasn't until about five years ago that I would go near a Mac.

Re:Commodore 64?

[commodore64_love]

You shouldn't get mad.

Progress happens, and if Apple had stayed with the 16 bit IIgs-series, then customers would have eventually jumped ship to the newer 32-bit Atari STs, Commodore Amigas, or 80386/486 IBM PCs. The old 8/16-bit computers like the Apple II, Atari 800, and Commodore 64 had to be abandoned to move forward towards the future.

Re:Commodore 64?

[Timex]

The old 8/16-bit computers like the Apple II, Atari 800, and Commodore 64 had to be abandoned to move forward towards the future.

Look at what Microsoft has been doing with Windows, as it relates to being backwards compatible with the MS-DOS days, and tell me that this is still true. :D

Seriously, you do make a point, though I still think the transition could have been handled better. If they had done so, maybe Apple would have a larger user base today than they do.

Eagerly awaiting...

[cupantae]

All I need now is an iPhone emulator for the C64. That way, I can play all my C64 games on my C64

Re:Eagerly awaiting...

[Anonymous Coward]

yo dogg i heard u liked playing emulated c64 games on ur iphone so we put an iphone in ur c64 so u can game while u game

Re:Eagerly awaiting...

[mdwh2]

Here you are - it's surprisingly easy to write once you strip out the functionality that won't ever be hit:

10 PRINT "THIS APPLICATION MAY NOT BE RUN ON NON-APPLE APPROVED HARDWARE"

Copycat Sega Exemption...

[Xin Jing]

Why not just copy Sega's exemption and emulate BASIC as a rom. Then the C-64 program could essentially be MAME and access a directory where ROMs are located, one being for BASIC.

Ultima IV

[TheBilgeRat]

Nice! Now I can spend hours in the swamps on my iphone seraching for mandrake root...again.

Re:What ? piracy Allowed ?

[omgarthas]

Or for people who wants to send Twitts.. Not joking, there is a Twitter client for Comm64...

Re:what's wrong with BASIC?

[omgarthas]

You could run your own code

That's a DO NOT WANT for Apple

No way will Apple allow BASIC

[Anonymous Coward]

They will never, ever enable BASIC support.

The issue is that Apple doesn't want any iPhone application to be able to install and run other apps. No scripting languages, no loadable modules, etc. If they allowed this then there would be no need for the App Store and anyone could run any application they wanted just by using a "shell" application to load other apps.

Personally I think it's stupid, but it's Apple. They want control and they want your money.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[pushing-robot]

And because sandboxes tend to leak. VBScript, ActiveX, Flash, Adobe, and Javascript have all had their fair share of vulnerabilities.

Apple is committed to only running signed code on their handhelds. That way, if a regular app is discovered to be malicious, Apple can blacklist it. But how does Apple blacklist malicious third-party unsigned code that another application—say, a Flash player—executes? The best they could do is blacklist the Flash player itself, disabling all the perfectly benign Flash apps and pissing off millions of people.

Now, you may argue that "the user" should have control over what code their phone executes. And in the case of Slashdotters, you're probably right. But normal, non-savvy users don't understand technical warnings. They don't comprehend that executing a tiny bit of malicious code can hand their entire computer over to an attacker, and that there may be no way to undo the damage. They should not be put in a position where they can they can screw up their system with a tap of a "yes" button, for the same reason that cars should not have a "disable emissions controls, gain ten horsepower" switch and skyscrapers should not have a shiny red button that says "collapse building." Curiosity killed the cat, as they say; no matter how well-intentioned the user may be, dancing pigs win out in the end.

So long as Apple provides a means for people who know what they're doing to run custom code—anyone can buy a developer key for about the cost of one month's phone bill—I won't complain about Apple making it harder for ignorant people to do stupid things.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[tsa]

That's why I would much rather have a Nokia N900. No annoying provider tied to the phone, runs an open source OS... Beautiful.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[ninjeratu]

This is also why you're stuck with the games the app comes hardcoded with.
And the selection is abysmal.
Dragon's Den, Le Mans, Jupiter Landing, Arctic Shipwreck and Jack Attack...

I'd never pay money for those terrible "games". Not even SID-music in them.
Sure, they promise to add more games "later". We'll see about that.
Even public domain games would've been better than the crap they bundled.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[writermike]

It seems that trying to predict Apple's actions is not terribly easy. I don't really care if they get Basic enabled. I really just want to play games.

What's interesting, however, is you can break into Basic in the app right now.

Here's how you do it.

1. Launch the app.
2. Tap the power button to power on the C64.
3. Tap the Advanced button on the bottom right.
4. Turn the option "Always show full keyboard" on.
5. Tap the "My Games" button on the lower left.
6. Run any game.
7. Tap the "Extra" button under the game screen.
8. Tap the RESET button on the left.

The app launches BASIC.

I don't know if it's fully functional, but it will run the "10 PRINT "I AM SO GREAT!!!!!!" / 20 GOTO 10" program, which is about the extent of my programming skills.

Disclaimer: I did not discover the above. It was posted on Engadget.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[mdwh2]

Indeed, heaven forbid someone run something without Apple's approval. But why allow an emulator full stop - people could still run any unapproved application written in C64 assembler (you know, like most C64 applications), and indeed, what's stopping someone installing a C64 BASIC interpretter? (Do they have UAE for the Iphone yet? Now that would be even more useful as a way to run applications without Apple approval. Every other platform in existence can run UAE, have Apple approved it yet, or is the Iphone still playing catch-up yet again, I wonder?)

With stuff like banning what people are allowed to run on their own device, I'm suprised this platform is still so popular in a place like Slashdot.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[MightyMartian]

And because sandboxes tend to leak. VBScript, ActiveX, Flash, Adobe, and Javascript have all had their fair share of vulnerabilities

Could you show me one incident where an emulated CPU/hardware system has ever lead to any kind of leak? We're talking about a BASIC interpreter running on a 6510 emulator here. And if the emulator leaking is a concern, then I would think an attacker would more than likely get as low-level as possible and write the attack in 6510 assembler.

In other words, your objection is moronic. It's even beyond moronic, it's pretty much the most retarded defense of not allowing C64 BASIC on a C64 emulator that I can imagine.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[Antiocheian]

"I won't complain about Apple making it harder for ignorant people to do stupid things."

It makes sense. It also makes it harder for you.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[Miamicanes]

> Do they have UAE [amigaemulator.org] for the Iphone yet?

Uh oh... slippery slope time. The moment UAE exists, it'll be possible to launch A-MAX and go storming right into Apple's holiest sanctuary(*)

(*)For the uninitiated, A-MAX was a Macintosh emulator for the Amiga that ran some Mac software faster than a REAL Mac... conceptually, it was halfway between Xen and Wine. Nowhere near as hard as emulating a completely alien hardware platform (like the PC), but nowhere near as trivial as getting programs written for a Pet to run on a C-64. From what I remember, they basically copied MacOS into the Amiga's RAM, then overwrote its jumptable with pointers to code written for the Amiga. For example, when a Mac app wanted to display a file dialog, it ran native MacOS code up to the point where it had to render the graphics and landed on an overwritten jumptable pointer to graphics routines written for the Amiga's hardware. Program compatibility fell into two extremes: apps that used only published API calls ran almost perfectly, and apps that tried jumping directly to undocumented entry points or tried taking advantage of unofficial side effects that weren't guaranteed to work by Apple died a horrible death. As a practical matter, the main thing that broke compatibility was copy protection, and most apps that wouldn't work if you tried running legitimate copies ran flawlessly after they were cracked (the more things change... well, you know the rest... sigh...).

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[mdwh2]

Didn't A-MAX require hardware? You may be thinking of Shapeshifter (and later Fusion) which were software only emulators. But yes, it would be amusing to see classic MacOS on the Iphone, done via Amiga emulation :)

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[mdwh2]

Apple, it Works Just! It Works, Just so long as you only want to do what Apple allow you!

(If Microsoft started requiring their approval for apps to run on Windows, then even if they never banned an app - let alone if they did start blocking widely used applications such as Flash and emulators - I bet you'd be first in line to criticise them.)

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[dissy]

But yes, it would be amusing to see classic MacOS on the Iphone, done via Amiga emulation :)

While it is not as impressive as the above chain of emulation, there is already a native arm port of the vMAC emulator for the iPhone.
It emulates a 68k series macintosh running mac os 6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oQXQhTKV0c

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[Miamicanes]

> Didn't A-MAX require hardware?

Officially, yes. You needed a piece of hardware whose legally-mandated role was to host a set of genuine Mac ROMs and allow them to be read into the Amiga (before A-Max itself overwrote chunks of them with its own code).

As a practical matter, no. I know lots of people who had A-Max... and I don't know a single person who actually had the hardware they were officially supposed to need in order to make it work.

From what I remember, it couldn't access the hard drive. I think it was because back then, Apple LITERALLY hardcoded the geometry of a specific Quantum SCSI hard drive into the OS, so the only viable way of making it work would have been to have bought the exact model of hard drive used in real Macs. Also, floppies were a problem... you had to format them on a real Mac using a program that basically marked the 2/3 of the disc that the Mac & Amiga drives couldn't mutually read as "bad" or "in use".

Looking back, it DOES seem crazy that they couldn't have just thunked the drive geometry with an Amiga-hosted translation layer... the only thing I can think of is that it would have taken too much ram and/or resources to work on the A500, and the idea of selling something that only worked on an A2000 or better with at least a meg of fast ram would have been unthinkable.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[BitZtream]

ActiveX doesn't run in a sandbox. Its a plugin architecture, an extension of COM. There is no sand boxing and there was never any intention of it. Its just a dynamic library with a specific known set of exported functions. It is no different than a .so in the various UNIX OSes and a .dyld on OS X. Its just a DLL.

There is no way for you to 'break out of an ActiveX sandbox' because there is no sandbox to break out of. You probably also think ActiveX is insecure, without realizing that the only difference between ActiveX and a firefox plugin is that no one has exploited Firefox to auto install a plugin ... YET.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[BitZtream]

Quick, make it more well known so Apple is sure to pull it off the AppStore tomorrow morning, if it takes that long.

You guys are so concerned with showing how cool you are to find the way around things, but too stupid to realize that telling everyone means it'll go away fast as shit. Twits.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[An ominous Cow art]

I have an iPhone, and it's ok, but stupidity like this on Apple's part have been driving me away for a while. I really look forward to being able to do some Python programming on the N900...

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[Karlt1]

(If Microsoft started requiring their approval for apps to run on Windows, then even if they never banned an app - let alone if they did start blocking widely used applications such as Flash and emulators - I bet you'd be first in line to criticise them.)

Yeah just imagine if Microsoft made a closed hardware platform -- not necessarily a phone but let's say a game system -- that required a license to run software on it or you could only download games from their own service. I'm sure their would be a major uproar......

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[Lord Kano]

They want control and they want your money.

True, it's also exactly why I'm no longer a Mac user.

LK

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[Digital Pizza]

I remember reading a description of AMAX somewhere as "a hostile port of the Macintosh OS to the Amiga platform". The Atari ST also had a similar product (though I think it actually came first) called "Magic Sack" I think; got renamed to that due to a lawsuit, don't remember the (probably better) original name.

AMAX patched the Mac Plus ROM to work with the Amiga's hardware, so you just had effectively a Mac Plus. No Color QuickDraw. I remember the compatibility as being pretty good; programs that had trouble (for me anyway) were ones that assumed the Mac Plus' screen dimensions (512x342 pixels I think). AMAX ran the Amiga's display at 640X400.

The cool thing about running AMAX was that it initialized the Amiga's hardware upon "boot", but once System 6 (or System 7) was up and running, you could experiment with tweaking the Amiga's hardware registers without the Amiga's OS updating them. I had a copy of ThinkC for the Mac and wrote a few little programs to play around with the Amiga hardware that way, like setting different screen colors and whatnot, It was fun for hacking around. Ah, memories,

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[Digital Pizza]

I got it to work with my hard drive; just created a partition and dedicated it to AMAX. Maybe it was a later version of AMAX that allowed this.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[tsa]

Yes I know that, and I live in Europe, thank all deities. But if the N900 isn't a phone then the iPhone isn't either.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[MrOion]

...and then type:

LOAD "*",8,1
RUN

And you will see that the game has a cracker intro (from a group called REMEMBER)... with greetings to many of the good old cracker groups on the Commodore 64. :)

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[Timex]

Quick, make it more well known so Apple is sure to pull it off the AppStore tomorrow morning, if it takes that long.

As of this morning it's no longer available in the US, according to the App Store app. :(

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[sbeckstead]

Yup and I like it that way. At least one company knows how to protect it's developers income stream. Keeps me in beans and bullets. So there!

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[sbeckstead]

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened!

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[sbeckstead]

Ironically it was Microsoft that actually did exploit Firefox to auto install a plugin!

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[MightyMartian]

That's one helluva a rebuttal. And it doesn't deal with the fundamental point, that if there were a vulnerability of that kind (which I've never heard of, and obviously neither have you), it would be just as logical, or even moreso, to mount the attack through 6502/6510 assembly anyways.

But I've never even seen a proof in principle of an emulated piece of hardware being used to lodge an attack against the host system. This isn't just simply sandboxing, it's literally a full blown emulation of C64 hardware, which is pretty damned alien to the x86 world.

Re:No way will Apple allow BASIC

[sbeckstead]

Yes but I'm fluent in both 6502/x86 and if I get access to a piece of executable memory that I can stuff with a program, I just have to put numbers there and figure out how to cause it to be executed. Not that hard actually. Nothing is safe with enough time and resources.

No Basic because...

[wjsteele]

it would obviously allow developers to write programs that are far superior to the built in Apple apps and that violates their policy of not being able to "replace" the functionality of the iPhone/iPod Touch.

You know... I guess their right... I mean, really, 40x25 characters and the primitive graphics that Commodore (Microsoft) Basic allowed should really allow modern developers to replace the built in apps with ease.

Seriously, Apple, get off your ass and actually look into the functions you're preventing from being implemented!

Bill

App approval?

[nurb432]

Do you *have* to get apples blessing to distribute an app, or is it just to use the appstore?

Re:App approval?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure under which stone you've been lying under, but here is the heads up:

You have to get Apple's blessing in order to distribute anything via the AppStore.
AppStore is the only way (short of jailbreak) to get software into the iPhone and iPod Touch.
There is no such thing as a "developer hardware" that could make your development/testing easier - you have to wait the random approval process before any hands on testing (you are restricted to software emulators).
The development platform is MacOS X only.
Your app cannot duplicate functionality already on the phone (i.e. GoogleVoice). Your app cannot allow any form of access to cussing words or the like.

Re:App approval?

[Sancho]

There is no such thing as a "developer hardware" that could make your development/testing easier - you have to wait the random approval process before any hands on testing (you are restricted to software emulators).

Last I checked, you could get a developer's signing key to put an unapproved app on a limited number of devices for testing.

Re:App approval?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

AppStore is the only way (short of jailbreak) to get software into the iPhone and iPod Touch. There is no such thing as a "developer hardware" that could make your development/testing easier...

Neither of these statements is strictly true. Enterprise developers can distribute their own applications in-house, just not to the general public. Any developer can distribute their applications ad hoc to up to 100 users.

Your app cannot allow any form of access to cussing words or the like.

The rules were never quite that strict and Apple has relaxed the profanity clauses now that they have included parental controls for the iPhone. Their original concern was they wanted to make sure they did not poison the market for younger people by having issues with pornographic programs. Now that parents can lock down the systems, Apple is not as concerned as parents need not avoid purchasing the devices out of the fear of what their children will access.

Re:App approval?

[nurb432]

No stone, just been avoiding the iphone ( even tho i like apple ). Seems i will be for a while longer.

Re:App approval?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the 80's, when it was an Apple person throwing the hammer to destroy the IBM PC "big brother"? Does anyone else find it amusingly ironic that the most controlled platform in existence today is Apple's, and that the Apple fanboys who would have considered themselves to be that person throwing off the chains of PC control in the 80's are today touting the benefits of not having any control over the hardware and software you buy?

Re:App approval?

[Xugumad]

The iPhone developer program distribution page talks about ad hoc and enterprise distribution. Neither is ideal; ad hoc is limited to 100 users, enterprise is expensive and for companies with at least 500 employees, but they do exist as distribution paths.

http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/distribute.html

Re:App approval?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Remember the 80's, when it was an Apple person throwing the hammer to destroy the IBM PC "big brother"? Does anyone else find it amusingly ironic that the most controlled platform in existence today is Apple's, and that the Apple fanboys who would have considered themselves to be that person throwing off the chains of PC control in the 80's are today touting the benefits of not having any control over the hardware and software you buy?

I'd probably be more amused if I interpreted that commercial the way you did. I didn't see "PCs are under Big Brother Control". I always saw it as "don't be a conformist!" Maybe that's because I saw that commercial before the prerequisite reading.

That said, the commercial's still amusing for similar reasons. "Stand out from the crowd, buy an iPhone!" Tee hee.

character

[Carthag]

... the pi character ...

Unicode support is abysmal round these parts.

On Android Since June

[16K Ram Pack]

I guess it's nice having such cutting edge technology...

Re:On Android Since June

[16K Ram Pack]

http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?group_id=171310&release_id=598227

Re:On Android Since June

[Yvan256]

Link.

Re:what's wrong with BASIC?

[cicuz]

It actually is sitting there, just not on the main screen..
Tap reset while in a game (keep the keyboard onscreen) and you're right at the prompt.

Now you can tweet or run a webserver too ;)

Re:what's wrong with BASIC?

[omgarthas]

But it could run apps that aren't native approved by Apple

Basic is there. Just reset the emulator.

[Werrismys]

Go to "extra" keyboard and hit reset. Voila, BASIC.
And it sucks. And it's from Microsoft. OMG C64 was evil ;-( :-)

Microsoft's greatest blunder in their early years was to license BASIC to Tramiel's Commodore with a once-ever fee of, some say, as little as $50000. C= then sold tens of millions of machines without paying any more to M$.

Well, M$ learned. C= died.

A C64 emulator without BASIC might be useless

[erroneus]

As at least one other has pointed out, even when writing in assembly language, it was common to make calls to the BASIC interpreter's functions and routines. If they manage to make things "other than basic" work, it is my guess that they merely disabled basic in some way and did not remove it. By extension, I would guess that it could be re-enabled as well.

Re:A C64 emulator without BASIC might be useless

[jeremyp]

Not entirely true.

Commodore 6502 machines had a BASIC interpreter based on Microsoft BASIC but there was also a set of ROMs called the Kernal [sic - a spelling mistake that made it into the manuals]. This was a separate piece of code to the BASIC interpreter and was written in house by Commodore.

The C64 had an 8K BASIC ROM and an 8K Kernal ROM. Each of these was shadowed by RAM so you could switch out the ROM. If you switched out both, you had a bare machine but you could just switch out the BASIC and leave the Kernal which means you don't have to write your own IO etc.

Re:A C64 emulator without BASIC might be useless

[erroneus]

Yes, but doing so means that applications compatibility will be less than 100%... quite likely less than 90% and maybe even less.

But since the BASIC ROM could be switched out for RAM, there's no reason someone couldn't find a way to "put it back" even if it can't be distributed through the Apple store that way.

Re:A C64 emulator without BASIC might be useless

[erroneus]

Nyeah! I was right wasn't I? They left the BASIC interpreter present and people DID access it.

"Easter Egg" lets you access BASIC in the app

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloaded and verified this works. Simple "hello world" programs work, as do things like "poke 53281, 144" to change the screen color, and "SYS 64738" to reset.

Gosh people, learn to use Google ;-)

http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/09/06/quick-app-c64-commodore-64-emulator-iphone-hack-basic/

"If you're dying to get your BASIC on, however, reader Stooovie let us know you can still access it by enabling 'always show full keyboard', starting a game, paging over to the EXTRA keyboard, and then tapping RESET. Boom, dropped into BASIC with a ready-prompt"

Re:"Easter Egg" lets you access BASIC in the app

[omgarthas]

Such gigantic power unleashed...

Re:"Easter Egg" lets you access BASIC in the app

[BitZtream]

I find your lack of faith disturbing ...

BASIC is needed to fire up most games

[Errol backfiring]

Most games started with a one-line basic program:

100 SYS 2100:REM [backspace][backspace][backspace]

This way, the program could be loaded like any other and run like any other. The real game would then start at memory address 2100.

Re:BASIC is needed to fire up most games

[commodore64_love]

>>>100 SYS 2100:REM [backspace][backspace][backspace]

That would mean you would have to type "RUN" after you load the game, and in my experience very few games required that. Most games just auto-executed without any need to type RUN.

Re:BASIC is needed to fire up most games

[Lonewolf666]

But when cracked, they usually did not auto-execute anymore. The autostart got in the way of file sharing (back then done via floppies). Therefore many crackers would remove it and replace it by a "SYS XXXX" command that required the BASIC interpreter.

Background:
The autostart was usually done by overwriting the stack and thus feeding the "return"(from subroutine) assembler command a wrong address. At that address, a JMP command would lead to the actual jump in address of the game. Once you had removed the autostart, you had to supply a replacement, often in form of a SYS call to said jump in address.

Re:BASIC is needed to fire up most games

[commodore64_love]

Good point. The crackers usually included a demo too prior to the game. They wrote some of the C=64's best graphic and sound effects. See the 700+ results:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=commodore+64+demo

Re:BASIC is needed to fire up most games

[funfail]

Actually they were called intros. "Demo" meant a standalone (and usually longer than an intro) audio/visual show.

I got to basic in 5 seconds.

[MikeDataLink]

Load just about any of the games and then hit run/stop followed by restore. Whola! You get to Basic.

App Store censorship

[Samy Merchi]

As long as the App Store is being so tightly controlled by Apple, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with Windows Mobile. For all its flaws (like insane UI lag at times), it's at least mostly an open development platform, with a C64 emulator, Amiga emulator, DOS emulator and an application for just about anything you could imagine. As long as Apple keeps the App Store locked down, it's never going to be able to match the versatility of the WinMo application spectrum.

It's too bad, because from what I've seen, the iPhone OS seems to be a better OS, but crippling its software development is just a deal breaker for me.

Re:App Store censorship

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As long as the App Store is being so tightly controlled by Apple, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with Windows Mobile.

Why Windows Mobile in particular?

...it's at least mostly an open development platform...

But not as open as yet others. So you're making a compromise between the level of flexibility you want to control your phone and development environment, compared to the features and usability offered. You just draw the line in a different place than the average user.

As long as Apple keeps the App Store locked down, it's never going to be able to match the versatility of the WinMo application spectrum.

I think that's the point. You see it as a bug, but Apple is pitching it as a feature, as in, they police the spectrum of apps completely and thus remove the majority of security risks either immediately or when discovered.

It's too bad, because from what I've seen, the iPhone OS seems to be a better OS, but crippling its software development is just a deal breaker for me.

You might find yourself having fewer non-crippled choices if Apple's model is successful. Realistically, people don't want all that many applications on their phone and the range offered on iPhones is actually getting to be bigger than that on other phones. Regardless of if it is more open or not, it makes an attractive market to develop for and that's the kind of thing that can snowball. It's too bad. I prefer a more open and user controllable system with a bit more nuanced and open of security mechanisms and I think it can be done well. Maybe if Apple implements a better, less locked down version for their computers it will trickle down to iPhones.

Re:App Store censorship

[Samy Merchi]

Why Windows Mobile in particular?

Well, frankly, Symbian and Android don't come anywhere near the amount of available applications that WinMo has. For me one of the top criteria is whether I can find applications for every need.

So you're making a compromise between the level of flexibility you want to control your phone and development environment, compared to the features and usability offered.

I believe that is normal behavior. Everybody makes their own personal judgment on what are important criteria for them and how important they are, and pick a product based on their own priorities.

You just draw the line in a different place than the average user.

If I'm not an "average user", I'm thankful for that.

Apple is pitching it as a feature, as in, they police the spectrum of apps completely and thus remove the majority of security risks either immediately or when discovered.

I don't need any Big Brother picking my apps for me. I'm an adult and I take my own risks.

You might find yourself having fewer non-crippled choices if Apple's model is successful.

And that's why I don't buy Apple.

people don't want all that many applications on their phone

I don't make my decisions on what platform I'm going to spend my money on, based on what *other* people want.

Re:App Store censorship

[BitZtream]

I am an iPhone fanboy, I won't deny it.

I've had 3 WinMo phones. They suck ass. I develop WinMo apps, it really does suck ass. WinCE wasn't bad before MS bought it and started making it asstastic. I'm sorry if you think its great, really I am. You could brag about several other cell phone OSes and maybe have a point, but WinMo is ass no matter how you look at it. It has more apps, yes, and they all tend to suck ass too.

Not that the iPhone doesn't have its fair share of problems, but its 3 years old, WinMo is at least 13, and still has some of the most retarded bugs and restrictions ever.

Don't worry, no one is going to care if you don't write iPhone apps, there are just as many shitty developers writing iPhone apps now as WinMo to cover you.

I hear you though, you like your phone/OS and feel like talking shit about the one you don't have, thats cool. Do us all a favor though, if you're going to fanboy it up, at least pick something that isn't absolute shit to fanboy over, cause doing it for WinMo just makes you look stupid to anyone who actually knows anything about it.

Re:App Store censorship

[Samy Merchi]

Who's fanboying? Oh right, you -- you admitted it even.

I, on the other hand, know full well WinMo is far from perfect and isn't the best choice for some people with different priorities than mine.

So if you want to slam WinMo, feel free, I won't stop you. But if you want to accuse me of being a blind WinMo advocate, you couldn't be more wrong.

I don't really know in what delusional world "because from what I've seen, the iPhone OS seems to be a better OS" amounts to "talking shit about the one you don't have". Just makes it sound like you invented some imaginary post inside your head to rail against.

Re:what's wrong with BASIC?

[Jared555]

considering the number of applications designed to run on a C64 there are probably many apple wouldn't appreciate

Re:Corrections to many mistakes on your part

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a whole other app store - Cydia. Yes you have to jailbreak to use it, but that's just a few clicks these days - and well over a million devices are jailbroken (according to Cydia). If there were a reason, I'd not hesitate to tell someone non-technical to go this route.

I don't know many people that jailbreak their phones anymore -- many are afraid, others don't think its "worth it" (see first reason for explanation). Anyone still using the "jailbreak then cydia" bs to "prove" you can distribute your apps is just full of it. I suggest you start looking for other excuses.

There is no such thing as a "developer hardware" that could make your development/testing easier

You say that like it's a bad thing you can use any commercial device to test, instead of paying more for custom test systems that often have worse abilities than the commercial versions (and you have to get the commercial variants to do final testing with anyway).

Agreed with you on that one, but it still bites that you have to register (not sure if you have to pay the 99$) to sign your apps for the hardware... of course, you usually have to do that when using "developer hardware", so the point is moot...

You pay $99 and you get approved in a few weeks - hardly "random".

The approval/rejection process is what people are considering random, not the "paying 99$ and get approved in a few weeks" part. You sure do like to avoid the actual points people are trying to make, huh?

I can't develop Windows Mobile apps on my Mac.

Your statement is correct (as far as I know) but besides the point. Nice one though.

That's a pretty useless statement by itself, since that whole area is wide open to interpretation - there are for example VOIP clients on the phone today, so you have to understand what it is that GV is "duplicating" since GV is not VOIP. It's the whole SMS/contact infrastructure Apple is not as happy about.

While I partially agree with your harsh opinion of the GP's comment, no one said GV was a "VOIP" app. But you are correct -- the whole are IS wide open to interpretation... APPLE's interpretation (see "random approval process" above). Apple claims they're not happy about GV's "integration", not the SMS/contact part (surely there are other SMS/contact apps out there, and they're approved even though they're "duplicate", no?). Apple is unhappy that Google is coming out with something very very cool long before Apple is ready for it, duplicate functionality or not.

There are notebook apps a-plenty, Notebook is built into the phone.. There are a million picture taking apps, and the camera app is built into the phone...

No one cares about notebook apps. No one cares about picture taking apps. People care about vidcam apps -- oh wait, those were refused till Apple decided it was time for *them* to release one. See my previous comment for reasoning on that...

You get my drift, things are not as simple as you make out.

I prefer the GP's "simplified" statements over what I've read in your post, to be frank.

Your app cannot allow any form of access to cussing words or the like.

Sure it can, it just has to be rated correctly.

Don't know how the whole rating system works, but I doubt its that simple. Unless, of course, I can publish an app called "F*cking iPhone Garbage App", in which case I stand corrected :-)

Business model

[radarsat1]

I'm actually quite surprised that they didn't jump on this opportunity of having been refused and instead use it as an excuse to sell individual old games for $0.99 a pop (or packs of 5, or whatever) instead of selling the emulator itself.

Rubbish. Users need to learn

[syousef]

Now, you may argue that "the user" should have control over what code their phone executes. And in the case of Slashdotters, you're probably right. But normal, non-savvy users don't understand technical warnings. They don't comprehend that executing a tiny bit of malicious code can hand their entire computer over to an attacker, and that there may be no way to undo the damage. They should not be put in a position where they can they can screw up their system with a tap of a "yes" button, for the same reason that cars should not have a "disable emissions controls, gain ten horsepower" switch and skyscrapers should not have a shiny red button that says "collapse building."

No, actually it's more like saying scissors and knives shouldn't have sharp edges, and that cars shouldn't have accelerator pedals because in both cases it can lead to death or injury. In the case of a car the carnage you can cause unintentionally is so great that you require a license which is only granted when you learn how to drive properly (which is a more advanced skill than using a knife). In the case of scissors and knives there is a risk of injury but you're less likely to kill and maim lots of people and it's left to your parents to teach you the basic skill.

So you could argue that users need to be licensed and should prove they can use their device to no great harm, or more sanely you can argue that since they're most likely to only hurt themselves and not critically. So the skill should be taught at home or at school. Trying to use a phone or computer when you don't understand just doesn't work. It's not that kind of device. In any case if people can learn to text and IM it's an issue of laziness and neglect that they don't bother to learn how to secure their device. It's not brain surgery.

Apple's alternative - locking down the phone - is all about serving Apple's purposes and has nothing to do with the user's needs.

Re:Rubbish. Users need to learn

[pimpimpim]

Android proves you can do it differently. Every app comes with a list of things it needs access to, you can judge by yourself if you want that. The 'tech savy' users can select the 'install also non-market apps' option in the configuration menu and install anything they meet.

A G1 without simlock can be bought at Amazon for 300 eur now, I bought it there, I didn't need to "root" my phone, I can install what I want.
So, my Phone is a bit bulkier than the iPhone, but it has an actual keyboard, it can do SSH via connectbot, I use a laptop-umts sim card, so I can legally use it as a modem via Proxoid.

I have a bit of doubt concerning privacy of the tie-in of my mobile phone behavior and my browsing behavior, but I have absolutely no regrets for skipping the iPhone and not going the Jobs way here.

Oh, and you can swap the battery yourself.

Re:Some five years too late!

[WiiVault]

Nice job mods. Leave the troll be and mod down the person who called them for what they are. Keep it classy.

Re:what's wrong with BASIC?

[agnosticnixie]

Or you could learn C and jailbreak.

Possibly the coolest story ever on /.

[olsmeister]

My Commodore still sits on a pedestal

It's the last machine I could rattle out machine code for.

Pathetic, I know.

But I remain a geek to this day.

Re:Possibly the coolest story ever on /.

[Arker]

It was one of the first computers I learned to use. Despite its limited capabilities I still think it was in many ways superior to the personal computers made today. Certainly it was more encouraging to a young programmer than even a gnu/linux system would be today.

Re:Some five years too late!

[BitZtream]

Yes, you're cool because you got some apps before the iPhone existed. Envy sucks doesn't it. Envy being that thing that makes you feel the need to get all hot and bothered and tell us about how you had these things before iPhone people did.

Guess what, I had a cell phone before the iPhone came out!!! And before that I had a beeper!@$!@!!!! The fact that I had a shitty beeper 15-20 years ago should make it obvious the iPhone is pointless and stupid ... or maybe it just makes my comments pointless, stupid and retarded. Which do you thin it is?

And???

[Flere Imsaho]

Oh hooray, I can finally sleep soundly.

Meanwhile...

[Skuld-Chan]

I've been playing with a full c64 emulator on my Nokia nseries which runs Symbian for the last couple years :). I can even emulate a Commodore Amiga on it.

I really don't understand Apple, and maybe someone can explain - what can you possibly write on the C64 that would constitute an actual platform like Java or Flash (both of which also run on my Nokia)? In other words: what threat does the Commodore 64, a machine that is 27 years old represent to the iPhone's already existing dev kit?

Re:what's wrong with BASIC?

[catmistake]

You are correct.
I have proof
And with a jailbroken iPhone it's possible to get other games working as well. I got Seven Cities of Gold working, but unplayable without a disk drive for creating the maps, but Ghostbusters and Castle Wolfensten both work somewhat, and Impossible Mission totally works.

Rejected

[sr180]

And Apple have obviously rejected it again. It now says: No longer available.

Obviously Apple found out that the basic was actually available and removed it.

Re:Rejected

[AttilaSz]

Yeah, Apple yanked the app because of the BASIC interpreter hole, and the developers have plugged it and resubmitted the app.

Way to go, Apple. I mean, what harm could that BASIC interpreter do? It has no means of loading external code - no access to local filesystem of the underlying OS, no network connectivity, nothing. Are they afraid I'll manually type-in a program from a listing published in a magazine or something?

I got tons more "sense of childlike wonder" from toying with the interpreter than I could ever from playing Jack Attack and Dragon's Den combined!

Sheesh...

Not available on the UK app store!

[scobiej]

Not funny. What we really need is an approved version of MAME :)

Cracked games in the emulator?

[MrOion]

Seems like the games included in the emulator, was cracked versions from a group called "Remember". Found a blog with some screenshots of it at this blog.

No Pogo Joe?

[rgviza]

That was a fun game...

Re:"Apple out sellin EVERYONE, in phones AND apps"

[TheRaven64]

Blackberry sells far more phones than apple. -- Assuming you mean "outselling".

Not true. Apple passed RIM in terms of market share by a small fraction of a percentage point last month. They are now the second-largest player in the smartphone market. Of course, given that Nokia owns around 70-75% of this market, that's a bit like saying that they're the second-largest player in the desktop OS market...

The n900 cometh...

[Kirin Fenrir]

For technophilles, the iPhone is dead. The n900, with it's Debian-based-OS and open platform, is our new lord and savior.

http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/

Re:"Apple out sellin EVERYONE, in phones AND apps"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Not true. Apple passed RIM in terms of ma

WRONG.

Apple is still #5 listed here under "others": http://www.heise.de/resale/Preisradar-Nur-smarte-Handys-verkaufen-sich-noch-bestens--/news/meldung/144345

Not Available... so release it at Cydia?

[SwedishChef]

The *only* reason I got an iPhone was because it had a Unix basis and once jailbroken it would do ssh and allow me to remotely work on servers while anchored on my little 37-year-old Carver cabin cruiser in a quiet cove in the San Juan Islands. If that goes away I go somewhere else. So why not just release the C64 to Cydia and end-run around the Apple requirements? I realize why Apple does it, but every geek I know has a jail-broken iPhone.

At any rate, the C64 app is no longer available at the app store.

Re:Corrections to many mistakes on your part

[bhtooefr]

Not only that, but you can develop Windows Mobile apps on a Mac.

http://cegcc.sourceforge.net/