> ... IMHO all the narrow boards, including the above 250469 do the > same, and sometimes poorly. They are emulating the real C64 with their > "improperly" sounding SID and "sparking" CMOS VIC (plus others, less > outside noticeable differences), trying poorly to emulate the real > 6581/6569 respectively. You're entering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus territory there. I don't see that using the logical fallacy of appeal to extremes helps. The SID and VIC are different because of analogue effects which are different in the manufacturing processing. It would be hard to emulate those differences accurately with an FPGA. > Yes, "ultimate" is a big step further in terms of "reimplementation" > (as opposed to "emulation"), but - hey - wouldn't it be the natural > way to go further if - say - CBM lived and kept selling C64s today? implementation: "the process of putting a decision or plan into effect; execution." Lots of people have implemented emulators. Some use CPU's, some use FPGAs. They are both emulators, like bananas and tomatoes are both fruit. It might be inconvenient in a sales pitch to say that the fpgas are emulating a c64, if you've done a lot to rubbish emulators. However it's a better idea to focus on why using an fpga to emulate a computer is much better than using software on a computer running an OS. Unless you really want to lie to people.Received on 2018-03-15 14:04:08
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.