5 ms·

Mimic Systems Spartan: Apple II emulator for the C-64

44 points by ethanpil 4y ago

ethanpil 4y ago
Here is an interesting review of the product: http://mikenaberezny.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spartan-review-ahoy-sep-1986.pdf http://mikenaberezny.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spartan-...
kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
> The technology world moved much more slowly then than it does now. Respectfully disagree.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  I feel it is slower now. 1981 IBM PC - turn key useful but expensive and clunky 1982 Commodore 64 - cheap, good gfx + sound 1985 Amiga - you could drop someone from today (2022) on an Amiga and they could still find their way around the UI and write a document, save it, print it, use the calculator, whatever. (Before you start comparing with MacOS v1 and Windows v1, yes, true, but Windows 1 has clunky UI and neither MacOS nor Windows could execute more than program at a time. Only Amiga had that.) So, within 4 years we went from the "Personal Computer" becoming a real actual thing with the PC, to having basically the same desktop metaphor we still use today, with the Amiga. That's incredible development speed. The only thing I have seen which was just as fast, was the iPhone driving adoption of touch interfaces and mobile Internet. This also drove the concept of an "app" as something you pick and choose and expect to be there for major brands and services. It's hard to say if the "PC" (I mean that loosely) or the iPhone/touch/mobile trifecta had a greater impact. On the one hand, almost "everyone" are or will soon have a smartphone, so that has a huge impact. On the other hand, while "PC" adoption was not ubiquitous, it drove major changes in mass culture (printing, music, video) and industry and economy. Not everyone had a computer, but everyone was aware of them and were impacted by them in ways large and small.
  - usrn 4y ago
    I for one have gotten rid of my smartphone. Where the PC extended your mind smartphones are only tools for corporations to manipulate you.
    - themadturk 4y ago
      It's really not an either/or proposition.
  - bluedino 4y ago
    > So, within 4 years we went from the "Personal Computer" becoming a real actual thing with the PC, to having basically the same desktop metaphor we still use today, with the Amiga. That's incredible development speed. Except in 1984 we had the Macintosh, and a year before that we had the Apple Lisa. So only 2 years. Even faster.
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      (Before you start comparing with MacOS v1 and Windows v1, yes, true, but Windows 1 has clunky UI and neither MacOS nor Windows could execute more than program at a time. Only Amiga had that.) I picked my goal posts arbitrarily, but an Amiga could basically run all software we have today, if the CPU was faster. Stream music + download something + editing a text, for instance. The Mac OS could only have done this a little bit later. But sure, yes, the UI of the Mac was incredible, only 2 years after IBM PC.
    - LocalH 4y ago
      The Amiga had proper preemptive multitasking (what I would consider a key part of today's "desktop metaphor"), long before the Mac.
      - apricot 4y ago
        The Apple Lisa had preemptive multitasking years before the Amiga.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- flenserboy 4y ago
  What makes it seem that it moved much more slowly — look how long 8-bit machines held on — was just how much it cost to get into a system. Platforms had long lives then because people were not keen on seeing their investments disappear out from under them. Note that an Apple //c cost about $1300 in 1984, the equivalent of $3600 or so today. You're going to want to see just how long you can keep that going even though technology improvements are flying by outside your door, and they really were doing that back in the day. There were multiple, barely-interacting tech markets running concurrently.
marcodiego 4y ago
> The Mimic Systems Spartan was an elusive bit of C-64 hardware that made it Apple II+ compatible. Interesting... so, it was an emulator that required special hardware. I wonder if it allows the use of a z-80 card. If so the C-64 would be able to run CP/M making it a very versatile system.
- Someone 4y ago
  In case you don’t know about it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_128 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_128: The C128 is a significantly expanded successor to the C64, with nearly full compatibility. The newer machine has 128 KB of RAM in two 64 KB banks, and an 80-column color video output. It has a redesigned case and keyboard. Also included is a Zilog Z80 CPU which allows the C128 to run CP/M, as an alternative to the usual Commodore BASIC environment. The presence of the Z80 and the huge CP/M software library it brings, coupled with the C64's software library, gave the C128 one of the broadest ranges of available software among its competitors. […] The C128 runs CP/M noticeably slower than most dedicated CP/M systems, as the Z80 processor runs at an effective speed of only 2 MHz
- jim_lawless 4y ago
  Commodore sold a version of CP/M (2.2) with a Z-80 processor in a cartridge for the C-64. Due to slow 1541 disk drive speed, non-CP/M disk format, and a 40-column display, it was a slow and clumsy version of CP/M. As someone else posted, the C-128 and 1571 disk drive had much better CP/M support. The 128 had a built-in Z-80 and 80-column capability. The 1571 could read/write CP/M format (and MS-DOS format for that matter) disks.
LocalH 4y ago
Not really an "emulator". It bolted on an entire Apple II-compatible system. Much like some of the earlier compatibility products (both the Amiga and Mac had expansions that added a whole-ass PC on the side, the Amiga product was an official Commodore one while the Mac addon was third-party).
- ChainOfFools 4y ago
  ah the MacCharlie and the Amiga Sidecar, both horrendously overpriced for their respective markets. Though the Amiga peripheral arguably did a much better job owing to the host system's ability to both display color as well as multitask natively, so one could use both environments simultaneously. I believe even possible to exchange data between the two while both were rinning, due to the use of dual-port RAM on the Sidecar and some sort of simple driver running on both sides handled mutexes, locks and such.
  - LocalH 4y ago
    The contemporary screen translation from PC to Amiga side was pretty slow, however the native PC video itself ran at full speed AFAIK. This was also the case with the later Bridgeboards as well. IIRC the MacCharlie handled monochrome text only.

44 points by ethanpil 4y ago

Here is an interesting review of the product: http://mikenaberezny.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spartan-review-ahoy-sep-1986.pdf http://mikenaberezny.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spartan-...

kwertyoowiyop 4y ago

> The technology world moved much more slowly then than it does now. Respectfully disagree.

actionfromafar 4y ago
I feel it is slower now. 1981 IBM PC - turn key useful but expensive and clunky 1982 Commodore 64 - cheap, good gfx + sound 1985 Amiga - you could drop someone from today (2022) on an Amiga and they could still find their way around the UI and write a document, save it, print it, use the calculator, whatever. (Before you start comparing with MacOS v1 and Windows v1, yes, true, but Windows 1 has clunky UI and neither MacOS nor Windows could execute more than program at a time. Only Amiga had that.) So, within 4 years we went from the "Personal Computer" becoming a real actual thing with the PC, to having basically the same desktop metaphor we still use today, with the Amiga. That's incredible development speed. The only thing I have seen which was just as fast, was the iPhone driving adoption of touch interfaces and mobile Internet. This also drove the concept of an "app" as something you pick and choose and expect to be there for major brands and services. It's hard to say if the "PC" (I mean that loosely) or the iPhone/touch/mobile trifecta had a greater impact. On the one hand, almost "everyone" are or will soon have a smartphone, so that has a huge impact. On the other hand, while "PC" adoption was not ubiquitous, it drove major changes in mass culture (printing, music, video) and industry and economy. Not everyone had a computer, but everyone was aware of them and were impacted by them in ways large and small.
- usrn 4y ago
  I for one have gotten rid of my smartphone. Where the PC extended your mind smartphones are only tools for corporations to manipulate you.
  - themadturk 4y ago
    It's really not an either/or proposition.
- bluedino 4y ago
  > So, within 4 years we went from the "Personal Computer" becoming a real actual thing with the PC, to having basically the same desktop metaphor we still use today, with the Amiga. That's incredible development speed. Except in 1984 we had the Macintosh, and a year before that we had the Apple Lisa. So only 2 years. Even faster.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    (Before you start comparing with MacOS v1 and Windows v1, yes, true, but Windows 1 has clunky UI and neither MacOS nor Windows could execute more than program at a time. Only Amiga had that.) I picked my goal posts arbitrarily, but an Amiga could basically run all software we have today, if the CPU was faster. Stream music + download something + editing a text, for instance. The Mac OS could only have done this a little bit later. But sure, yes, the UI of the Mac was incredible, only 2 years after IBM PC.
  - LocalH 4y ago
    The Amiga had proper preemptive multitasking (what I would consider a key part of today's "desktop metaphor"), long before the Mac.
    - apricot 4y ago
      The Apple Lisa had preemptive multitasking years before the Amiga.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
flenserboy 4y ago
What makes it seem that it moved much more slowly — look how long 8-bit machines held on — was just how much it cost to get into a system. Platforms had long lives then because people were not keen on seeing their investments disappear out from under them. Note that an Apple //c cost about $1300 in 1984, the equivalent of $3600 or so today. You're going to want to see just how long you can keep that going even though technology improvements are flying by outside your door, and they really were doing that back in the day. There were multiple, barely-interacting tech markets running concurrently.

marcodiego 4y ago

> The Mimic Systems Spartan was an elusive bit of C-64 hardware that made it Apple II+ compatible. Interesting... so, it was an emulator that required special hardware. I wonder if it allows the use of a z-80 card. If so the C-64 would be able to run CP/M making it a very versatile system.

Someone 4y ago
In case you don’t know about it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_128 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_128: The C128 is a significantly expanded successor to the C64, with nearly full compatibility. The newer machine has 128 KB of RAM in two 64 KB banks, and an 80-column color video output. It has a redesigned case and keyboard. Also included is a Zilog Z80 CPU which allows the C128 to run CP/M, as an alternative to the usual Commodore BASIC environment. The presence of the Z80 and the huge CP/M software library it brings, coupled with the C64's software library, gave the C128 one of the broadest ranges of available software among its competitors. […] The C128 runs CP/M noticeably slower than most dedicated CP/M systems, as the Z80 processor runs at an effective speed of only 2 MHz
jim_lawless 4y ago
Commodore sold a version of CP/M (2.2) with a Z-80 processor in a cartridge for the C-64. Due to slow 1541 disk drive speed, non-CP/M disk format, and a 40-column display, it was a slow and clumsy version of CP/M. As someone else posted, the C-128 and 1571 disk drive had much better CP/M support. The 128 had a built-in Z-80 and 80-column capability. The 1571 could read/write CP/M format (and MS-DOS format for that matter) disks.

LocalH 4y ago

Not really an "emulator". It bolted on an entire Apple II-compatible system. Much like some of the earlier compatibility products (both the Amiga and Mac had expansions that added a whole-ass PC on the side, the Amiga product was an official Commodore one while the Mac addon was third-party).

ChainOfFools 4y ago
ah the MacCharlie and the Amiga Sidecar, both horrendously overpriced for their respective markets. Though the Amiga peripheral arguably did a much better job owing to the host system's ability to both display color as well as multitask natively, so one could use both environments simultaneously. I believe even possible to exchange data between the two while both were rinning, due to the use of dual-port RAM on the Sidecar and some sort of simple driver running on both sides handled mutexes, locks and such.
- LocalH 4y ago
  The contemporary screen translation from PC to Amiga side was pretty slow, however the native PC video itself ran at full speed AFAIK. This was also the case with the later Bridgeboards as well. IIRC the MacCharlie handled monochrome text only.