Re: Disk ][ Launcher (was: Late night musings...)

[rder@pro-palmtree.cts.com (Richard Der)]

nparker@cie-2.uoregon.edu (Neil Parker) wrote:
>You can't just emulate one piece of hardware--you have to emulate
>the *whole* *computer*.  That's how the Apple II emulators on the
>PC and Mac work--they emulate the processor itself, and all the
>hardware connected to it.
>
>This is a lot of work, and it takes a pretty hefty host processor
>to do it at a reasonable speed.  An Apple II emulator running on
>an Apple II is probably possible, but I doubt you'd want to use
>it--it would almost certainly run many times slower than a real
>Apple II.
 
Don't flame me, I just want to ask a question (if I knew the correct
answer I would not be asking).
 
Would an Apple II emulator running on an Apple IIGS have an advantage
in that a real 65816 is present? I've noticed that Mac emulators on
the Amiga don't have much of a performance hit. They seem to consist
of an image of the Mac ROMs (or the real ROMs in hardware, some
work with either), and use the actual 680x0 to crunch program code,
with some fancy programming to reroute Mac hardware accesses to
Amiga hardware access. The Amiga series is are 680x0 based computers.
 
If Mac emulators for the Amiga work differently than Apple II
emulators for the PC - if they use the actual 680x0 instead of
an emulated one (but emulating the rest of the Mac) - would an
Apple II emulator for the Apple IIGS, having a real 65816, not
work more like a Mac emulator on an Amiga than like an Apple
II emulator for a PC or Mac?
 
Granted, the Amiga has a multitasking OS. But would an Apple II
emulator for the IIGS not have at least some advantage by having
a 65816 that can directly process 6502 code?
 
Comments appreciated, but please no flaming. The question may be
naive, but that's because I want to find out the correct answer.
Thanks.


-----
The Palmtree BBS  310-453-8726 v.32
Inet: rder@pro-palmtree.cts.com