Most Difficult Emulator

["Bryan Parkoff" <BParkoff@satx.rr.com>]

Most Difficult Emulator

    I realize that there are many emulators that can slow Intel CPU.  It
takes couple seconds to read 6502 opcode table before it emulates into 80x86
opcode.  It can cost a lot of time.
    For example, MacSoft Emulator can be very slow on Intel PC while
emulating PowerPC.  What I have read article that the programmer said that
it is the most difficult to write Emulator on type of processors that
emulates PowerPC into 80x86.
    I have decided to use a different method of way that it will NOT EMULATE
6502 into 80x86.  First, my project reads ROM and/or disk images.  Second,
they convert 6502 routines into 80x86 routines (It is NOT to emulate each
6502 opcode into 80x86 opcode.  Routines are NOT 6502 machine language NOR
80x86 machine language.)  Routines are written according to my design.
Third, ROM and/or disk images will be executing into NATIVE 80x86.  It is
MUCH faster than emulator/simulator.  Can't you imagine that it can measure
up to 200MHz on Xeon 550MHz CPU!
    After rebooting Apple IIs, AppleSoft BASIC prompt appears in the screen.
You type: "CALL -151", and then you will disassemble that will look real
80x86 instead of 6502 machine language.  Of course, it is difficult to
DISPLAY BY TRANSLATING 6502 opcode into 80x86 opcode IN THE SCREEN ONLY (Not
CPU's).
    With disk images, you boot them into memory before they are converted to
80x86 routines automatically for 15-30 seconds (I wish you are WILLING to be
patient for waiting 30 seconds) such as DOS 3.3 Master.  They will be in
NATIVE 80x86.  No more 6502 anymore!
    Please do not ask me where do you get the information from.  It is only
my project that will exist next couple months.

    Opposite story of Steve Woz: If Steve is RICH that he can AFFORD a lot
of money, he can buy Intel 8008 CPU at least $300 instead of 6502 CPU at
$35(?).  Apple II computers will be very popular using 80x86 instruction.
It will not be obsolete so all Apple II games will be COMPATIBLE to 80386,
80486, and beyond Pentium II/III/IV.

    Please provide me some ideas what do you think so I can continue my
project.  Thanks a lot...Smile...I am a good C++ programmer, but it always
progresses and improves project in order to get better.  I do not always
have a good programmer which is written in neither C, Pascal and others, but
I depend on C++ using OOP.  I believe that OOP is better because of less
space and great performance.

Bryan Parkoff
BParkoff@satx.rr.com