Thanks for the clarification! I had a feeling you might comment on this one:)
On Jan 7, 1979, at 3:34 PM, "Jecel Assumpcao Jr." <[email protected]> wrote: > Casey Ransberger wrote: >> Also inaccurate: in their slide deck, they call out that what they've >> done is "more like a simulation than an emulation," and that this >> approach reduced the amount of code the had tow write, if their >> graphs are meaningful, by something like an order of magnitude. > > Different groups use the terms "emulation" and "simulation" in slightly > different ways, which can cause a lot of confusion. > > For hardware developers, a simulator is some software that runs on your > PC to see if the design is correct or not. An emulator is a piece of > hardware that does the same job as what you are designing or some > important part of it. For example, a 6502 emulator would be a board with > a flat cable and a 40 pin connector which could plug into the socket of > an Apple II in place of a real 6502. This board would also be connected > to a PC or a logic analyser and would allow you to see what is happening > inside the processor while the board is running and even generate memory > accesses and stuff like that on a board that is not fully working. > > For the retro-computing crowd, an emulator is any software that can > create a virtual old computer or video game closely enough to run the > old software. A simulator is a very detailed emulator which recreate > aspects of the original in order to more faithfully run the old > software. So an emulator might just grab a byte from the simulated > framebuffer and do a simple conversion before sending it to the video > card while a simulator might recreate with the original video chip did > and then convert the final result into what the modern video card needs. > The visual 6502 guys are using this definition. Normally, a simulation > is far more work and emulation. But in their case the simulation is so > detailed (it goes all the way down to the layout in the silicon) that > the code was simple and generic and only needed the very detailed input > which they were able to obtain semi-automatically. > > I said "slightly different", but in a sense these two uses of this pair > of terms are almost opposites. > > -- Jecel > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
