Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Emulation (Games) Games

C64 Emulator Finally Approved For iPhone 214

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the give-us-basic dept.
Gi0 writes "After a couple of months of rejection, the C64 Emulator has finally been approved for the iPhone (and is available at the app store now). 'BASIC has been removed for this release; however, we hope that working with Apple further will allow us to re-enable it. Despite its absence, BASIC is not our focus; ultimately, fans of the C64 want games.' It comes with 5 bundled games and will certainly give you that retro fix for your iPhone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

C64 Emulator Finally Approved For iPhone

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:20PM (#29343061)

    "No programming on your iPhone, poseurs.

    The iPhone is only to be used for gay, Apple approved activities, like soliciting meth and sex on Cragslist. "

    -Steve Jobs
    9/7/2009

  • C64 without BASIC? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:21PM (#29343065) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't the C64 pretty much just a BASIC interpreter? I thought just about everything for the C64 was written in BASIC; and IIRC the start prompt on the C64 took BASIC code natively.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by lbalbalba (526209)
      Obviosuly, you never knew about BASICS's 'peek' and 'poke', in order to get assembly.
      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Monday September 07, 2009 @03:07PM (#29343485) Journal

        >>>>>isn't the C64 pretty much just a BASIC interpreter? I thought just about everything for the C64 was written in BASIC

        Oh my. I will assume you are less than 30, and forgive your ignorance. Yes the C=64 came with BASIC but most everything was *not* written in that because it was too darn slow. Most programs ran directly on the hardware.

        >>Obviosuly, you never knew about BASICS's 'peek' and 'poke', in order to get assembly.

        Those commands, being part of the Microsoft Basic set, would not be included in this Iphone emulator. Usually when you run games, word processors, internet browsers, or other programs on a C64 you type LOAD "PROGRAM",8,1 which directs the external drive to load that code directly into memory - overwriting everything that's present including the MS-BASIC. The computer than executes instructions directly at the maximum speed possible (i.e. no interpeter to slow things down).

        Using this trick, programs can occupy all of the computer's memory except about 5 kilobytes (the screen space, interrupt handlers, and so on).

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Cmdr-Absurd (780125)

          LOAD "PROGRAM",8,1 which directs the external drive to load that code directly into memory

          Almost.
          the ,8 specified device 8 (generally the primary floppy drive) rather than the default cassette tape drive.
          (The under 30 drive probably has no idea what either device looks like)
          the ,8,1 specifies not only device 8, but that code should load not to the default memory loading location (where basic expects it to be) but rather where the code "wants" to live -- the programmer saves with similar options so the code will load into memory ranges used by the programmer when s/he wrote the code.

        • by thelexx (237096)

          "Those commands, being part of the Microsoft Basic set, would not be included in this Iphone emulator."

          This is totally confusing. What does Microsoft have to do with anything?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by QuantumLeaper (607189)
            Microsoft wrote the original Basic version 1 for the Pet computer all the rest of the versions where written my Commodore but they were based on the MS Basic on the Pet. Just check the C128 screen after you boot, it says Copyright Microsoft and Commodore.
          • by NotBornYesterday (1093817) * on Monday September 07, 2009 @04:35PM (#29344221) Journal
            Back then, Microsoft had versions of BASIC for various platforms, including the Apple ][ plus I had, and for the C64. Back before they started trying to kill the rest of the computing world, they had stuff that would run on different platforms. I even had a version of MS Flight Simulator for the Apple. Mmmm, sweet monochrome wireframe graphics. Ah, memories ...
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Zerth (26112)

              If you played it on an Apple(or an Atari or an Amiga), it wasn't MS sim, it was still Bruce Artwick's. MS licensed it, and later bought it when they started going all monopolistic.

        • by Dogtanian (588974)

          Usually when you run games, word processors, internet browsers, or other programs on a C64 you type LOAD "PROGRAM",8,1 which directs the external drive to load that code directly into memory - overwriting everything that's present including the MS-BASIC.

          Which essentially means that- like most 8-bit computers of that era- you need to enter the BASIC interpreter, however briefly, to load what are otherwise entirely machine code programs.

          The Atari 8-bit computers (400, 800, XL and XE) were notable for *not* requiring that. In fact, on the original 400 and 800, BASIC came on a separate cart and was an optional and non-essential extra.

          Disc software simply booted. Tape software required holding "Start" on power-up, then play (on tape) then return. Easy!

          Alt

        • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Monday September 07, 2009 @05:40PM (#29344647) Journal

          More worthless trash-and-trivia:

          This Iphone app emulates the world's most popular CPU - the Commodore/MOS 6502 (and other variants). This processor was the heart of machines like the VIC-20 (10 million sold), C=64 or 128 (40 million), Atari 400/800 computers, Apple I/II/IIc/IIe computers, BBC Micro, Atari VCS/2600 and 5200 game consoles (40 million), Colecovision (10 million), Nintendo Entertainment System (60 million), plus many other applications like store registers and handheld calculators. In total over 200 million 6502s sold.

          The 16-bit version called the 65816 (with 6502 backwards compatibility) ran the Apple IIgs, the SuperCPU C=64, and the Super Nintendo, and then the design was retired.

    • by Cmdr-Absurd (780125) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:30PM (#29343157)
      It booted into the basic interpreter by default, leaving you with 38K for basic. You could configure the memory differently. Writing in assembly not only offered a huge improvement in speed, but freed up the memory range from B000 to Bfff. (And the C000 range was often used by calls to machine language subroutines from basic.)
      So, no, it was not just a basic interpreter.
      There's at least one running as a web server now.
      I won't post the link to it. It takes very little to induce the slashdot effect on that hardware.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Commercial software was mostly in machine code, basic was too slow and ate too much memory.
      Basic was great for beginners and for trying out the programs listed in magazines etc.
      And yes, it was also the shell, needed for loading from tapes and discs.

      For an emulator tho you can populate the memory before starting, so you dont really need the basic.

      If theres no basic ROM it will break some programs that used routines from there to save space tho.

      • > For an emulator tho you can populate the memory before starting, so you dont really need the BASIC.

        Several games (like the popular Sid Meier's Pirates) were a mix of Basic and machine code.

        Of course, the "game" may include the BASIC rom files provided there is some standardized way to install them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Carthag (643047)

      Pretty much everything commercial, be it games or productivity software, was written in assembly, usually via machine code monitors.

      The BASIC interpreter was pretty bare bones (no sprites/sound/graphics), if you wanted to write games that weren't either text-based adventures or had your character as a horse simulated by the Ï character, you were pretty much required to use machine code. Note that sound/sprites/graphics could be done via PEEK/POKE as mentioned, but was a total chore without a proper mon

      • ... the pi character ...

        Unicode support is abysmal round these parts.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dachshund (300733)

        Debugging something like
        1000 DATA 123, 6, 43, 69, 240, 122, 51
        2000 DATA 120, 120, 85, 239, 4
        is for suckers

        My debugging process --- deleting lines of code at random --- was simple and 100% effective. Sooner or later I always got something that "worked".

        • by Carthag (643047)

          I doubt that. Usually DATA statements were read in a for loop that assumed a length of the data, so deleting anything would result in

          ?OUT OF DATA ERROR AT line#

          • by dachshund (300733)

            Hence the quotes around "worked".

            (Admittedly, this technique was more effective for debugging the logic in Tim Hartnell's Big Book of Games, which didn't use DATA statements at all. You'd often end up with a Chess AI that wasn't too picky about the rules of the game.)

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      BASIC was the "command line language" for C64 and was pretty much useless for any serious application. Most were done in assembly.
      That being said, to the best of my knowledge, quite a few C64 programs used the BASIC subsystems so the ommission of BASIC may still cause problems.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:43PM (#29343283)

      The commodore ROMs and the individual games were licensed, but they had to remove the BASIC interpretor. The C64 interpretor said "Commodore BASIC, V2", but it was written by a little company that made money selling its version of 6502 BASIC.

      I always knew which company made the barebones BASIC in the C64 because it had the same "print asc(0)" bug that the company provided in Atari, Apple, Amiga and IBM PC BASIC. The company also put an easter egg into Commodore 64 BASIC [wikipedia.org]. When Commodore's Jack Tremail found out this OS vendor had wasted dozens of bytes of his precious ROM for their easter egg, he was furious. It's possible that Apple is still afraid of the license Jack Tramial signed in the early 80s because the little company which put bugs and easter eggs in their BASIC ROM is now a big company known as Microsoft! But more likely, Apple just doesn't want you to be able to run arbitrary applications on their iPhone. They want to control every end of the software development process and if you're able to type your own low-res game, chat application or amortization schedule in Commodore BASIC, Apple doesn't get any royalties. And we can't do fun things like:

      10 poke 53265,59

      20 wait 60,1

      30 poke 53265,27

      But frodo64 has provided FULL C64 emulation for Nokia phones for at least 3 years. I think I've run it on a pre 20th century Nokia phone. Nice try Apple, but if you open your OS development environment to those who don't buy your latest OS and hardware and/or if you allow Java applications, you might eventually have as many applications as other phones in the global marketplace. They might not be as flashy or have as polished of an interface, but they will work for the user and for the author.

    • BASIC is there... not hard to get it to work. Just runstop a game and when the emu reboots, brings it right up
      proof here [geocities.com]
      Even more interestingly, the app is totally hackable (assuming your iPhone is jailbroken). I got Castle Wolfenstein, Ghostbusters, Impossible Mission, all working. Mildly painful, but doable.
  • Commodore 64? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by camperdave (969942) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:21PM (#29343067) Journal
    Commodore 64 emulator? You'd think they'd do an Apple II emulator.
    • by Abreu (173023)

      Either in C64 emulation or in Apple II emulation, I would like to play Karateka!

      • by EdIII (1114411) * on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:42PM (#29343279)

        I hated that *^*%* game!

        Played it for about a week just trying to get to the end. It required split-second skills to get past some of the guys. One night I finally get past the last guy and when I finnnaaallly get to the girl... she knifes me.

        I was so pissed, I literally threw the floppy disk out the window. Nearly 20 years later I learned it was some dude in drag, and the real girl was behind "him".

        Ohhh, and fuck that bird.

        Video games have not been that hard for a long time.

        • You're kidding, right?

          Princess Mariko is a badass in her own right. You should try the game again today, with that in mind.

        • by teridon (139550)

          Is this a joke? The game wasn't that hard.

          If you approach the girl in a fighting stance, she kicks you in the face for attempting to fight her and you die.

          If you stand up and run at her, you end up in a happy embrace -- THE END.

          http://www.virtualapple.org/karatekadisk.html [virtualapple.org]

        • by k8to (9046)

          I've played the c64 and apple 2 versions and .. well.. It doesn't require split second skills. There are some parts that are frustrating and/or annoying. The gate that drops on you is somewhat obnoxious. The bird that attacks you between fights in the second area can bother. But there's really only two secrets to know in the game: trigger the gate then run through, and shift out of combat stance when meeting the lady.

          The lady knifed you because you approached her in combat stance. She thought you were

        • by gmhowell (26755)

          Gotta be the Apple ii version so that if you play with the iPhone screen pointing down (say, while lying on a couch) it should flip the gameplay upside down.

          • by EdIII (1114411) *

            LOL. No. I mean playing on the original Apple IIe hardware back in the early 80's.

            The post inspired me to do some research and you may be referring to the "April Fools" joke where they had different code on these dual sided floppies. If you had the floppy turned upside down, the game code was such that the game itself was upside down on the screen.

            My challenge was apparently being one of the few people that had an Apple IIe and played games on it. Without the Internet, or even good BBS's back then, I ju

      • >>>Apple II emulation

        I tried an Apple II emulator one time, but it gave me horrible flashbacks to my middle school years which is something no one should have to relive. Grades 6,7,and 8 (ages 12,13,14) were an awkward time for me. I have no problems using Apple Macs (reminds me of my college years), but those ancient IIc and IIe machines are tinged with bad memories of boring schoolwork, embarrassing encounters with girls, and scary teachers.

        Ahhhh! (runs away)

        In contrast my Commodore 64 was wha

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Hopefully, yes. But the 64 had a different fan base. While the ][ fanbase moved on to the Mac, a good chunk of the 64 hacking fanbase held on. The 64 went from popular platform to popular retro platform almost seamlessly. No surprise it got emulated first.

      A ][ emulator shouldn't be far behind, but I'll love it if someone comes along with a Palm Pilot emu first.

      • >>>While the ][ fanbase moved on to the Mac, a good chunk of the 64 hacking fanbase held on.

        That's not quite true. The Commodore 64 is the world's best-selling computer, but the second-best selling computer was the Amiga 500. Why? Because just as Apple users remained loyal to Apple, most of the Commodore users remained loyal and when they upgraded, they moved from one multimedia machine (the 64) to another (the Amiga).

        At least that was the case with everyone I knew. I've never met a 64 owner wh

    • by mdwh2 (535323)

      Well, are you willing to take the time to write/port an Apple II Emulator, knowing that you'll have to wait months for corporate approval, and it may even be rejected altogether?

  • All I need now is an iPhone emulator for the C64. That way, I can play all my C64 games on my C64

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mdwh2 (535323)

      Here you are - it's surprisingly easy to write once you strip out the functionality that won't ever be hit:

      10 PRINT "THIS APPLICATION MAY NOT BE RUN ON NON-APPLE APPROVED HARDWARE"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:30PM (#29343159)

    They will never, ever enable BASIC support.

    The issue is that Apple doesn't want any iPhone application to be able to install and run other apps. No scripting languages, no loadable modules, etc. If they allowed this then there would be no need for the App Store and anyone could run any application they wanted just by using a "shell" application to load other apps.

    Personally I think it's stupid, but it's Apple. They want control and they want your money.

    • Go to "extra" keyboard and hit reset. Voila, BASIC.
      And it sucks. And it's from Microsoft. OMG C64 was evil ;-( :-)

      Microsoft's greatest blunder in their early years was to license BASIC to Tramiel's Commodore with a once-ever fee of, some say, as little as $50000. C= then sold tens of millions of machines without paying any more to M$.

      Well, M$ learned. C= died.

    • by pushing-robot (1037830) on Monday September 07, 2009 @03:37PM (#29343737)

      And because sandboxes tend to leak. VBScript, ActiveX, Flash, Adobe, and Javascript have all had their fair share of vulnerabilities.

      Apple is committed to only running signed code on their handhelds. That way, if a regular app is discovered to be malicious, Apple can blacklist it. But how does Apple blacklist malicious third-party unsigned code that another application—say, a Flash player—executes? The best they could do is blacklist the Flash player itself, disabling all the perfectly benign Flash apps and pissing off millions of people.

      Now, you may argue that "the user" should have control over what code their phone executes. And in the case of Slashdotters, you're probably right. But normal, non-savvy users don't understand technical warnings. They don't comprehend that executing a tiny bit of malicious code can hand their entire computer over to an attacker, and that there may be no way to undo the damage. They should not be put in a position where they can they can screw up their system with a tap of a "yes" button, for the same reason that cars should not have a "disable emissions controls, gain ten horsepower" switch and skyscrapers should not have a shiny red button that says "collapse building." Curiosity killed the cat, as they say; no matter how well-intentioned the user may be, dancing pigs win out in the end.

      So long as Apple provides a means for people who know what they're doing to run custom code—anyone can buy a developer key for about the cost of one month's phone bill—I won't complain about Apple making it harder for ignorant people to do stupid things.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MightyMartian (840721)

        And because sandboxes tend to leak. VBScript, ActiveX, Flash, Adobe, and Javascript have all had their fair share of vulnerabilities

        Could you show me one incident where an emulated CPU/hardware system has ever lead to any kind of leak? We're talking about a BASIC interpreter running on a 6510 emulator here. And if the emulator leaking is a concern, then I would think an attacker would more than likely get as low-level as possible and write the attack in 6510 assembler.

        In other words, your objection is mor

      • by syousef (465911) on Monday September 07, 2009 @05:19PM (#29344519) Journal

        Now, you may argue that "the user" should have control over what code their phone executes. And in the case of Slashdotters, you're probably right. But normal, non-savvy users don't understand technical warnings. They don't comprehend that executing a tiny bit of malicious code can hand their entire computer over to an attacker, and that there may be no way to undo the damage. They should not be put in a position where they can they can screw up their system with a tap of a "yes" button, for the same reason that cars should not have a "disable emissions controls, gain ten horsepower" switch and skyscrapers should not have a shiny red button that says "collapse building."

        No, actually it's more like saying scissors and knives shouldn't have sharp edges, and that cars shouldn't have accelerator pedals because in both cases it can lead to death or injury. In the case of a car the carnage you can cause unintentionally is so great that you require a license which is only granted when you learn how to drive properly (which is a more advanced skill than using a knife). In the case of scissors and knives there is a risk of injury but you're less likely to kill and maim lots of people and it's left to your parents to teach you the basic skill.

        So you could argue that users need to be licensed and should prove they can use their device to no great harm, or more sanely you can argue that since they're most likely to only hurt themselves and not critically. So the skill should be taught at home or at school. Trying to use a phone or computer when you don't understand just doesn't work. It's not that kind of device. In any case if people can learn to text and IM it's an issue of laziness and neglect that they don't bother to learn how to secure their device. It's not brain surgery.

        Apple's alternative - locking down the phone - is all about serving Apple's purposes and has nothing to do with the user's needs.

        • by pimpimpim (811140)

          Android proves you can do it differently. Every app comes with a list of things it needs access to, you can judge by yourself if you want that. The 'tech savy' users can select the 'install also non-market apps' option in the configuration menu and install anything they meet.

          A G1 without simlock can be bought at Amazon for 300 eur now, I bought it there, I didn't need to "root" my phone, I can install what I want.
          So, my Phone is a bit bulkier than the iPhone, but it has an actual keyboard, it can do SSH via

      • by mdwh2 (535323)

        Apple, it Works Just! It Works, Just so long as you only want to do what Apple allow you!

        (If Microsoft started requiring their approval for apps to run on Windows, then even if they never banned an app - let alone if they did start blocking widely used applications such as Flash and emulators - I bet you'd be first in line to criticise them.)

        • by Karlt1 (231423)

          (If Microsoft started requiring their approval for apps to run on Windows, then even if they never banned an app - let alone if they did start blocking widely used applications such as Flash and emulators - I bet you'd be first in line to criticise them.)

          Yeah just imagine if Microsoft made a closed hardware platform -- not necessarily a phone but let's say a game system -- that required a license to run software on it or you could only download games from their own service. I'm sure their would be a major

      • by BitZtream (692029)

        ActiveX doesn't run in a sandbox. Its a plugin architecture, an extension of COM. There is no sand boxing and there was never any intention of it. Its just a dynamic library with a specific known set of exported functions. It is no different than a .so in the various UNIX OSes and a .dyld on OS X. Its just a DLL.

        There is no way for you to 'break out of an ActiveX sandbox' because there is no sandbox to break out of. You probably also think ActiveX is insecure, without realizing that the only differenc

    • by tsa (15680) on Monday September 07, 2009 @03:58PM (#29343913) Homepage

      That's why I would much rather have a Nokia N900 [nokia.com]. No annoying provider tied to the phone, runs an open source OS... Beautiful.

      • I have an iPhone, and it's ok, but stupidity like this on Apple's part have been driving me away for a while. I really look forward to being able to do some Python programming on the N900...

    • by writermike (57327) on Monday September 07, 2009 @04:10PM (#29344027)

      It seems that trying to predict Apple's actions is not terribly easy. I don't really care if they get Basic enabled. I really just want to play games.

      What's interesting, however, is you can break into Basic in the app right now.

      Here's how you do it.

      1. Launch the app.
      2. Tap the power button to power on the C64.
      3. Tap the Advanced button on the bottom right.
      4. Turn the option "Always show full keyboard" on.
      5. Tap the "My Games" button on the lower left.
      6. Run any game.
      7. Tap the "Extra" button under the game screen.
      8. Tap the RESET button on the left.

      The app launches BASIC.

      I don't know if it's fully functional, but it will run the "10 PRINT "I AM SO GREAT!!!!!!" / 20 GOTO 10" program, which is about the extent of my programming skills.

      Disclaimer: I did not discover the above. It was posted on Engadget.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BitZtream (692029)

        Quick, make it more well known so Apple is sure to pull it off the AppStore tomorrow morning, if it takes that long.

        You guys are so concerned with showing how cool you are to find the way around things, but too stupid to realize that telling everyone means it'll go away fast as shit. Twits.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Timex (11710) *

          Quick, make it more well known so Apple is sure to pull it off the AppStore tomorrow morning, if it takes that long.

          As of this morning it's no longer available in the US, according to the App Store app. :(

    • by mdwh2 (535323)

      Indeed, heaven forbid someone run something without Apple's approval. But why allow an emulator full stop - people could still run any unapproved application written in C64 assembler (you know, like most C64 applications), and indeed, what's stopping someone installing a C64 BASIC interpretter? (Do they have UAE [amigaemulator.org] for the Iphone yet? Now that would be even more useful as a way to run applications without Apple approval. Every other platform in existence can run UAE, have Apple approved it yet, or is the Iphon

      • > Do they have UAE [amigaemulator.org] for the Iphone yet?

        Uh oh... slippery slope time. The moment UAE exists, it'll be possible to launch A-MAX and go storming right into Apple's holiest sanctuary(*)

        (*)For the uninitiated, A-MAX was a Macintosh emulator for the Amiga that ran some Mac software faster than a REAL Mac... conceptually, it was halfway between Xen and Wine. Nowhere near as hard as emulating a completely alien hardware platform (like the PC), but nowhere near as trivial as getting programs wr

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Digital Pizza (855175)

          I remember reading a description of AMAX somewhere as "a hostile port of the Macintosh OS to the Amiga platform". The Atari ST also had a similar product (though I think it actually came first) called "Magic Sack" I think; got renamed to that due to a lawsuit, don't remember the (probably better) original name.

          AMAX patched the Mac Plus ROM to work with the Amiga's hardware, so you just had effectively a Mac Plus. No Color QuickDraw. I remember the compatibility as being pretty good; programs that had tro

  • it would obviously allow developers to write programs that are far superior to the built in Apple apps and that violates their policy of not being able to "replace" the functionality of the iPhone/iPod Touch.

    You know... I guess their right... I mean, really, 40x25 characters and the primitive graphics that Commodore (Microsoft) Basic allowed should really allow modern developers to replace the built in apps with ease.

    Seriously, Apple, get off your ass and actually look into the functions you're preven
  • App approval? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:35PM (#29343217) Homepage Journal

    Do you *have* to get apples blessing to distribute an app, or is it just to use the appstore?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm not sure under which stone you've been lying under, but here is the heads up:

      You have to get Apple's blessing in order to distribute anything via the AppStore.
      AppStore is the only way (short of jailbreak) to get software into the iPhone and iPod Touch.
      There is no such thing as a "developer hardware" that could make your development/testing easier - you have to wait the random approval process before any hands on testing (you are restricted to software emulators).
      The development platform is MacOS X only.

      • Re:App approval? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sancho (17056) on Monday September 07, 2009 @03:02PM (#29343443) Homepage

        There is no such thing as a "developer hardware" that could make your development/testing easier - you have to wait the random approval process before any hands on testing (you are restricted to software emulators).

        Last I checked, you could get a developer's signing key to put an unapproved app on a limited number of devices for testing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        AppStore is the only way (short of jailbreak) to get software into the iPhone and iPod Touch. There is no such thing as a "developer hardware" that could make your development/testing easier...

        Neither of these statements is strictly true. Enterprise developers can distribute their own applications in-house, just not to the general public. Any developer can distribute their applications ad hoc to up to 100 users.

        Your app cannot allow any form of access to cussing words or the like.

        The rules were never quite that strict and Apple has relaxed the profanity clauses now that they have included parental controls for the iPhone. Their original concern was they wanted to make sure they did not poison the market for younger people by having issues with pornographic program

      • by nurb432 (527695)

        No stone, just been avoiding the iphone ( even tho i like apple ). Seems i will be for a while longer.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Remember the 80's, when it was an Apple person throwing the hammer to destroy the IBM PC "big brother"? Does anyone else find it amusingly ironic that the most controlled platform in existence today is Apple's, and that the Apple fanboys who would have considered themselves to be that person throwing off the chains of PC control in the 80's are today touting the benefits of not having any control over the hardware and software you buy?

        • Remember the 80's, when it was an Apple person throwing the hammer to destroy the IBM PC "big brother"? Does anyone else find it amusingly ironic that the most controlled platform in existence today is Apple's, and that the Apple fanboys who would have considered themselves to be that person throwing off the chains of PC control in the 80's are today touting the benefits of not having any control over the hardware and software you buy?

          I'd probably be more amused if I interpreted that commercial the way you did. I didn't see "PCs are under Big Brother Control". I always saw it as "don't be a conformist!" Maybe that's because I saw that commercial before the prerequisite reading.

          That said, the commercial's still amusing for similar reasons. "Stand out from the crowd, buy an iPhone!" Tee hee.

      • by Xugumad (39311)

        The iPhone developer program distribution page talks about ad hoc and enterprise distribution. Neither is ideal; ad hoc is limited to 100 users, enterprise is expensive and for companies with at least 500 employees, but they do exist as distribution paths.

        http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/distribute.html [apple.com]

  • by erroneus (253617) on Monday September 07, 2009 @03:18PM (#29343587) Homepage

    As at least one other has pointed out, even when writing in assembly language, it was common to make calls to the BASIC interpreter's functions and routines. If they manage to make things "other than basic" work, it is my guess that they merely disabled basic in some way and did not remove it. By extension, I would guess that it could be re-enabled as well.

    • by jeremyp (130771)

      Not entirely true.

      Commodore 6502 machines had a BASIC interpreter based on Microsoft BASIC but there was also a set of ROMs called the Kernal [sic - a spelling mistake that made it into the manuals]. This was a separate piece of code to the BASIC interpreter and was written in house by Commodore.

      The C64 had an 8K BASIC ROM and an 8K Kernal ROM. Each of these was shadowed by RAM so you could switch out the ROM. If you switched out both, you had a bare machine but you could just switch out the BASIC and le

      • by erroneus (253617)

        Yes, but doing so means that applications compatibility will be less than 100%... quite likely less than 90% and maybe even less.

        But since the BASIC ROM could be switched out for RAM, there's no reason someone couldn't find a way to "put it back" even if it can't be distributed through the Apple store that way.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Downloaded and verified this works. Simple "hello world" programs work, as do things like "poke 53281, 144" to change the screen color, and "SYS 64738" to reset.

    Gosh people, learn to use Google ;-)

    http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/09/06/quick-app-c64-commodore-64-emulator-iphone-hack-basic/ [theiphoneblog.com]

    "If you're dying to get your BASIC on, however, reader Stooovie let us know you can still access it by enabling 'always show full keyboard', starting a game, paging over to the EXTRA keyboard, and then tapping RES
  • I'm actually quite surprised that they didn't jump on this opportunity of having been refused and instead use it as an excuse to sell individual old games for $0.99 a pop (or packs of 5, or whatever) instead of selling the emulator itself.

  • I've been playing with a full c64 emulator [sourceforge.net] on my Nokia nseries which runs Symbian for the last couple years :). I can even emulate a Commodore Amiga on it [dailymobile.se].

    I really don't understand Apple, and maybe someone can explain - what can you possibly write on the C64 that would constitute an actual platform like Java or Flash (both of which also run on my Nokia)? In other words: what threat does the Commodore 64, a machine that is 27 years old represent to the iPhone's already existing dev kit?

  • Rejected (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sr180 (700526) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:43PM (#29347153) Journal

    And Apple have obviously rejected it again. It now says: No longer available.

    Obviously Apple found out that the basic was actually available and removed it.

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Working...