Talk:Emulator

message: The Gregory Muira reference is repeated three times (appears three times in the list of references).  Is there any reason, or could one instance be referenced from three places?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.47.26 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated Reference

message: The "emulators taken to the extreme" mentioned in the second paragraph of "Types Of Emulation" sound a bit sci-fi for wikipedia. Are there any examples of it? 79.102.44.55 (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Extreme Emulation

message: I'm not a native speaker, however I'd like to know what was wrong with the phrase "... other than they were going to poop in a bag and set it on fire".
To me, "... other than the one for which they were originally looked at funny" looks harder to read (even though my own language would use this latter contruction!), and while it sounds more Latin-like, I always thought that the former construction was correct English, as well.
LjL 23:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with the first line, other than it violates the rule that a sentence will not end with a preposition, in this case "for". (Whoops! I just ended a sentence with a preposition!)(Am I a geek? Go to www.geekssRcool.com to answer the question) In truth this is an old carry over from Latin, and is hardly used in modern English. One particular example of supposedly "correct" English was given by P.M. Winston Churchill: "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put!." Grammatically, this is correct, but it sounds horrible. -- VederJuda 16:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems like a clumsy read to me, as well.  Since this is a technical article, it might be appropriate to use a technical term to simplify the grammar.  Perhaps the word "native" might be of help? Matt Fitzpatrick 09:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "for which" vs "... for" 

message: Hey has anybody in the emulation community thought of making an emulator that anyone can edit, a la Wikipedia?  A good open-sourced, open-ended platform that anyone can add a layer of emulation to?  I know this would be a bit more difficult than adding a sentence to Wikipedia, but perhaps some method of massive cooperation could make it possible.  Imagine a page that you can plug any non-copyrighted ROM into (because of course, we would not want to advocate copyright infringement) so that you or anyone else can test it; or, edit the page to improve the emulation.  Or, copy the page and test the emulation in private.  Massively multi-user programming!  I would try to do it myself, but my programming skills need to be improved first.  (Of course, one advantage to open programming would be that many more people could learn to program, too.)  But, a good home for such a thing might be Wikicities or some other sister project of Wikipedia.  Discussion?  oneismany 10:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourceforge+CVS. There are a good bit of open source emulators out there. Nezbie 00:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Steal This Idea

message: Why was "console games" changed to "console games"--E-Bod 00:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry i did'n notice the link was also on the picture--E-Bod 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[console game]]s 

message: Considering that the emulated SNES image has to go, would it be possible and appropriate to get a screenshot of an emulated Vectrex?  I remember reading something to the effect that the makers of that system have released all copyrights to the public. Robotman1974 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also added the  tag to that screenshot again.  Obviously there are copyright concerns. Robotman1974 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be impossible to replace this image without losing encyclopedic quality. A free software demo wouldn't do, it has to be an actual snes (or other console) game, otherwise the point isn't made. If you can find a console game that has been released (all of it) to the public under a free license, then we can talk. --Oskar 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A while ago, I replaced the image with an image of DosBox running in Linux. There's no unique copyrighted GUI, the program and the operating system it's running under are both free software so the image is free. Using images of video game emulators is problematic - even if the emulator is free software, the game that is running almost certainly isn't free software. Also, using a video game screenshot on top feeds the misconception that emulation only involves video games. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use image to be replaced

message: I suggest this article be renamed to "Software emulation". SharkD (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Software emulation" 

message: This page covers emulation software. But there are different hardware emulators usually used by (embeded) software developers -->Hardware_emulation, HP_64000.
Background:
hardware emulators usually emulate the CPU or a part of a computer board for debugging purpose.
They were used in former times, when CPUs did not provide a debuiuging Interface. Example: Intel 80486
I suggest to give a hint in the introduction of the article.BerndSinger (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emulation (Software) vs. Emulation (Hardware) 

message: Why is Virtual Machine not appearing anywhere here?  Doesn't a VM emulate something?  Isnt a VM a kind of emulator? I'll take my answer in the article, if you are willing. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While I wouldn't agree that a virtual machine is an emulator, calling it one is no worse than many of the other uses to which the word has been put. If you are going to add any material on Virtual Machines in this article, I would suggest that you research the Start Interpretive Execution (SIE) instruction on the IBM 3081, IBM 3090 and subsequent machines; the only reference I have is  Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Machine 

message: I'm considering adding a description of the emulators on the IBM System/360 and IBM System/370, but am not sure of the appropriate level of detail. My preference would be to cite both the feature descriptions and the logic manuals, but not the CE manuals. What would be TMI in this context? Do I need to cite specific page numbers, or is that only fior cases where disputes are likely? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level of detail 

message: Does the CPU simulation translate opcode? --Christopher Forster (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  In emulation, all opcodes, addresses, and data bytes are simulated exactly the way binary instructions would be executed in native code, except for input/output which would closely approximate the original hardware. Greensburger (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opcode 

message: Here is a much better explanation i found:
"A simulation is a system that behaves similar to something else, but is implemented in an entirely different way. It provides the basic behavior of a system but may not necessarily abide by all of the rules of the system being simulated. It is there to give you an idea about how something works.
Think of a flight simulator as an example. It looks and feels like you are flying an airplane, but you are completely disconnected from the reality of flying the plane, and you can bend or break those rules as you see fit. E.g.; Fly an Airbus A380 upside down between London and Sydney without breaking it.
An emulation is a system that behaves exactly like something else, and abides by all of the rules of the system being emulated. It is effectively a complete replication of another system, right down to being binary compatible with the emulated system's inputs and outputs, but operating in a different environment to the environment of the original emulated system. The rules are fixed, and cannot be changed or the system fails.
The M.A.M.E. system is built around this very premise. All those old arcade systems that have been long forgotten, that were implemented almost entirely in hardware, or in the firmware of their hardware systems can be emulated right down to the original bugs and crashes that would occur when you reached the highest possible score."
If someone could use that to improve the article, that would be great.
Source:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/134746/whats-the-difference-between-simulation-and-emulation  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.73.252.78 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the "emulator vs simulator" section. 

message: I find this article is too focused on "legacy hardware emulation" and does not properly describe the abstract concept of "emulation" as opposed to "simulation". Some phrases do mention this, but I would rather see it as the main point of the article and not as a side-note. To better understand what I mean, here is a discussion from stackoverflow:
:Emulation is the process of mimicking the outwardly observable behavior to match an existing target. The internal state of the emulation mechanism does not have to accurately reflect the internal state of the target which it is emulating.
:
:Simulation, on the other hand, involves modeling the underlying state of the target. The end result of a good simulation is that the simulation model will emulate the target which it is simulating.
:
:Tthe goal of an emulation is to able to substitute for the object it is emulating. A simulation's focus is more on the modelling of the internal state of the target -- and the simulation does not necessarily lead to emulation. In particular, a simulation may run far slower than real time. SPICE, for example, cannot substitute for an actual electronics circuit (even if assuming there was some kind of magical device that perfectly interfaces electrical circuits to a SPICE simulation.)
--Cristiklein (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, "emulation" referred to a simulation that used a hardware or microcode assist; the term was later extended to refer to any simulation. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too focused on hardware emulation 

message: The IBM 704 compatibility support for the 709 was a sandbox rather than a simulator. The 709 ran the 704 code at full speed, but disabled access to certain instructions and to upper memory. I question whether it belongs in the article at all, but if it is to remain than there should be enough detail to make its status clear. I'm undecided whether to delete it or to add an explanatory footnote.Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM 704 compatibility 

message: As a heads up, a Draft:High-level emulation article is being developed. Please add your content there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-level emulation article to Draft 

message: This article completely confuses emulation with simulation.  Emulation is hardware, simulation is software.
:216.152.18.131 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major mess 

message: What is described here as hardware emulation directly contradicts what the actual Hardware emulation article describes. It even warns about the exact mistake done here ("hardware emulation can be confused with hardware devices such as expansion cards with hardware processors"). FPGA based re-implementations are also not what is traditionally called hardware emulation - calling FPGA implementation hardware emulation seems to be a recent reinvention of the term that happened in the retro-gaming community. 2003:EC:8F2C:DE00:DC2C:B6E3:FFD1:B81D (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardware emulation here vs the actual Hardware emulation article