Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple II DOS Source Code Released

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the half-the-size-of-the-itunes-EULA dept.

Open Source 211

gbooch writes "The Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California, is not just a museum of hardware, but also of software. The Museum has made public such gems as the source code for MacPaint, Photoshop, and APL, and now code from the Apple II. As their site reports: 'With thanks to Paul Laughton, in collaboration with Dr. Bruce Damer, founder and curator of the Digibarn Computer Museum, and with the permission of Apple Inc., we are pleased to make available the 1978 source code of Apple II DOS for non-commercial use. This material is Copyright © 1978 Apple Inc., and may not be reproduced without permission from Apple.'"

cancel ×

211 comments

Good thing it's non-commercial (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405643)

what would happen if someone would make a buck off of the Apple ][ DOS...!!!!!

Re:Good thing it's non-commercial (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#45405691)

You never know... I'm not sure how far back in time Microsoft goes to rip off Apple; they do always seem to be pretty late to the party.

Re:Good thing it's non-commercial (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405847)

“Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal”

Its all good.

Game disk images in licensed emulator bundles (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45405761)

Lately it has become common for companies that own copyright in decades-old video games to rerelease the games in an emulator that runs on a modern platform. If a video game for Apple II requires Apple DOS, the game's copyright owner has two options. It can license Apple DOS in order to distribute it as part of the game's disk image bundled with the emulator. Or it can change the emulator to use high-level emulation for the BASIC integration, file system, and RWTS (block device driver) that make up Apple DOS.

Re:Game disk images in licensed emulator bundles (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#45406149)

Copyright should end after 10yrs max. Whatever paltry profits apple may stand to gain from hording things like this to themselves pale in comparison to the lost history if such things are destroyed before they're ever released to the public.

Re:Game disk images in licensed emulator bundles (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406301)

Have you considered the possibility that Apple simply wouldn't release the source code at all, if there were no copyright protection?

To keep companies from "hoarding," as you put it, would require a sort of negative copyright, where they are forced to escrow their source code for public release at the end of the copyright term (which would also need to be reduced). This is an interesting idea; if you want copyright protection, you have to vouch that you will release what is being protected at the end of the term. Sounds fair to me. If you don't like it, you'll have to rely on trade secrecy instead.

Disassembly (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45406559)

Have you considered the possibility that Apple simply wouldn't release the source code at all, if there were no copyright protection?

To keep companies from "hoarding," as you put it, would require a sort of negative copyright, where they are forced to escrow their source code for public release

I don't see why escrow would be so critical when someone with more time than money could just disassemble, document, and distribute a program. This already happens underground [romhacking.net] . Absent copyright enforcement, there would simply be no formal negative consequences for doing so.

If you don't like it, you'll have to rely on trade secrecy instead.

You'd have to keep the binary secret too in order to thwart a disassembly attack. Good luck keeping a binary secret from end users who who run it on hardware that they own. The sort of DRM seen in, say, game consoles has always failed within a few years.

They printed off assembler (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#45405655)

Whatever your complaints about your job, at least debugging your code doesn't involve stepping through assembly on a pencil and paper virtual machine.

Re:They printed off assembler (5, Insightful)

adisakp (705706) | about 8 months ago | (#45405701)

Whatever your complaints about your job, at least debugging your code doesn't involve stepping through assembly on a pencil and paper virtual machine.

That was how I wrote my first published game back in the 80's. I have no complaints. Everything was new back then and even though the "wheel hadn't yet been invented", programming was still exciting and it was some of the most fun coding I have ever done.

Re:They printed off assembler (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#45405759)

I like to imagine every new programmer has that amazing sense of euphoria as they begin to uncover all the major algorithms for themselves, and begin developing a sense of just how much is possible with programming.

Then it's your job. To give the end-user some uninteresting but necessary layer of data connectivity.

Re:They printed off assembler (1)

wrackspurt (3028771) | about 8 months ago | (#45405807)

Whatever your complaints about your job, at least debugging your code doesn't involve stepping through assembly on a pencil and paper virtual machine.

That was how I wrote my first published game back in the 80's. I have no complaints.

Do you think the pencil and paper mechanics made any qualitative difference, good or bad, to the overall learning process?

Re:They printed off assembler (1)

Dimwit (36756) | about 8 months ago | (#45406461)

What game, just out of curiosity? I remember reading about how Ant Attack was developed that way.

Re:They printed off assembler (4, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | about 8 months ago | (#45405769)

Actually it does. That's how we track down compiler bugs, and also how we backtrack from crash location to look for the cause when we have a core from an optimised build.

Listing were used like tablets today ... (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about 8 months ago | (#45405975)

Whatever your complaints about your job, at least debugging your code doesn't involve stepping through assembly on a pencil and paper virtual machine.

Back then it was actually easier to read through large amounts of code, flipping between different sections, etc when it was on paper.

The listing wasn't used for paper and pencil emulation, we had quite nice integrated editors and debuggers to see what was going on (ex. the LISA 6502 assembler). The listings were for reading and understanding. These lists were used somewhat like tablets today. You can take the listing anywhere, flop down on the couch and start reading, ...

Re:They printed off assembler (4, Interesting)

kylemonger (686302) | about 8 months ago | (#45406087)

It didn't involve pencil and paper for long on the Apple II. I remember reading about a step-trace 6502 debugger for the Apple II back then. I didn't have any money to buy it so I wrote my own (in assembler of course) to ease debugging of a video game I was writing. It wasn't a hard job; the 6502 instruction set is small and straightforward and the CPU only has three registers.

Re:They printed off assembler (5, Interesting)

oldhack (1037484) | about 8 months ago | (#45406297)

Reading 6502 assembly is easier than reading some of today's bloated and convoluted Java/Perl/FP/what-have-you code. It's not like the assemblies of modern CPUs with OOE, branch predictions, and all such complexities.

Also, from a technical perspective, publishing source for 6502 machine code wasn't that big a deal. You could recreate a reasonable assembly source from the machine code by spending some time with reverse assembler (unless the code does goofy things like writing over its code and such). In fact, Apple II monitor code had a nifty reverse assembler built in.

Re:They printed off assembler (3, Interesting)

NormalVisual (565491) | about 8 months ago | (#45406691)

In fact, Apple II monitor code had a nifty reverse assembler built in.

I'm sure there are a lot of us that remember "CALL -151"... :-)

48K... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405659)

...ought to be enough for anyone!

Legacy Support (2, Interesting)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 8 months ago | (#45405663)

I wish that Apple, and other companies, would create deep legacy support all the way back. Software from the Apple II should be able to run on the MacOSX and iOS. The computational power is there to do the necessary emulation.

Re:Legacy Support (4, Informative)

stewsters (1406737) | about 8 months ago | (#45405763)

Ask and ye shall receive?
http://www.virtualapple.org/ [virtualapple.org]

Re:Legacy Support (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 8 months ago | (#45405823)

Ooh then I could dig up the old 5 1/2 diskettes (made double-sided with a hole punch) with my pirated (Yes, I was 13 for a year,) copy of Karetika on it, and take that for a spin again.

Actually I'm pretty sure mame or one of its associated projects will emulate the ol' Apple 2, and I think also the C64 and maybe even the TI 99/4A. So while Apple doesn't support it directly, you probably could get that, at least on your OSX machine. Now the Amiga was a sexy little box but I haven't seen an emulator project for it.

Karateka (1)

themushroom (197365) | about 8 months ago | (#45405885)

Yaaaa! And don't forget that Karateka was a bootable image, not requiring any DOS to get into.

Re:Karateka (2)

Stephen Gilbert (554986) | about 8 months ago | (#45406659)

Now all Karateka requires is a web browser [archive.org] .

Re:Legacy Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405947)

5 1/4. Nothing worse than these dumb nostalgiagasms where the person doesn't even get the information right.

Re:Legacy Support (2)

NormalVisual (565491) | about 8 months ago | (#45406751)

Could be worse. I interviewed a lady for a SE position several months back that, when asked about whether she ever did any programming at home, fondly recalled programming on her C64 way back when, and how much she missed seeing that amber "C:\" prompt. The interview didn't go much further.

Re:Legacy Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406317)

No emulator for the Amiga ?
I'm writing this on one.

Amiga Forever ! Google that.

Re:Legacy Support (1)

LocalH (28506) | about 8 months ago | (#45406663)

Screw Amiga Forever, if you still have a physical Amiga then just dump the ROM from it (or download them if you don't care about legality) and then run it in WinUAE, which is actually the base emulator in Amiga Forever (except newer, as it's currently in development).

Re:Legacy Support (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | about 8 months ago | (#45406719)

Ooh then I could dig up the old 5 1/2 diskettes (made double-sided with a hole punch) with my pirated (Yes, I was 13 for a year,) copy of Karetika on it, and take that for a spin again.

Back then I thought it was so cool that Karateka played with an inverted screen if you flipped the floppy over.

Re:Legacy Support (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 months ago | (#45405845)

Meh... While I can see the value, this is exactly the problem that Windows is stuck in. Although they aren't completely backwards compatible, they try to be backwards compatible for a lot of stuff, which means they have to hold on to libraries which are poorly designed, and in some cases incorrect implementations because so much software depends on the incorrect implementation. MacOS is much cleaner because it has maintained less backwards compatibility. If you want to run old software, do it in a virtual machine, and allow the OS itself to evolve and drop the baggage of keeping the compatibility. Not to say that everything should be changed every OS iteration, but there needs to be a process for getting rid of the cruft.

Re:Legacy Support (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405999)

Meh... While I can see the value, this is exactly the problem that Windows is stuck in. Although they aren't completely backwards compatible, they try to be backwards compatible for a lot of stuff, which means they have to hold on to libraries which are poorly designed, and in some cases incorrect implementations because so much software depends on the incorrect implementation. MacOS is much cleaner because it has maintained less backwards compatibility. If you want to run old software, do it in a virtual machine, and allow the OS itself to evolve and drop the baggage of keeping the compatibility. Not to say that everything should be changed every OS iteration, but there needs to be a process for getting rid of the cruft.

So, this is what Windows RT is all about (even though it is blasphemy to Slashdot). Get rid of all the old cruft, new modern app, API and OS models and code only. What do people do? Complain about lack of Windows-compatibility..

Re:Legacy Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406129)

What's the point of paying money for a Windows operating system if it doesn't run Windows software?
You could either pay money or not for better OSes that don't run it.

Re:Legacy Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406139)

It's Microsoft. Nothing that they do is correct. Even when it is correct when other companies do it.

Re:Legacy Support (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 8 months ago | (#45406267)

Some sort of virtual machine is the correct way to do legacy support. In some cases full virtualization is the answer, in others, a thinner layer that looks like the old OS to the application and like a modern app to the outer OS might be more appropriate.

The MS approach of keeping the severely broken APIs around forever is NOT the answer.

Re:Legacy Support (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | about 8 months ago | (#45406781)

That's part of why I liked OS/2 (2.0 and later) - if something needed DOS 2.1 to run properly, you just booted a 2.1 image in another window and you were good to go.

Hardware support of virtualization (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#45406835)

One problem with virtualization (e.g. XP Mode) or paravirtualization (e.g. WOW64) is that it's likely to support only those applications that use peripherals supported by the operating system's bundled class drivers. It's far less likely to support applications that use a custom driver, such as an EPROM programmer.

Re:Legacy Support (4, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 8 months ago | (#45406743)

Meh... While I can see the value, this is exactly the problem that Windows is stuck in. Although they aren't completely backwards compatible, they try to be backwards compatible for a lot of stuff, which means they have to hold on to libraries which are poorly designed, and in some cases incorrect implementations because so much software depends on the incorrect implementation. MacOS is much cleaner because it has maintained less backwards compatibility. If you want to run old software, do it in a virtual machine, and allow the OS itself to evolve and drop the baggage of keeping the compatibility. Not to say that everything should be changed every OS iteration, but there needs to be a process for getting rid of the cruft.

No what happens is that Windows has to work around everyone else's bugs - a lot of nasty developers don't do things the proper way and Windows suffers. It's why "C:\Documents and Settings" exists still on Windows Vista/7/8 - too many developers hard code that string (including the "C:\" part!) that not having that hard link means programs break.

Apple decided to take the other method - basically dictating that if you do not use just the published APIs, your programs will probably break. Yes, you can use private APIs. But as per the warning, Apple has full right to change the private APIs as they see fit.

Which is better? There's no consensus - Microsoft's means your programs still working, crappy coding and all, but you have to live with the fact that you still have a window named "Program Manager", that if you use a localized version of Windows, you'll eventually have a "Program Files" folder show up (yes, it's localized) because some program hard coded it, etc.

Apple's means a leaner system because all these hacks don't need to exist - private APIs are not fixed in stone but can change and be updated as time goes on and deleted when necessary, rather than having to hang around because some app uses it.

They did try once... (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 8 months ago | (#45405899)

One of Apple's cheap Macs (the "LC"?) had a single nubus slot that took a special card that allowed you to hook up an Apple 5.25 floppy -- and had a hardware/software Apple // emulator.

These days, no mac supports any kind of floppy, even via USB -- you'd have to download disk image files to get to the software.

Re:They did try once... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 8 months ago | (#45406349)

USB floppy drives should work just fine, assuming they comply with the UFI spec. Those drives won't read Apple 3.5" disks, though, because AFAIK none of the USB floppy drives support GCR.

Re:They did try once... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 8 months ago | (#45406359)

And by Apple 3.5" disks, I mean 400k or 800k. The 1.44 MB format was the same as it is on PCs.

Re:They did try once... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406419)

One of Apple's cheap Macs (the "LC"?) had a single nubus slot that took a special card that allowed you to hook up an Apple 5.25 floppy -- and had a hardware/software Apple // emulator.

These days, no mac supports any kind of floppy, even via USB -- you'd have to download disk image files to get to the software.

It was a Processor Direct Slot (PDS), and most of the LC line supported it IIRC (up to at least the 68040-based LC 575 -- the original LC was built around the 68020). Had an Apple IIe SoC. http://apple2online.com/web_documents/apple_iie_card_owner__s_guide.pdf [apple2online.com]

You can still use USB floppy drives with modern Macs; I recently retrieved some files off of 3.5" disks on my Core i5 MacBook Air (2013 edition, the one right before the current Haswell version)...

GPL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405669)

May I be the first (at least in this thread) to call that the source code be GPLed! Or BSDed! Or is Apple afraid that Apple II DOS will become all the rage and displace iOS/Mac OS X? :)

Oh, and under similar note, I'd call on Apple to do the same thing with older versions of Mac OS, but then I can see them not wanting to spend the time/energy to clean up the code or otherwise deal with whatever legal hurdles there are to scrubbing it of stuff they licensed to use but don't own. But, clearly they've gone through most the legal hurdles for Apple II DOS. It's hard to believe they couldn't buy off any interests that prevent GPL/BSDing the code.

Contradictory? (3, Interesting)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | about 8 months ago | (#45405673)

It's being "made available" but it "may not be reproduced."

How does that work, again?

Re:Contradictory? (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 8 months ago | (#45405781)

Look but don't touch.

Re:Contradictory? (4, Informative)

pregister (443318) | about 8 months ago | (#45405825)

Non-commercial uses have permission. Commercial uses don't. You may not reproduce it without permission. Wheres the problem?

Haha the walled garden crumbles!!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405683)

At this rate we will have the source code for iOS7 by 2048....

Re:Haha the walled garden crumbles!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405875)

Theoretically, we already have the Darwin source code. Now, go make it work.

Re:Haha the walled garden crumbles!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405961)

"Theoretically"? Either we do or we don't have Darwin source code. We "definitely" don't have all the code, but we can probably at least nail it down into a "do" or "don't" column for Darwin itself.

Re:Haha the walled garden crumbles!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406005)

Nobody promised you a walled rose garden. Just saying that, in theory, the Darwin code is out there...

Re:Haha the walled garden crumbles!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406541)

No, it's not in theory. the darwin code IS out there.

Finally! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405687)

Now I can make a perfect Apple][-e emulator! Now I just need a 5.25" drive...

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405811)

You can borrow my 8" drive.

Re:Finally! (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 8 months ago | (#45406347)

Why not just emulate the drive as well?

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406545)

Why not just emulate the drive as well?

Ever tried to put a real floppy disk in a virtual disk drive?

Non-commercial purposes only? (4, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | about 8 months ago | (#45405729)

Because it could be a competent competitor to current Apple products?

I know I want an Apple II smartphone that I could play Oregon Trail on and make phone calls back to the '70s with!

Re:Non-commercial purposes only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405855)

And it would come in 2 colors: Industrial Beige or Red Shag Carpet with Faux Wood Grain trim!

Re:Non-commercial purposes only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405941)

Re:Non-commercial purposes only? (1)

eclectro (227083) | about 8 months ago | (#45406467)

I hold out hope. [imdb.com]

Re:Non-commercial purposes only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406083)

Speaking of Oregon Trail -- it's been dramatized by The NOLA Project [nolaproject.com] . Two weeks only.

Re:Non-commercial purposes only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406443)

Just play Super Amazing Wagon Adventure. It's way better than Oregon Trail.

Atari DOS source code was published (3, Informative)

crow (16139) | about 8 months ago | (#45405733)

Back in the day, the source code for Atari DOS was included in a published book that explained exactly how it worked. That's one of the things that was great about that platform--so much information was readily available.

It was all written in 6502 assembly. Anyone that cared would disassemble it themselves, so it's not like there were any big proprietary secrets to protect. I'm surprised that this wasn't published 30 years ago.

Re:Atari DOS source code was published (1)

Mryll (48745) | about 8 months ago | (#45405849)

I recently found the schematic for my old Commodore 64 in 1982, made me smile.

Re:Atari DOS source code was published (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406441)

You were in 1982 recently?

Re:Atari DOS source code was published (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406109)

"Anyone that cared would disassemble it themselves, so it's not like there were any big proprietary secrets to protect."

Gee. Kinda wish the PC I'm posting this from was like that...

Maybe that is the point in the development of computing that we need to slide back to, in light of the NSA, et al.

Re:Atari DOS source code was published (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 8 months ago | (#45406391)

Actually when did that stop as a general practice?

I feel like I am just on the cusp at 35 years old where I remember when many, if not most, consumer electronics, that my parents bought when I was a kid, all had schematics. I mean, my father was no electrical engineer, he was one of those guys who knew just enough to avoid the capacitors in the back of the TV, how to identify fuses and how to resolder a bad connection.... but not enough to analyze logic or signals and really fix a non-trivially broken TV or radio.

So I remember, the tools in the basement, the TV, the radio, the refrigerator (he did study HVAC so that he knew better, even had the tools to find leaks and recharge the fridge), turntables, etc.... every single one we opened (either to fix or to satisfy my curiosity)... they all had schematics....often in the form of a pamphlet attached to the back cover, sometimes as a sticker on it, sometimes in the back of the manual.... but they almost all had it included.

I get that in the middle, the switch to SMD devices and other changes that lead to much higher part densities and complexities have seriously raised the bar for the amateur self-educated tinkerers like us to have any usefulness at all.... but I always assumed the schematics were not so much for us as for future repair people 20 years down the road....when did the shift come that such concerns didn't matter?

Re:Atari DOS source code was published (2)

LocalH (28506) | about 8 months ago | (#45406699)

When people generally stopped repairing technology and instead chose to start throwing it away and replacing it with new.

Re:Atari DOS source code was published (1)

etash (1907284) | about 8 months ago | (#45406573)

I guess that's why atari does not exist today, while apple sits on 100 billion of usd :P (i'm not an apple fanboy btw)

Re:Atari DOS source code was published (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406579)

There was a similar book published about Apple DOS. In both cases, the code was disassembled by a 3rd party author. The great thing about those 8-bit platforms wasn't so much the docs, but that they were small enough that a person could understand everything which was going on.

Re:Atari DOS source code was published (1)

brwski (622056) | about 8 months ago | (#45406789)

You're probably thinking of Beneath Apple DOS. Beneath Apple ProDOS is also quite good.

What took so long? (2)

tekrat (242117) | about 8 months ago | (#45405803)

Seriously, this is cool and all, but, why wasn't this done over a decade ago? In fact, Apple should have done it themselves *before* ending the manufacturing of the Apple //, to inspire people to find new ways to hack this machine and utilize it in ways never intended by Woz.

It's sad that one of the best hacking platforms out there is the Raspberry Pi, and not the much simpler to figure out Apple // -- although to be fair, people are doing amazing things with the Pi, I just wish there was a popular 8-bit machine out there for the young'ns to get them started.

Re:What took so long? (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 8 months ago | (#45405921)

", I just wish there was a popular 8-bit machine out there for the young'ns to get them started.
That's like saying people need to learn to drive on a model T.

My kids had no problem getting started on modern hardware.

Re:What took so long? (1)

KnowledgeKeeper (1026242) | about 8 months ago | (#45406043)

How's that raw port access coming along? Making joysticks? Simple plotters? Comm cables? Connecting TTLs to the machines?

Re:What took so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406583)

It isn't, because those things are irrelevant today except for a handful of specialists.

Re:What took so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405993)

I just wish there was a popular 8-bit machine out there for the young'ns to get them started.
 
Plenty of emulators. If you just want something simpler than the Pi you could give them an Arduino.
 
It sounds like you want something else but you're just not stating it right.

Re:What took so long? (4, Informative)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 8 months ago | (#45406163)

8 bits and popular, designed to get people started.
http://www.arduino.cc/ [arduino.cc]

6502 assembly too hard to read (4, Funny)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about 8 months ago | (#45405853)

Can someone please transcribe this into 6502 binary instructions and place it onto punch cards for easier reading?

Re:6502 assembly too hard to read (0)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 8 months ago | (#45406477)

Can someone please transcribe this into 6502 binary instructions and place it onto punch cards for easier reading?

Seriously? 6502's and punched-cards together? What a wretched anachronism.

Any halfway competent nerd knows that 6502 binaries were almost always distributed on 5.25 inch floppies. Before that Z80 systems were used that typically distributed their programs on cassette tape (while some rarer more expensive systems like Wang used 8 inch floppies). Punch cards were used mostly on mainframes from companies like DEC and IBM that produced their own CPU chips.

Gah. Next thing you know you'll be mixing up Princess Bride and Monty Python and the Holy Grail quotes. Some people...

Re:6502 assembly too hard to read (4, Informative)

NormalVisual (565491) | about 8 months ago | (#45406841)

Seriously? 6502's and punched-cards together? What a wretched anachronism.

FTA: “DOS was written on punch cards. I would actually hand-write the code on 80-column punch card sheets. A guy at Shepardson named Mike Peters would take those sheets and punch the cards. The punch cards would then be read into a National Semiconductor IMP-16 and assembled, and a paper tape produced. The paper tape was read into the Apple II by a plug-in card made by Wozniak, and I would proceed to debug it. As the project got further along and the code was all written, and it was debugging and updating, I would mark up a listing and give it to Mike Peters who would then change whatever was necessary and deliver me a paper tape and I’d start again.”

Now to find... (1)

chipperdog (169552) | about 8 months ago | (#45405887)

Now to find copies of all the old Beagle Brothers Software titles

Jailbreak! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45405967)

"The Museum has made public such gems as the source code for MacPaint, Photoshop, and APL, and now code from the Apple II."

Now we can reverse-engineer all of Apple's current products.

Public domain (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 8 months ago | (#45406009)

for non-commercial use. This material is Copyright © 1978 Apple Inc., and may not be reproduced without permission from Apple.

What the hell? There is no commercial use. Stop being dicks and release it to the public domain.

Re:Public domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406137)

for non-commercial use. This material is Copyright © 1978 Apple Inc., and may not be reproduced without permission from Apple.

What the hell? There is no commercial use. Stop being dicks and release it to the public domain.

They've already released it for all non-commercial uses.
If there is no commercial use (as you claim), then all uses are already covered.
Why then should they release it to the public domain?

Get me the OS/2 Source code !!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406023)

Please !!!! "Computer History Museum in Mountain View", please pull your strings :)

On a clear disk you can seek forever (1)

unfortunateson (527551) | about 8 months ago | (#45406053)

Maybe we can fix a few bugs as a community, eh?

"Beneath Apple DOS" was available then (1)

call -151 (230520) | about 8 months ago | (#45406097)

There was Beneath Apple DOS [apple2history.org] , a fabulous book from the time which was invaluable for figuring out what was going on. My understanding was that Don Worth and Peter Lechner disassembled the shipped code and sorted out how things worked, with great explanations. Those were a great guide and helpful for writing all kinds of software. I suspect that a similar effort these days would not be resolved without legal intervention- I have no idea if they even asked permission or if it would have occurred to people that you might want to ask. (This PDF [classiccmp.org] of the book says that Apple was not in any way involved in the book, did not endorse it, etc right on the title page.) Then again, the source code for important parts of the ROMS at the time (Woz's Sweet16) was distributed with the computer in hard copy manuals. I learned a great deal from reading the Sweet 16 source for that and also from Beneath Apple DOS. Beneath Apple DOS wasn't full source code, but it did explicitly identify what blocks of code did what in a way that made it easy to understand what was going on and how to change things.

Re:"Beneath Apple DOS" was available then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406187)

Beneath Apple DOS was a brilliant book.

I'm convinced that "The Terminator" was running listings from that book in 1984, although it's hard to tell at a glance.

Re:"Beneath Apple DOS" was available then (2)

call -151 (230520) | about 8 months ago | (#45406337)

My memory was that the scrolling Terminator listings were assembly source code from Nibble magazine. I'm not sure what particular program, but it was a very recognizable format even when it just flashed on the screen briefly. I think there was some checksum code that came with the printed Nibble magazine that could you could check to make sure that you'd typed in things correctly. So I was probably one of the few people in the theatre who was amused that just as the Terminator robot was about to hunt and kill something (or whatever it was), he appeared to be doing a quick check to make sure that the "Hunt and Kill Something" code that had been typed in from the magazine was typed correctly.

Re:"Beneath Apple DOS" was available then (1)

call -151 (230520) | about 8 months ago | (#45406397)

My memory was that the scrolling Terminator listings were assembly source code from Nibble magazine. I'm not sure what particular program, but it was a very recognizable format even when it just flashed on the screen briefly. I think there was some checksum code that came with the printed Nibble magazine that could you could check to make sure that you'd typed in things correctly. So I was probably one of the few people in the theatre who was amused that just as the Terminator robot was about to hunt and kill something (or whatever it was), he appeared to be doing a quick check to make sure that the "Hunt and Kill Something" code that had been typed in from the magazine was typed correctly.

The internet is good at these types of things: here [pagetable.com] is a site with screenshots from the Terminator movie and indeed it was Nibble magazine source code, and the checksum program was KeyPerfect. The source appears at a quick look to be for some kind of disk utility, perhaps a RAMdisk or something. The code seems to be named OVLY (overlay?) and I recognize VTOC as a virtual table of contents on a disk sector.

Hypercard Please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406231)

I never understood Jobs' hostility towards this program. Now he's gone, it's the perfect opportunity to put that 68k code out there.

Re:Hypercard Please! (2)

mveloso (325617) | about 8 months ago | (#45406489)

Hypercard was deep-sixed because of the huge amount of support resources it gobbled up. That what I heard, so YMMV.

D5 AA 96 forever!

Re:Hypercard Please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45406609)

HyperCard was around long after Steve Jobs was fired from Apple.

Although most hypercard stacks were really amateurish looking and used non-standard widgets, so Jobs probably would have hated it.

Re:Hypercard Please! (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about 8 months ago | (#45406825)

amateurish looking and used non-standard widgets

It's probably best he didn't live to see iOS 7 :(

Too bad it's only for non-commercial use (1)

dubner (48575) | about 8 months ago | (#45406259)

From TFA: "... for non-commercial use. This material is Copyright © 1978 Apple Inc., "

That's a shame because someone might like to use it for a commercial product: a modern-day knockoff of the Apple ][.

But that would require a cool name for the project and the good ones were already taken circa-1980: the Japanese implementation (the Japple) and the Korean version (the Krapple).

A little nostalgic (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 8 months ago | (#45406321)

I haven't programmed assembly in decades and can still read it and follow along.. Crazy how some things just get burned into one's gray matter.

Saw Apple ][ DOS 3.3 6502 Source during Terminator (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | about 8 months ago | (#45406515)

During the first showing of The Terminator they already showed the source code, or disassembled and re-commented source code for Apple ][ DOS 3.3! While nice this is a wee bit late.

As a hardcore 6502 programmer who wrote successful apple ][ assembly language video games in that era it was quite funny seeing Apple Dos 3.3 Listings, likely from the amazing book Beneath Apple Dos, on the big screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgb763elfok [youtube.com]
http://www.pagetable.com/docs/terminator/00-37-19.jpg [pagetable.com]
http://www.pagetable.com/docs/terminator/01-23-13.jpg [pagetable.com]
http://www.eeggs.com/images/items/3290.full.jpg [eeggs.com]

Re:Saw Apple ][ DOS 3.3 6502 Source during Termina (1)

LocalH (28506) | about 8 months ago | (#45406757)

Wasn't Apple DOS. They were listings from Nibble magazine,

Re:Saw Apple ][ DOS 3.3 6502 Source during Termina (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | about 8 months ago | (#45406779)

Really? Reference please. Sure looked like Beneath Apple Dos disassembly listings of DOS 3.3 to me, someone who often disassembled it himself while building assembly language software for the Apple ][.

Re:Saw Apple ][ DOS 3.3 6502 Source during Termina (1)

call -151 (230520) | about 8 months ago | (#45406849)

Here's a reference, from my earlier comment: here [pagetable.com] .

It was recognizable in real time to an alert moviegoer at the time.

Then versus now (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 8 months ago | (#45406619)

Aren't you glad you're a coder now and not in 1978? I know there are still ASM programmers, but seriously:

ORG $B800 OBJ $B800 PRENIBL LDX #$32 INDEX FOR (51) 5-BYTE PASSES. LDY #$0 USER BUF INDEX. PNIB1 LDA (BUF),Y FIRST OF 5 USER BYTES. STA T0 (ONLY 3 LSB'S USED) LSR LSR ;5 MSB'S TO LOW BITS. LSR STA NBUF1,X FIRST OF 8 5-BIT NIBLS. INY LDA (BUF),Y SECOND OF 5 USER BYTES. STA T1 (ONLY 3 LSB'S USED) LSR LSR ;5 MSB'S TO LOW BITS. LSR STA NBUF2,X SECOND OF 8 5-BIT NIBLS. INY LDA (BUF),Y THIRD OF 5 USER BYTES. STA T2 (ONLY 3 LSB'S USED) LSR LSR ;5 MSB'S TO LOW BITS. LSR STA NBUF3,X THIRD OF 8 5-BIT NIBLS. INY LDA (BUF),Y FOURTH OF 5 USER BYTES. LSR ROL T2 LSB INTO T2. LSR ROL T1 NEXT LSB INTO T1. LSR ROL T0 NEXT LSB INTO T0. STA NBUF4,X FOURTH OF 8 5-BIT NIBLS. INY LDA (BUF),Y FIFTH OF 5 USER BYTES. LSR ROL T2 LSB INTO T2. LSR ROL T1 NEXT LSB INTO T1. LSR STA NBUF5,X FIFTH OF 8 5-BIT NIBLS. LDA T0 ROL ;NEXT LSB. AND #$1F TRUNCATE TO 5 BITS. STA NBUF6,X SIXTH OF 8 5-BIT NIBLS. LDA T1 AND #$1F TRUNCATE TO 5 BITS. STA NBUF7,X SEVENTH OF 8 5-BIT NIBLS. LDA T2 AND #$1F TRUNCATE TO 5 BITS. STA NBUF8,X EIGHTH OF 8 5-BIT NIBLS. INY DEX NEXT OF (51) 5-BYTE PASSES. BPL PNIB1 LDA (BUF),Y TAX AND #$7 3 LSB'S OF LAST STA NBUF8+$33 USER BYTE. TXA LSR LSR LSR ;5 MSB'S OF LAST STA NBUF5+$33 USER BYTE. RTS EJECT

Re:Then versus now (1)

certsoft (442059) | about 8 months ago | (#45406693)

I was a programmer in 1978, still a programmer. Did assembly language for 4040, 6800, 6809, 68HC11, and PIC. Don't do much of that anymore, thankfully.

Re:Then versus now (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 8 months ago | (#45406845)

Well, that was written before the line feed shortage. Things were different back then.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...