Talk:SIMH

SIMH flavors

I think it is time to distinguish between the three flavors of SIMH, although they have a lot in common, but the differences grow steadily.

My proposal is a generic SIMH page which might have the following section after the introduction:

== SIMH Flavors ==

For some time passed there are three flavors of SIMH now:

* [[Classic" SIMH]] ([http://simh.trailing-edge.com/ http://simh.trailing-edge.com/])
* [["New" SIMH]] ([https://github.com/simh/simh https://github.com/simh/simh]) 
* [["OpenSIMH"]] ([https://opensimh.org/ https://opensimh.org/]) 
It is relatively hard for a beginner to decide which way to go. I will not give any specific advice, but some short descriptions:

'''"Classic" SIMH''' is the oldest one, whereof the others were forked later on. It is Bob Supnik work mostly, except for some HP simulators. Development apparently stopped (or at least slowed down) in December 2022. The current version is SIMH V3.12-3.

'''"New" SIMH''' was the first bigger fork and added a lot more simulated computer systems.

'''"OpenSIMH"''' forked from "New" SIMH because of insurmountable different opinions of both maintainers and contributors.

The generic SIMH page should concentrate on the commonalities; the differences should be explained in the three specific pages linked in the gereric page.

What do my fellow writers think? Vaxorcist (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2023 (CEST)

Sounds good to me. Jnc (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2023 (CEST)

New content

Don't do a 'cut and paste' to move the content from SIMH/Draft to here; let me know, and I can merge the two pages. Jnc (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2023 (CEST)

O.k., I will Vaxorcist (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2023 (CEST)

Renaming / Revising SIMH pages

I think it is time (or rather, long overdue) to rename the following pages:

• SIMH to "Classic" SIMH
• SIMH/Draft to SIMH

and revise both pages. What do you think? Vaxorcist (talk)

Is the term "'Classic' SIMH" really in use to refer to the old one? Does that version get enough use to make it worth having a separate article for it (as opposed to just covering it in the same article as the current one)? Mind, I don't have a strong preference either way; I am just trying to work out what makes the most sense.

I took a look at SIMH/Draft, and the article here, and there is a lot of content in this article that isn't in the Draft one, so we'd need to do something a little more complicated than just do some moves. But let's work out the previous point first. (If we wind up editing the good ideas/content from Draft in to this one, or something, don't worry; I can merge the two histories into one once the editing process is complete.) Jnc (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)