dr.zeissler wrote on 2020-02-04, 12:05:

there is even a c64 emulator for a XT/Hercules 😀

Yup, and it really works. Even diskette drive emulation works. 🙂
Some more pictures can be seen in OldCat's thread over here:
Re: "Childhood Embers" - 286 AT with Hercules graphics build

Edit: Here are the instructions mentioned in my post in OldCat's thread.:
* Copy your D64 image to VC1541.000
* Run C64 executable
* Display the directory (type LOAD"$",8 (enter) then LIST (enter))
* Run the first program LOAD "*",8 (enter) then RUN (enter)
* Or run the program you got displayed earlier (LOAD"PROGRAMNAME",8 (enter) then RUN (enter))

What is the fastest Amiga emulator for Win9x? Something that runs ok on high-end Pentium 1.

songo wrote on 2021-01-31, 10:40:

What is the fastest Amiga emulator for Win9x? Something that runs ok on high-end Pentium 1.

The Amiga contains multiple customs chips that need to be emulated along with a 68K CPU . This requires a fair amount of CPU powee. At least in the late 90s, when Pentium 1 CPUs were still relevant, there was no way to run an Amiga emulator at anything approaching usable speed . AFAICR, UAE used to stand for Unusable Amiga Emulator (officially or unofficially) for this reason, among others .

EDIT: according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAE_(emulator) , it was actually possible to usably run some stuff meant for an Amiga 500 by late 1997, but I still doubt a Pentium 1 would suffice.

EDIT2: I had a Pentium 1 MX at 166Mhz until mid 1998. AFAICR, that was much too slow at the time to be usable . Maybe with later, JIT execution optimized versions of UAE something like a Pentium 233MHz could yield somewhat usable results, but I still doubt it .

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 13:38:

The Amiga contains multiple customs chips that need to be emulated along with a 68K CPU . This requires a fair amount of CPU pow […]
Show full quote

songo wrote on 2021-01-31, 10:40:

What is the fastest Amiga emulator for Win9x? Something that runs ok on high-end Pentium 1.

The Amiga contains multiple customs chips that need to be emulated along with a 68K CPU . This requires a fair amount of CPU powee. At least in the late 90s, when Pentium 1 CPUs were still relevant, there was no way to run an Amiga emulator at anything approaching usable speed . AFAICR, UAE used to stand for Unusable Amiga Emulator (officially or unofficially) for this reason, among others .

EDIT: according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAE_(emulator) , it was actually possible to usably run some stuff meant for an Amiga 500 by late 1997, but I still doubt a Pentium 1 would suffice.

EDIT2: I had a Pentium 1 MX at 166Mhz until mid 1998. AFAICR, that was much too slow at the time to be usable . Maybe with later, JIT execution optimized versions of UAE something like a Pentium 233MHz could yield somewhat usable results, but I still doubt it .

I'm using Fellow on a 486.. 😀
For Windows, there also was WinFellow.
It's an underrated emulator, akin to WinSTon (Atari ST emu).
An ancient copy of UAE for Windows can be found in my little thread over here:
Re: Emulation on MS Windows 3.1x ?

Jo22 wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:22:

I'm using Fellow on a 486.. :) For Windows, there also was WinFellow. It's an underrated emulator, akin to WinSTon (Atari ST em […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 13:38:

The Amiga contains multiple customs chips that need to be emulated along with a 68K CPU . This requires a fair amount of CPU pow […]
Show full quote

songo wrote on 2021-01-31, 10:40:

What is the fastest Amiga emulator for Win9x? Something that runs ok on high-end Pentium 1.

The Amiga contains multiple customs chips that need to be emulated along with a 68K CPU . This requires a fair amount of CPU powee. At least in the late 90s, when Pentium 1 CPUs were still relevant, there was no way to run an Amiga emulator at anything approaching usable speed . AFAICR, UAE used to stand for Unusable Amiga Emulator (officially or unofficially) for this reason, among others .

EDIT: according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAE_(emulator) , it was actually possible to usably run some stuff meant for an Amiga 500 by late 1997, but I still doubt a Pentium 1 would suffice.

EDIT2: I had a Pentium 1 MX at 166Mhz until mid 1998. AFAICR, that was much too slow at the time to be usable . Maybe with later, JIT execution optimized versions of UAE something like a Pentium 233MHz could yield somewhat usable results, but I still doubt it .

I'm using Fellow on a 486.. 😀
For Windows, there also was WinFellow.
It's an underrated emulator, akin to WinSTon (Atari ST emu).
An ancient copy of UAE for Windows can be found in my little thread over here:
Re: Emulation on MS Windows 3.1x ?

How is the performance of Fellow on a 486 (what clock speed) ? Unless that was a joke.

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:26:

Jo22 wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:22:

I'm using Fellow on a 486.. :) For Windows, there also was WinFellow. It's an underrated emulator, akin to WinSTon (Atari ST em […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 13:38:

The Amiga contains multiple customs chips that need to be emulated along with a 68K CPU . This requires a fair amount of CPU powee. At least in the late 90s, when Pentium 1 CPUs were still relevant, there was no way to run an Amiga emulator at anything approaching usable speed . AFAICR, UAE used to stand for Unusable Amiga Emulator (officially or unofficially) for this reason, among others .

EDIT: according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAE_(emulator) , it was actually possible to usably run some stuff meant for an Amiga 500 by late 1997, but I still doubt a Pentium 1 would suffice.

EDIT2: I had a Pentium 1 MX at 166Mhz until mid 1998. AFAICR, that was much too slow at the time to be usable . Maybe with later, JIT execution optimized versions of UAE something like a Pentium 233MHz could yield somewhat usable results, but I still doubt it .

I'm using Fellow on a 486.. 😀
For Windows, there also was WinFellow.
It's an underrated emulator, akin to WinSTon (Atari ST emu).
An ancient copy of UAE for Windows can be found in my little thread over here:
Re: Emulation on MS Windows 3.1x ?

How is the performance of Fellow on a 486 (what clock speed) ? Unless that was a joke.

No joke, it performs a bit slower than a real A500 I would say.
But that laptop's 486 CPU was running merely at about 40MHz.. 😅

Here are two sample videos of it:

Part 1 / Workbench
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOjnZnyN6nI

Part 2 / Bouncing Ball demo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLHgRlbjXIM

Jo22 wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:34:

No joke, it performs a bit slower than a real A500 I would say. But that laptop's 486 CPU was running merely at about 40MHz.. 😅 […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:26:

Jo22 wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:22:

I'm using Fellow on a 486.. :) For Windows, there also was WinFellow. It's an underrated emulator, akin to WinSTon (Atari ST em […]
Show full quote

I'm using Fellow on a 486.. 😀
For Windows, there also was WinFellow.
It's an underrated emulator, akin to WinSTon (Atari ST emu).
An ancient copy of UAE for Windows can be found in my little thread over here:
Re: Emulation on MS Windows 3.1x ?

How is the performance of Fellow on a 486 (what clock speed) ? Unless that was a joke.

No joke, it performs a bit slower than a real A500 I would say.
But that laptop's 486 CPU was running merely at about 40MHz.. 😅

Here are two sample videos of it:

Part 1 / Workbench
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOjnZnyN6nI

Part 2 / Bouncing Ball demo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLHgRlbjXIM

I would not call that a pleasant user experience, but I am impressed that it runs as well as it does . How old is that build of Fellow ?

EDIT: About 2000, AFAICT . I wonder how much optimization/performance improvement had taken place since 1997ish .

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 13:38:

EDIT: according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAE_(emulator) , it was actually possible to usably run some stuff meant for an Amiga 500 by late 1997, but I still doubt a Pentium 1 would suffice.

Back in the day, in 11/1996 issue of Polish magazine Secret Service that was a mention of working A500 emulator that was running North & South - unfortunately, they didn't specify emulator's full name...

In '96 they had to try on on hardware no more powerful than P100 / 16 Mhz Ram. Since Jo22 confirmed that Fellow had similar efficiency - it must be it! I didn't expect we can go as low as 486, it's incredible.

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 13:38:

The Amiga contains multiple customs chips that need to be emulated along with a 68K CPU . This requires a fair amount of CPU powee. At least in the late 90s, when Pentium 1 CPUs were still relevant, there was no way to run an Amiga emulator at anything approaching usable speed .

I was using Fellow (in MS-DOS) a lot on a Pentium 1 133MHz. It ran full speed.

realnc wrote on 2021-02-01, 05:18:

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 13:38:

The Amiga contains multiple customs chips that need to be emulated along with a 68K CPU . This requires a fair amount of CPU powee. At least in the late 90s, when Pentium 1 CPUs were still relevant, there was no way to run an Amiga emulator at anything approaching usable speed .

I was using Fellow (in MS-DOS) a lot on a Pentium 1 133MHz. It ran full speed.

Were you running games ? My personal memories from 1997-8 tend to match up more with http://www.amigaforever.com/emulator/

1  As a result, the overall (subjective) feeling of the UAE and Fellow emulators is that a Pentium CPU running at 133 MHz (as in 1997, when Amiga Forever 1.0 was released) compares well with an Amiga 500, providing enough usability for tasks such as word processing and programs like Personal Paint. It certainly makes an impressive and very useful Amiga notebook. The use of sound and the type of frame refresh rates and custom chip effects used in many games require more powerful machines. Considering even maximum use of CPU and custom chip resources, a GHz-class PC makes it possible to run an Amiga 1000 in real time, whereby the custom chips run in real time (as required), and the emulated CPU may run faster (if so desired)  

darry wrote on 2021-02-01, 13:58:

Were you running games ? My personal memories from 1997-8 tend to match up more with http://www.amigaforever.com/emulator/

I did run games. I remember the DOS version was fast, while the Windows version was much slower. I hope I'm not misremembering things here, as I also had a Pentium 2 400Mhz...

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 16:21:

Jo22 wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:34:

No joke, it performs a bit slower than a real A500 I would say. But that laptop's 486 CPU was running merely at about 40MHz.. 😅 […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:26:

How is the performance of Fellow on a 486 (what clock speed) ? Unless that was a joke.

No joke, it performs a bit slower than a real A500 I would say.
But that laptop's 486 CPU was running merely at about 40MHz.. 😅

Here are two sample videos of it:

Part 1 / Workbench
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOjnZnyN6nI

Part 2 / Bouncing Ball demo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLHgRlbjXIM

I would not call that a pleasant user experience, but I am impressed that it runs as well as it does . How old is that build of Fellow ?

EDIT: About 2000, AFAICT . I wonder how much optimization/performance improvement had taken place since 1997ish .

Thank's for your opinion, I appreciate it. You're welcome. 😄
- I agree that it truely is a bit of a cozy experience on that Compaq Contura..
I'm mainly use it to work a bit with older Workbench applications, like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyIKRIYUi3Y

On a 486DX2-66 or 486DX4 machine, I guess it should be "okay" for playing advanture games or puzzles, board games.
Or for running Pro Tracker or Deluxe Paint (I know, there are also two DOS versions).

Originally the Amiga platform had many earlier games that were more visually appealing than their counterparts on the PC platform.
IMHO, text-adventures (IFs) looked much more dreamy in blue-white on a KickStart 1.x Amiga than on CP/M or MS-DOS in text mode.

In some ways or another, this is akin to playing early Mac titles in Mini vMac (also on DOS&486).

In the 80s, Mac games were mostly monochrome only, but had razor sharp drawings and a nice GUI. Anyway each to his own. 😉

It was version Fellow v0.3.2a from circa 1997, I suppose.
It was not the last release, though, since there are also v0.3.4 and v0.3.6r1..

"Fellow is a Dos based emulator. It perfectly runs in the Dos box of Windows 98.
Fellow is faster than UAE since it has been written in Assembler.
It is also worth mentioning that some games work in Fellow that do not work in UAE."

Source : https://www.exotica.org.uk/mirrors/ami_sector … /emu_fellow.htm

I'm 80% certain I ran WinUAE in late 97/98 (and so would have been K6-233) and A500 games just about ran ok. Games like FOG and various others would have been easily playable, however put GODS or Canon Fodder in there and it's short comings would have become instantly apparent.

I say this since I remember abusing the internet at a work experience placement downloading various KS dumps at the time. Dr Solomons '98 virus checker boot disk was the hot thing then (and came out end of '97), which is why I suspect it was late '97. Things weren't great then, I remember compatiblity issues, and very limited dumps at the time, however the games that did work, ran at the speed I expected (or at least playable speeds).

I was well into using WinUAE come my P3/800 which I guess would have been circa '00 ish, and it definately flew wrt to A500plus then.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:34:

Part 2 / Bouncing Ball demo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLHgRlbjXIM
No joke, it performs a bit slower than a real A500 I would say.

Boing ball is no where near bit slower than a real A500... thats just a slide show...

Boing ball was smooth as silk, even on an A1000 (same clockspeed, same OCS as A500), that was the point of the demo.

spiroyster wrote on 2021-02-01, 16:25:

Jo22 wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:34:

Part 2 / Bouncing Ball demo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLHgRlbjXIM
No joke, it performs a bit slower than a real A500 I would say.

Boing ball is no where near bit slower than a real A500... thats just a slide show...

Boing ball was smooth as silk, even on an A1000 (same clockspeed, same OCS as A500), that was the point of the demo.

Ah, I see. My apologies for choosing that wording then. 😅
I meant to say that the animation was slow, but not, well, "jerky" (stuttering).

Considering that the 486 merely was a laptop, the performance seemed impressive to me.

A real 486 PC with adequate cache, a ~100MHz CPU and a quick VGA card (maybe VLB) might be closer to an A1000 or A500/1500/2000.
But unfortunately, I have no such machine fir testing right now. 😅

Jo22 wrote on 2021-02-01, 16:44:

Ah, I see. My apologies for choosing that wording then. 😅 I meant to say that the animation was slow, but not, well, "jerky" (st […]
Show full quote

spiroyster wrote on 2021-02-01, 16:25:

Jo22 wrote on 2021-01-31, 14:34:

Part 2 / Bouncing Ball demo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLHgRlbjXIM
No joke, it performs a bit slower than a real A500 I would say.

Boing ball is no where near bit slower than a real A500... thats just a slide show...

Boing ball was smooth as silk, even on an A1000 (same clockspeed, same OCS as A500), that was the point of the demo.

Ah, I see. My apologies for choosing that wording then. 😅
I meant to say that the animation was slow, but not, well, "jerky" (stuttering).

Considering that the 486 merely was a laptop, the performance seemed impressive to me.

A real 486 PC with adequate cache, a ~100MHz CPU and a quick VGA card (maybe VLB) might be closer to an A1000 or A500/1500/2000.
But unfortunately, I have no such machine fir testing right now. 😅

no need to apologize... great... now I feel bad for coming across so harshly... 😉

I will echo darry's sentiments, probably aceptable for some productivity stuff if an Amiga was really needed for that, but games I suspect would have been painful... none the less, given my experience outlined above with a K6, I'm surprised it was even usable to the extent that those videos show.

I used PC task (DOS emulator) on an Amiga (so kinda the opposite) and that was equally painful for even things such as nibbles.bas... basically not happening for anything other than some basic dos commands and reading PC disks. However, there was a saying at the time... "The fastest mac is an Amiga". So while the PC/Amiga relationship was difficult... not so much for others 😉.

spiroyster wrote on 2021-02-01, 16:56:

Jo22 wrote on 2021-02-01, 16:44:

Ah, I see. My apologies for choosing that wording then. 😅 I meant to say that the animation was slow, but not, well, "jerky" (st […]
Show full quote

spiroyster wrote on 2021-02-01, 16:25:

Boing ball is no where near bit slower than a real A500... thats just a slide show...

Boing ball was smooth as silk, even on an A1000 (same clockspeed, same OCS as A500), that was the point of the demo.

Ah, I see. My apologies for choosing that wording then. 😅
I meant to say that the animation was slow, but not, well, "jerky" (stuttering).

Considering that the 486 merely was a laptop, the performance seemed impressive to me.

A real 486 PC with adequate cache, a ~100MHz CPU and a quick VGA card (maybe VLB) might be closer to an A1000 or A500/1500/2000.
But unfortunately, I have no such machine fir testing right now. 😅

no need to apologize... great... now I feel bad for coming across so harshly... 😉

Nah, everything's fine, no worries. ^^ It's nice talking to you.

spiroyster wrote on 2021-02-01, 16:56:

I will echo darry's sentiments, probably aceptable for some productivity stuff if an Amiga was really needed for that, but games I suspect would have been painful... none the less, given my experience outlined above with a K6, I'm surprised it was even usable to the extent that those videos show.

I second this. Makes me wonder how the final version of Fellow performed on a real 486 PC..

That 486 in the video is a Compaq Contura 400c, if memory serves.

The integrated CPU could be a clock-doubled 486 processor, not sure.

If it's something like a 486SLC, then the chipset may run on merely 20MHz and the bandwidth is 16/24-Bit like on a 386SX motherboard.

And the WDC90xxx VGA runs on ISA maybe, too.
The VESA driver is an old VBE 1.x TSR by Western Digital, also.
Performance wise it's not best, perhaps.
Maybe the Contura motherboard has no L2 cache also,
it's a laptop (err notebook), after all! 😉

I know, too many "IF" s, haha. 😅

spiroyster wrote on 2021-02-01, 16:56:

I used PC task (DOS emulator) on an Amiga (so kinda the opposite) and that was equally painful for even things such as nibbles.bas... basically not happening for anything other than some basic dos commands and reading PC disks. However, there was a saying at the time... "The fastest mac is an Amiga". So while the PC/Amiga relationship was difficult... not so much for others 😉.

That's interesting! This reminds me of other extremes!
a) a ZX81 emulator for the Atari ST 520
b) a PC emulator for the Sinclair QL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAFDhM7WziE

Anyway, I just wanted to mention this.
I hope it's not too off-topic. 😅