Thanks gerwin and VileRancour. Looks like this crashing is probably a result of some finicky detail of how D3D is implemented through certain video chipsets versus others, or perhaps it depends on the exact version of DX being used? In any case, I'm in the process of debugging it on one of my machines that does suffer from the crashing, so it shouldn't be too hard to hack out a resolution even without understanding exactly why the crash is happening. I'll report back if I accomplish anything.

EDIT: I've traced it about as far as I can without knowing more about the nuts and bolts of D3D. The specific line of code that triggers the crash is:

win-d3d.cc : d3d_blit_memtoscreen_8 () : hr = d3ddev->DrawPrimitive(D3DPT_TRIANGLELIST, 0, 2);

My extremely uneducated guess is that some subtle bug somewhere is resulting in a slight corruption in the vertex calculations after the emulated pc has been running for some time and is then reset. The important thing to note is that the Hercules also calls win-d3d.cc : d3d_blit_memtoscreen_8 (), and executes that same line of code, and functions perfectly. It appears to be the only emulated video card capable of running that code without triggering the crash. Therefore, the question to ask is, what does Hercules do with the vertices that no other card does (or perhaps, what does every other card do with the vertices that Hercules doesn't)? Unfortunately, this is where my knowledge of D3D and the PCem source hits a brick wall, but hopefully someone can take this info and run with it. If someone who can't reproduce the symptoms notices a calculation somewhere that looks like it might be relevant, I'll be happy to make any suggested changes and report on whether that fixes the problem.

Which new features are you planning to put into pcem? i love this emulator!!

therock247uk wrote:

Which new features are you planning to put into pcem? i love this emulator!!

like the PCjr emulation (although still preliminary)

The HD emulation seems unstable?
I can't get it recognized (I already input correct C/H/S value in BIOS setup)

roytam1 wrote:

The HD emulation seems unstable? I can't get it recognized (I already input correct C/H/S value in BIOS setup) http://i.imgur.co […]
Show full quote

The HD emulation seems unstable?
I can't get it recognized (I already input correct C/H/S value in BIOS setup)

for me it works properly in the AMI 486 clone, though I use a different bios for it for better compatibility.

roytam1 wrote:

The HD emulation seems unstable?
I can't get it recognized (I already input correct C/H/S value in BIOS setup)

Are you using a particular boot disk you downloaded from somewhere? Just curious. It looks nifty.

This 'Drive Type 17' Harddisk image works for most setups, and is preset in each BIOS:
Capacity: 42 MEG (Winimage says: 42.640.895 bytes)
Cylinders: 981
Heads: 5
Sectors Per Track: 17
(Tracks Per Inch: 1109, Bytes Per Sector: 512, Number of Disks: 2)

Note: The 430VX Chipset messed up my image twice, so I tend to avoid that chipset with this image.

Jorpho wrote:

roytam1 wrote:

The HD emulation seems unstable?
I can't get it recognized (I already input correct C/H/S value in BIOS setup)

Are you using a particular boot disk you downloaded from somewhere? Just curious. It looks nifty.

I made it. 😜
It is a DOS 6.22 boot disk with Jack Ellis' XMS manager and CD-ROM driver and CD extension, which works on real machine or most virtual machines(QEMU/VMWare/etc.)
available in http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/fre … iles/dos/ellis/

Hi,

The stuck keys problem on XT and Amstrad machines seems not completely fixed in V8.1.
Sometimes this problem occurs while playing BurgerTime.

so far I completely setup my PCem (Mid-90s Emulated Machine)

Award 430VX PCI
Winchip 240MHz
Paradise Bahamas 64 (S3 Vision864)
IDT CPU Type
A little bit of Cache
Fast VLB/PCI Video speed
Sound Blaster 16
64 MB Ram
Windows 98 SE
Installed some drivers for the OS

Oh BTW
When will the networking support be made
like NE2000 internet or something like that?

Best Regards xBRYAN2000x

If I have to support Windows NT 3.1 on this emulator, I would go for ISA SCSI emulation, but I don't know which adapter to emulate for it (VirtualBox has some code for the ISA BusLogic and AHA154X)
Edit: I think VirtualBox is licensed the same way as PCem, but I may be wrong. Also, I tested the NT 3.5 CD boot disks on PCem and they crash the emulator upon going to the boot screen (after disk 2), so, it's definitely an atapi issue.
Edit 2: the Windows NT 3.1 October 1992 beta works too on PCem.

xBRYAN2000x,

Wow! 100% speed on a 240MHz emulated system? I didn't even think that was possible. My system has a fairly high-end Ivy Bridge i7 and I can barely manage 133MHz. Would you mind sharing your host (i.e. your actual system, not the emulated one) specs with us? Particularly your precise CPU model, video card and version of Windows. When I upgrade I'm going to want to be sure to go for a system that can run PCem all the way up to 240MHz, now that I see it is in fact possible. 😀

Is there anyone else here who can manage 240MHz @ 100%?

It's at idle in a questionable "Win98se" that appears to be given the 98lite Micro treatment - hardly "mid-90s", especially with WinChip which is late 90s. Don't you just love misinformation?

That did occur to me, but I doubt I could get anywhere near 240MHz @ 100% idling in any version of any OS. Can you?

Heres my specs

i5-2k isn't even enough for AM5x86 P75 at full capacity with fast vlb/pci speed...

Nice suspicously not updated Windows 7 btw.

leileilol wrote:

i5-2k isn't even enough for AM5x86 P75 at full capacity with fast vlb/pci speed...

Nice suspicously not updated Windows 7 btw.

my cpu is an i5-2500 (non-k) and it runs the WinChip (and also the AM5x86 P75) at full speed when the WinChip is at 240Mhz (it runs the WinME installation faster than it was at 180Mhz)

I have a Core i3 3220 with two cores at 3,3GHz (hyperthreading disabled for now).
By default I set PCem to iDX4/75, which is what generally works well.
A quick test shows the Winchip 90 reliably at 100% at the DOS prompt. Any Higher Winchip fails to do so.

gerwin wrote:

I have a Core i3 3220 with two cores at 3,3GHz (hyperthreading disabled for now).
By default I set PCem to iDX4/75, which is what generally works well.
A quick test shows the Winchip 90 reliably at 100% at the DOS prompt. Any Higher Winchip fails to do so.

Ummm, there is no Winchip 90. First generation Winchips were only available in 180,200,225, and 240mhz speeds.

sliderider wrote:

gerwin wrote:

I have a Core i3 3220 with two cores at 3,3GHz (hyperthreading disabled for now).
By default I set PCem to iDX4/75, which is what generally works well.
A quick test shows the Winchip 90 reliably at 100% at the DOS prompt. Any Higher Winchip fails to do so.

Ummm, there is no Winchip 90. First generation Winchips were only available in 180,200,225, and 240mhz speeds.

True, but as PCem doesn't have Pentium emulation and likely won't any time soon, faux-Winchips at all the lower Pentium speeds had to be included. Otherwise there would be no way (possibly ever) to use the Pentium-class machines at any speed below 180MHz, which is far too fast for many systems to handle, including my own. I'm just grateful that Sarah Walker had the foresight to realize that 😀

Speaking of speed issues, it's highly interesting to see that some of you are capable of running fast Winchips in PCem at 100%, all with far less powerful systems than I have. I wonder if it could be a 32-bit vs. 64-bit issue. I've got a 64 bit CPU running 64 bit Windows 8.0 and basically a screaming fast system, and I can barely manage Winchip 133 @ 100% at a DOS prompt. I've got a hunch that those of you easily pulling down much faster speeds may be running 32-bit Windows, thus avoiding the WoW emulation layer and perhaps picking up lots of extra speed from that. I see from Bryan's screenshot that he's on 32-bit, so that would seem to corroborate my hunch. Can anyone confirm? Is there anyone running 64-bit Windows who can get those kinds of speeds?