- leileilol: Can I ask what's your problem? Have you even tried PCem-X, and I mean a recent compile to which I can quite gladly provide a link, not an old release from January or February? Because you sure like spreading misinformation about it around.
First, my FDC code is for the most part better because it's based on countless sleepless nights spent reading datasheets and other sources of information. It also has full 3-mode floppy support for the chipsets that support that feature, as well as other goodies. And yes, it lacks PCem's support for copy-protected floppies, but that's in the works. Sure you may not care about whatever PCem-X's FDC code does that PCem's doesn't, but that doesn't give you the right to demean my work.
Second, there is a lot more things in PCem-X that lack in PCem. There's a whole load of more chipsets emulated, there's the basic Pentium Pro and Pentium II emulation alongside the 440FX chipset, including all i686-specific CPU instructions, there's ongoing improvements to IDE/ATAPI emulations, there's the networking which now also has SLiRP as a possibility, SA1988 is working on emulation of SCSI CD-ROM drives and hard disks, and Alegend45 is working on Riva128 and Cirrus Logic Laguna3D graphics card emulation. And for the future, there's in plans to add in the emulation of Japanese PC-compatibles such as the IBM PS/55 as well as AX machines, as soon as documentation and BIOS'es become available.
It seems to me, leileilol, that you seem to be a fanboy of Sarah's PCem and refuse to tolerate anyone disagree with you or Sarah the slightest. You've been going around attacking me and my emulator in multiple places, here, PCem forum, Reddit... and you even have a tendency of posting snide remark about anything you don't care about. Getting OS/2 to run? You don't care about it, so people shouldn't bother with it. Pre-release software? You don't care about them, so any request to make them possible to run (which simply requires the ability to set back the BIOS date/time, something PCem-X also allows, unlike PCem) should be dismissed. Someone makes a PCem patch that adds something you don't care about? You call it stillborn and berate me for giving it a chance PCem-X.
Just who on earth do you think you are? Do you really think you're the end all and be all of PC interests and that only things *YOU* care about have the right to be focused on and only software *YOU* happen to be a fan of is allowed to be developed? Well, I hate to break it to you, but you're not. If you have constructive criticism of PCem-X, you're welcome to post it, and I'll gladly listen. But please stop your continuous attacks on my work and assumptions that I know nothing and pull things out of my rear end (like you insist on saying about my optimization flags, for example, despite me continuously telling you they are a result of *TESTING*). Good? Good. Now let's stop fighting.