notsofossil wrote:

Even today, the best console and PC emulators cannot be perfectly transistor-for-transistor accurate. Why? Because that level of emulation would be so slow that even monster PCs of today would be worse than a slideshow.

Mainly, because it's not needed for games. Almost all of them have no significant or even noticable difference with playing on real hardware. For example, such situation is with DOSBox, if you'll use it with CRT and XP.

every software emulator is essentially an approximation

Every hardware device is also kind of approximation, as there are differences between models, revisions and even samples, different software also may affect. The developers used one device, while users use another. Sometimes this defference is noticable.

Even though it's a pain in the ass messing with software emulation

You say like there is no "pain in the ass" to mess with real hardware, because it's not less comfortable than emulation or has not own compatibility problems. Computers are "pain in the ass", often.

go real hardware

The main problem is free space. While today emulation is close to perfect, for example, of DOS games. And you'll don't need a bunch of PCs to play almost all games you want, but just change emulator's configuration.

Tertz wrote:

Every hardware device is also kind of approximation, as there are differences between models, revisions and even samples, different software also may affect. The developers used one device, while users use another. Sometimes this defference is noticable.

With most platforms, it is a requirement that the difference is not noticeable.
Mainly with consoles, but also with many early home computers, such as C64, Amiga etc.
A lot of games/demos/etc access the hardware directly, and expect cycle-exact behaviour.
Different models and revisions should still be 100% cycle-exact (eg, all software that works on a 'breadbox' C64 will also work on a C64C, or all software for an Amiga 500 will also work on an Amiga 2000. Likewise with various revisions of consoles).

We used the same approach in 8088 MPH, treating the IBM 5150/5155/5160 with IBM CGA as a fixed platform.

Honestly depending on the system your trying to emulate, the emulator works better. I enjoy not having the random freezes that I get with a real NES or a real Sega Genesis when playing some of the more advanced games. The fact they dont have the momentary lag makes it a much more fluid and enjoyable experince, so there is something to be said about emulation vs real consoles. Now as for PC hardware, thats more nerve wracking, PCEM is what've ive tried to use and I find it slow and ungainly compared to real hardware, though dosbox works well.

Regarding the collapse of Commodore. The early 1990s were also a time of economic recession. All gaming-related computer companies would have been struggling, but people still needed business computers, so the PC clone manufacturers would have been less affected.

Speaking of emulators, their accuracy, speed, etc. one of my favorites has to be Dolphin. I'm sure it's far from 100% accurate, but it turns any reasonably fast PC into a better Wii than the Wii itself!

It upscales Gamecube and Wii games and outputs a far sharper picture than the actual consoles, and it maintains 60fps.

Probably because their childhood was different. For example, I love stuff around the early PC and DOS era because that's what I grew up with. But go a little farther back with the blocky Atari 2600 stuff and I start thinking it's "lame and boring" because it just feels "too old" to pique my nastalgia.

It's weird because of how in love I am with my era and don't understand why younger people don't get why it's so cool. But at the same time I think that the old Atari games like pacman, pong, galaga, etc. are stupidly old and boring-- I just don't understand why people would find that stuff cool.

It's a vicious cycle.

Also, I apologize for any Atari 2600 fans. But you're just too lame and boring. 🤣

Kahenraz wrote:

Probably because their childhood was different. For example, I love stuff around the early PC and DOS era because that's what I […]
Show full quote

Probably because their childhood was different. For example, I love stuff around the early PC and DOS era because that's what I grew up with. But go a little farther back with the blocky Atari 2600 stuff and I start thinking it's "lame and boring" because it just feels "too old" to pique my nastalgia.

It's weird because of how in love I am with my era and don't understand why younger people don't get why it's so cool. But at the same time I think that the old Atari games like pacman, pong, galaga, etc. are stupidly old and boring-- I just don't understand why people would find that stuff cool.

It's a vicious cycle.

Also, I apologize for any Atari 2600 fans. But you're just too lame and boring. 🤣

When I was a kid I had an Intellivision. My friend across the street had an Atari 2600. I made fun of his 2600. Today, I own a 2600 that was given to me by a friend and I have an incredible appreciation for it. It is a piece of history that, if never created, would've impacted all of us on Vogons for the worse.

I think part of it comes from what the future of technology was for us at the time. When it came out, I'm sure that the Atari 2600 was amazingly futuristic. But since I grew up with everything VGA, anything less was old to me.

Just imagine how amazing the wheel would have been when it was invented. How many of us are truly impressed by the wheel? The inclined plane? The lever?

I've used and played games on PC, Atari, Amiga, a couple other consoles, a couple other different types of computers. But the reason I ended up with PC-compatible (and mostly 386 and up kinda) is because of its flexible nature.

The flexible nature of PCs are the one thing that drove me into madness ..err I mean into collecting PC stuff and as little of any of the other architectures as possible 😁

The first computer I really messed around with was my dads 286, that he bought second hand in 1995. Being already very interested in electronics, I was absolutely blown away by how interactive and yet mysterious it was. We did have a SNES, but game carts were so horribly expensive, we ended up with only Super Mario World and Super Mario All Stars. The 286, however, came with many floppy disks full of games, and utility software, and boot disks, and tools and so on. It was fun!

Since then, I seem to have... collected every single machine from the 80s and 90s in the x86 lineage that I can get my hands on.

I do own a couple of c64s, and understand their significance in computing history... but it's a fixed system. It's not really expandable like a IBM PC/clone is. You all know this.

I've even owned an Amiga A600... but found it limited too. Sure, it probably could run circles around any late 80s IBM PC, but that's not really a fair comparison considering only a few years later you could quite easily get a 486DX2-66 (for example) and a decent VLB graphics card, SB-16 and so on and play Jazz Jackrabbit... in Australia, it seems far easier to get this than any Amiga at a reasonable price.

Thing is, and I really don't like to generalise... I have noticed there are three kinds of people regarding this topic:

1. They totally understand how fun mucking around with IBM PC/clones are, and might even do it themselves
2. They understand how fun the old software can be, but don't understand the need to collect hardware. "Why not just use an emulator!"
3. They do not understand at all. Probably don't even think people like us exist, and generally (incorrectly) call us hoarders because they don't see a difference between junk and old computer hardware.

It also seems that having a hobby nowadays is not a very common thing. People are too busy with their lives, being caught up in the 'now' with social media and social gaming and generally a faster, busier lifestyle. Having a hobby such as ours, in some peoples eyes is just crazy.

orinoko wrote:

I do own a couple of c64s, and understand their significance in computing history... but it's a fixed system. It's not really expandable like a IBM PC/clone is. You all know this.

No, I don't know this, actually.
The C64 had a user port, a cartridge port and a serial port to hook all sorts of hardware up to it.
You had memory expansions, CPU upgrades, EPROM burners, MIDI kits, hard drives and everything.

orinoko wrote:

I've even owned an Amiga A600... but found it limited too. Sure, it probably could run circles around any late 80s IBM PC, but that's not really a fair comparison considering only a few years later you could quite easily get a 486DX2-66 (for example) and a decent VLB graphics card, SB-16 and so on and play Jazz Jackrabbit...

That's not entirely a fair comparison. A 486DX2-66 was stupid expensive at first, as were a VLB card and an SB (not to mention the required VGA monitor). Almost every single one of these was literally more expensive than an entire A600.
Besides, the A600 was not new technology when it came out. It was a compacted, cost-effective variation of the Amiga 500 that had been around since 1987. Which in itself was a compacted, cost-effective variation of the original Amiga 1000 from 1985.
So no, by the time the Amiga 600 came out in 1992, it was not exactly state-of-the-art. But still, looking at what expensive and way 'overpowered' hardware you needed for a PC just to match its abilities, that's a testament to how special the Amiga was.

Plugging in a cartridge into the back of a c64 is like plugging something into the back of the LPT port of a PC. When I say expandable, I'm talking about the internals.

As for my comparison, notice I said 'only a few years later', as in a few years after 1992 when the Amiga 600 was released. You said it yourself, the Amiga 600 is based on tech from years prior, as would a second hand or low cost 486 purchased, say, in 1996 or 1997. Over here, it was entirely possible to do that.

In any case, my point is (assuming this thread really was a discussion about the differences between IBM and Amiga machines), they are two totally different systems.

orinoko wrote:

Plugging in a cartridge into the back of a c64 is like plugging something into the back of the LPT port of a PC. When I say expandable, I'm talking about the internals.

No it's not. Not even remotely.
The cartridge port is fully functional. You can plug in memory, CPUs, etc. I already said that, so next time, please read what I say more clearly, and if you don't fully understand it, google it, or ask for clarification.
It's more like an ISA slot.
In fact, you can plug in multiplexer PCBs, so you can use multiple cartridges in that slot.

orinoko wrote:

As for my comparison, notice I said 'only a few years later', as in a few years after 1992 when the Amiga 600 was released. You said it yourself, the Amiga 600 is based on tech from years prior, as would a second hand or low cost 486 purchased, say, in 1996 or 1997. Over here, it was entirely possible to do that.

How is that even a comparison? When the A600 was launched in 1992, a 486 was far from low-cost. That's the whole point: Amigas gave you a lot more for a lot less. Even in 1992, a system that was essentially 1985-spec, was still a decent gaming machine. Back in 1985, there was no equivalent at all. Certainly not PCs. PCs were... lame and boring.
By 1996/1997, people were giving Amiga 600s away for free.

Scali wrote:

Even in 1992, a system that was essentially 1985-spec, was still a decent gaming machine. Back in 1985, there was no equivalent at all. Certainly not PCs. PCs were... lame and boring.
By 1996/1997, people were giving Amiga 600s away for free.

I can attest to that. In mid 1996 I tried an Amiga 500 for the first time. It was the only computer that a friend of mine had but he didn't care about it at that time anymore and didn't use it. He said it was just an old piece of junk, but I was still very much impressed by the quality of the games that he showed me, some of which I remember being Another World and Flashback. The synthesized music quality was a lot better than what I had in my PC at the time. It was a 486DX2-66 with a ESS sound card with OPL3 music only. Of course I had a CD-ROM which meant that any CD games would blow the Amiga out of the water in all regards.

I talked to some Amiga super fans recently and they seem to hate PCs and especially Windows 95 because in their mind that's what killed Amigas.

Amigas is killed by Commodore and their directors bad decisions, but also I like much more 286/386/486 PC`s than amiga, in my opinion amigas should all have hard disk from beginning and OS installed on it all time. And even today pieces for amigas is way more ovepriced than pieces for PC`s, even drivers for Radeons for Amigas is for money.

devius wrote:

Of course I had a CD-ROM which meant that any CD games would blow the Amiga out of the water in all regards.

There were two Amigas with CD-ROM as well: the Commodore CDTV and the CD32.
They weren't super-popular, but it's interesting to see what the Amiga platform could do with the CD medium.

devius wrote:

I talked to some Amiga super fans recently and they seem to hate PCs and especially Windows 95 because in their mind that's what killed Amigas.

I think lack of progress on the Amiga hardware is what killed Amigas. From the early 90s on, PCs started to evolve at a very fast rate (fast CPUs, lots of memory, powerful videocards, soundcards, CD-ROM drives etc), and prices came down a lot as well.
However, Windows 95 is more or less the point where PCs started to be able to do pretty much everything that Amiga could, and better.

Scali wrote:

No it's not. Not even remotely. The cartridge port is fully functional. You can plug in memory, CPUs, etc. I already said that, […]
Show full quote

No it's not. Not even remotely.
The cartridge port is fully functional. You can plug in memory, CPUs, etc. I already said that, so next time, please read what I say more clearly, and if you don't fully understand it, google it, or ask for clarification.
It's more like an ISA slot.
In fact, you can plug in multiplexer PCBs, so you can use multiple cartridges in that slot.

Yes yes yes I know this already. I used to build user port interfaces when I was a kid...

In any case, this thread really is about the perception of non-retro-computer-collectors not understanding our need to collect.

orinoko wrote:

Yes yes yes I know this already. I used to build user port interfaces when I was a kid...

Didn't sound like it, because you were comparing it to a printer port.
A printer port, especially in its original incarnation in the 1980s, was far more limited.
Also, the user port is one interface, the cartridge interface is another: https://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Expansion_Port

Somehow you seemed to make a distinction between 'internal' and 'external' upgrades. Which is nonsensical. The physical location of an expansion says nothing about its expandability.
The PCjr also has its equivalent of an ISA slot on the outside (for 'sidecar' expansions). Doesn't make much of a difference for the functionality.
In fact, you can install a converter board that allows you to plug in regular ISA cards: http://www.brutman.com/PCjr/pcjr_options.html

I like hardware over software, so the reason for my collection is simple. Hardware truncating emulation, it is that simple.
Playing games, are a minor part of my retro-time compared to fiddeling around with the actual hardware.
The whole look and feel of the hardware, makes DosBox and others alike, feel inferior.
And as we all are different, others use DosBox as it's the games what counts for them. I'm ok with that, as long as I have
my hardware to play around with. NON-Pc games (C64/NES/Amiga), I emulate, as I have no space for non-pc hardware.

brostenen wrote:

I like hardware over software, so the reason for my collection is simple. Hardware truncating emulation, it is that simple.
Playing games, are a minor part of my retro-time compared to fiddeling around with the actual hardware.

I have to agree with this. Putting a PC together or restoring an old beaten down PC to its former glory is where all the fun is for me.

I also like the ability to buy hardware that I could never afford when it was new, but would read about in some magazine. A few years ago I put together the stupidest 486 ever, with a DX2-66, 128MB RAM and a 9,1GB SCSI HDD because I felt like it and it was something that no one on their right mind would ever build when these parts were relatively new. How is that not fun? 🤣