VOGONS


First post, by resle

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I have never paid attention to forks of PCem and would always stick to the original in spite of purported improvements, extra features or whatever.

However given it seems development of PCem is not going to resume for the foreseeable future, I am now wondering about other options while hopefully someone takes over the repository.

Any you would advice, that stays as true as possible to the original?

..so we ate rare animals, we spent the night eating rare animals..

Reply 1 of 13, by Zup

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I guess the only active? fork is 86box, but keep in mind that it was a result of some kind of disagreement from the direction PCem had and the vision that 86box was based.

So expect a fork that is not true to the original, although it has some capabilities that PCem lacks.

(OTOH another emulator aimed to be hardware-accurate is MAME, but that's a very complex and different beast)

I have traveled across the universe and through the years to find Her.
Sometimes going all the way is just a start...

I'm selling some stuff!

Reply 2 of 13, by resle

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Zup wrote on 2021-11-01, 08:50:

I guess the only active? fork is 86box, but keep in mind that it was a result of some kind of disagreement from the direction PCem had and the vision that 86box was based.

So expect a fork that is not true to the original, although it has some capabilities that PCem lacks.

(OTOH another emulator aimed to be hardware-accurate is MAME, but that's a very complex and different beast)

I suppose I'll give it a try anyway, whereas am I correct that UNIPcem and Varcem diverge even more or aren't even forks of PCEm?

Last edited by DosFreak on 2021-12-04, 14:05. Edited 1 time in total.

..so we ate rare animals, we spent the night eating rare animals..

Reply 3 of 13, by dondiego

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

May be a silly question but was there a PCem version that ran on Win98? Or at least be compiled to run on it? I know DosBox runs on 98 so it makes some sense.

LZDoom, ZDoom32, ZDoom LE
RUDE (Doom)
Romero's Heresy II (Heretic)

Reply 4 of 13, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

98,ME,NT4,2000 PCEM 0.41a
2000 BWC pcem v17

Haven't tried KernelEX on 98-ME with PCEM yet.

When PCEM switched to SDL2 then XP+ unless you use BWC or possibly KernelEX

DOSBox Compilation Guides
DosBox Feature Request Thread
PC Game Compatibility List
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Running DRM games offline

Reply 7 of 13, by AlexZ

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

These projects suffer from very low number of contributors. I'm surprised PCem even lasted that long. I don't really want any new features, I would be happy if the goal of 86Box was just to fix all the bugs reported in Github (and there aren't that many in comparison to e.g dosbox-x). People have their own lives and jobs, we can't expect contributors to work on it full time.

When I evaluated PCem vs 86Box half year ago I chose 86Box as the UI felt more refined and user friendly. Recently it got a new modern virtual machine manager called "WinBox for 86Box" with auto update capabilities. So for me suspension of the PCem project means no change.

I don't blame anyone for the split of PCem vs 86Box. Some contributors tend to have diverging vision for the project and it inevitably leads to a fork. Forking is not bad, it can lead to interesting clones like dosbox-x.

Pentium III 750E, ECS P6BXT-A+, 384MB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 128MB, Voodoo 2 12MB, 80GB HDD, Yamaha SM718 ISA, 19" AOC 9GlrA
Athlon 64 3400+, MSI K8T Neo V, 1GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 7600GT 256MB, 250GB HDD, Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS

Reply 8 of 13, by superfury

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
resle wrote on 2021-11-01, 10:28:
Zup wrote on 2021-11-01, 08:50:

I guess the only active? fork is 86box, but keep in mind that it was a result of some kind of disagreement from the direction PCem had and the vision that 86box was based.

So expect a fork that is not true to the original, although it has some capabilities that PCem lacks.

(OTOH another emulator aimed to be hardware-accurate is MAME, but that's a very complex and different beast)

Eh, I remember the whole Battler / Sarah feud, but as a result of turning my ahead away from that, I can't say I know in which way(s) differ, or what the 86Box vision is supposed to be.

I suppose I'll give it a try anyway, whereas am I correct that UNIPcem and Varcem diverge even more or aren't even forks of PCEm?

If you mean UniPCemu, it's not a fork of anything (although it's using a modified MPU-401 code from Dosbox because I can't find any documentation on it. It was a simple UART before that. Both were and are connected to the software MIDI synth I've built based on the Soundfont 2.04 specs). I've built it from scratch.

Author of the UniPCemu emulator.
UniPCemu Git repository
UniPCemu for Android, Windows and PSP on itch.io

Reply 10 of 13, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Handy ref, not sure how up to the minute it is though .... https://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/Intel_CPUs

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 11 of 13, by SortingHat

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
AlexZ wrote on 2021-11-13, 08:53:

These projects suffer from very low number of contributors. I'm surprised PCem even lasted that long. I don't really want any new features, I would be happy if the goal of 86Box was just to fix all the bugs reported in Github (and there aren't that many in comparison to e.g dosbox-x). People have their own lives and jobs, we can't expect contributors to work on it full time.

When I evaluated PCem vs 86Box half year ago I chose 86Box as the UI felt more refined and user friendly. Recently it got a new modern virtual machine manager called "WinBox for 86Box" with auto update capabilities. So for me suspension of the PCem project means no change.

I don't blame anyone for the split of PCem vs 86Box. Some contributors tend to have diverging vision for the project and it inevitably leads to a fork. Forking is not bad, it can lead to interesting clones like dosbox-x.

Will 86box ever be able to use a live CD similar to PCEM Host CD option? That would be a BIG new feature!!!! Many games are copy protected such as Midtown Madness II which I use the real CD on PCEM to play or it will say 'Please Insert CD' if running ISO even an ISO from the same stupid disc!

Reply 12 of 13, by AlexZ

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
SortingHat wrote on Yesterday, 13:59:

Will 86box ever be able to use a live CD similar to PCEM Host CD option? That would be a BIG new feature!!!! Many games are copy protected such as Midtown Madness II which I use the real CD on PCEM to play or it will say 'Please Insert CD' if running ISO even an ISO from the same stupid disc!

Please create a feature request in Github. It would be a great feature. I'm not in any way associated with the project.

Pentium III 750E, ECS P6BXT-A+, 384MB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 128MB, Voodoo 2 12MB, 80GB HDD, Yamaha SM718 ISA, 19" AOC 9GlrA
Athlon 64 3400+, MSI K8T Neo V, 1GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 7600GT 256MB, 250GB HDD, Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS

Reply 13 of 13, by Namrok

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
SortingHat wrote on Yesterday, 13:59:
AlexZ wrote on 2021-11-13, 08:53:

These projects suffer from very low number of contributors. I'm surprised PCem even lasted that long. I don't really want any new features, I would be happy if the goal of 86Box was just to fix all the bugs reported in Github (and there aren't that many in comparison to e.g dosbox-x). People have their own lives and jobs, we can't expect contributors to work on it full time.

When I evaluated PCem vs 86Box half year ago I chose 86Box as the UI felt more refined and user friendly. Recently it got a new modern virtual machine manager called "WinBox for 86Box" with auto update capabilities. So for me suspension of the PCem project means no change.

I don't blame anyone for the split of PCem vs 86Box. Some contributors tend to have diverging vision for the project and it inevitably leads to a fork. Forking is not bad, it can lead to interesting clones like dosbox-x.

Will 86box ever be able to use a live CD similar to PCEM Host CD option? That would be a BIG new feature!!!! Many games are copy protected such as Midtown Madness II which I use the real CD on PCEM to play or it will say 'Please Insert CD' if running ISO even an ISO from the same stupid disc!

Did PCEM ever get this feature performant? Back when I tried to use it around V15 or so, it caused constant hitching and stalling as PCEM would ask the OS to read data from the drive, block, and then eventually receive it and go back to emulating. At least, that's what I thought was happening from looking at the code back then. At one point I wondered about trying to write some read ahead or buffering routines in there to smooth things out, but ended up just ripping ISOs of the games I cared about instead.

Win95/DOS 7.1 - P233 MMX (@2.5 x 100 FSB), Diamond Viper V330 AGP, SB16 CT2800
Win98 - K6-2+ 500, GF2 MX, SB AWE 64 CT4500, SBLive CT4780
Win98 - Pentium III 1000, GF2 GTS, SBLive CT4760
WinXP - Athlon 64 3200+, GF 7800 GS, Audigy 2 ZS