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. 😅

leileilol wrote on 2011-09-18, 03:23:

Gameboy: NO$GB (req 386DX33) Megadrive: KGEN98 (req 486DX4100) NES: LoopyNES (req 486DX266) / NESticle (req 486SX40) SNES: ZSNES […]
Show full quote

Gameboy: NO$GB (req 386DX33)
Megadrive: KGEN98 (req 486DX4100)
NES: LoopyNES (req 486DX266) / NESticle (req 486SX40)
SNES: ZSNES (req 486DX4100 for some games, PentiumMMX 150 for most)

Further tested the above in a 486 environment, except for the Gameboy. The NES emulator NESticle seems the best by far.

For SNES, ZSNES v1.42 has high cpu requirements and an earlier version, v1.20, is missing compatibility with at least one good arcade port. There also seems to be a sbpro or higher requirement for audio, although that result may vary for others.

Kgen98 ran slow, too. Genecyst x.xx has better performance and has very good audio output as compared to other emulators that are running below their suggested system requirements. It also is compatible with a soundblaster 2.0, at least in the test case.

As an aside, for MAME, most or all of the 0.36 versions will output 8-bit video and sound compatible with a sb 2.0 or higher. These versions have compatibility with the classic arcade set, but most or all of them do not run well on a typical 486 class cpu. Also, there are issues such as inadequate emulation, such as in the blitter timings, in at least some of these games. And the Williams set does not seem compatible with frameskip. Last, in the test case these run better with tweak mode active (instead of a vesa mode), but this result would vary for other cases. An interesting case is the early 80s Williams games that run at 292x240. This does not match to a tweak mode, so it is possible to run it with stretch=no and set the resolution=320x240 (mame.cfg or at the command line). That may provide a bit more compatibility and performance. It must be easier to improve the emulation of a single console than for all the different machine types under the MAME umbrella, so it is not surprising that the console emulators achieve better accuracy in that time period.

The Williams Arcade for DOS is reportedly for a 386 or higher, but the emulation is not accurate, such as the accuracy of the timings in the blitter. These are from 1994 or 1995, so perhaps it is expected that this port is not as accurate as MAME 0.36, a version released at least a few years later than this DOS port. The Genesis port will have a higher requirement, but the frameskip=3 helps in Genecyst, along with setting the "6 button" option to Joystick 1, allowing the keyboard to potentially emulate a two stick control for one or more games in this port.

When it was time to play sega master system on windows pc I like freezeSMS because it also had game genie capability and downloadable cheats. (in its FRZ files)
Its still around but looks depreciated the additional download stuffs aren't there?
Also could play nintendo but that had no sound, coleco, gamegear and SG1000.
The sega emulation included fm synthiesis option that SMS didn't have but the computers did.
A refreshing change from pipe organs but for carts released up to 1988 thereafter they stopped putting fm pc compatability in carts altogether.
It ran on my 233mhz Intel mobo pretty well with windows 98se.

rmay635703 wrote on 2019-06-29, 15:42:

Get an nes or gameboy Emulator running on a 286 then call me 😉

I have used NO$GMB on a CGA 286 before. It runs a bit slow, but it does work okay.

For UAE for DOS as it was at the time, I had it going on my 60x2 Cyrix 5x86 machine, in '96 and it was sluggish, with frameskip at 3 or 4 though it would do a creditable job of running stuff like stunt car racer at near 500 speed, I think that's because it mainly used 68000 and didn't work the copper very hard. In the docs at the time it said full speed full framerate full res required a 400Mhz Pentium and a fire extinguisher. Always meant to try that version on a PII at 400.

PC Task seemed to hit XT speed on my Amiga 1200 with an Apollo 1220 in it.

I had a ZX spectrum emulator for PC that seemed to hit full speed on 8-10Mhz XTs, CGA graphics though, but I think you could cycle palettes until it looked least bad. Probably came from Simtel or somewhere like that.

Most dissappointing to me is there seemed to be a lot of 8, 16 and even slow 32 bit stuff that ran well enough but cramped and input limited on the relatively ancient ARM generations that were in PDAs at 200 or 400Mhz... yet any modern ones for android suck donkey balls.