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)

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?

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.

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

Thanks, 8.1 would be enough.

So, the executive summary is - 86Box only?

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.

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.

Interesting gui for the 86box:
https://github.com/laciba96/WinBox-for-86Box/wiki

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

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!

SortingHat wrote on 2021-12-04, 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.

SortingHat wrote on 2021-12-04, 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.

Namrok wrote on 2021-12-04, 20:20:

SortingHat wrote on 2021-12-04, 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.

It's called HOST CD ROM on the menu.

It's the ONLY way I can play certain racing games that require the CD such as Mid Town Madness II/Midnight Club and Need for Speed High Streets I mean Stakes as it has copy protection on them. IE: It will say 'Please Insert Correct CD' when attempting to run the programs.