1/6/2024 0 Comments Bochs vs dosbox![]() In other words, for an advanced user who needs to run a wide variety of different software on emulated machines from a wide variety of different eras, losing PCem would sting considerably more than losing any other single emulator, right? That's certainly been my impression, anyway. I would still argue, however, that PCem offers the best overall approximation of the behavior and performance you'd get from real hardware, as averaged out across all of the myriad configurations and use cases one might target. I don't know about this-are you saying that there's no one PC emulator that stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of overall accuracy, or are you saying that there is, and it's not PCem or DOSBox? If the latter, which emulator did you have in mind? If the former, that seems fair enough, given that the question of "most accurate" will of course hinge on which particular hardware elements the user wants to emulate, which software they'll be running, etc. ![]() Leilei wrote:PCem's good, but it's nowhere near "most accurate pc emulator" as someone has claimed many times before (and neither is DOSBox). Broken games won't get fixed if they're not properly reported! Sometimes I almost feel like i'm the only one trying out games here. One cuts out the bios requirement and has some hi-res features to "improve" graphics (Dosbox's scalers and OpenGL Glide patch applies here), while the other requires the bios and deals with the psx as accurate as it can be with all the lovingly wobbly vertices, affine texturing and dithering it has.ĭOSBox also has had at least 2-4 persons working on it at a time in the past 15 years and is well-known enough to have bug/compatibility reports constantly flowing in. Recommending one over the other is really about its out-of-the-box ease of use, and DOSBox is created to almost act as a dos prompt. You have CAPE to look forward to on that, currently in its early 5150 steps (and probably will stay around there given the system requirements already and the need for cycle accuracy on a system that slow) That's barely a thing for x86 emulation at all. If it's about cycle accuracy then forget about both of them. Note that DOSBox does not support Win9x at all, and booting win9x is considered unintended behavior and should never ever EVER be encouraged. That's assuming if the game's old enough to not have SecuROM/Safedisk/Cdillo to make the atapi emulation upset. If it's a Win9x game and the tricks/patches for running within modern windows don't help/work, then definitely PCem. If said dos game is Glide/has special content for AWE, or is one of those awfully programmed Windows/DOS hybrids, then PCem It'd also be the fastest option (though dosbox 0.74 does have a nasty cycles bug with recent intel processors) DOSbox also has problems with games PCem doesn't have (Thor trilogy anyone?) and the dosbox glide patches are really spotty or really slow (and mame derived).įor the end user that don't know/not experienced with older pc hardware and just want to play a dos game without fuss, i'd still recommend DOSBox as PCem has the rom-hunting/OS-hunting obstacle in the way of the general newbie ease of use. It does have issues where DOSBox doesn't with certain games reported in this forum (Spectre VR and Zone Raiders are two). Competition is good, and the emulation scene will be better off for it, but one always wonders if these different philosophies are really all that different.PCem's good, but it's nowhere near "most accurate pc emulator" as someone has claimed many times before (and neither is DOSBox). I wouldn't mind others trying to surpass 86box in accuracy and functionality, although I understand other emulators have slightly different philosophies. It is still a long way from being perfect and lots of functionality could be added, but it is getting better by bounds - if some time has passed since you looked at it I suggest you give a look to the latest builds and judge for yourself. Certain graphic cards are only emulated correctly in 86box of all the projects I have tried. DOSBox-X may eventually develop Pentium 4 emulation, if wanted by the DOSBox-X community in general. If Pentium 4 or higher emulation is desired, consider using a PC emulator like Bochs or QEMU instead. Real DOS systems (MS-DOS and compatibles) also work best with these CPUs. VARCem has a much novice-friendly install and better documentation, but that is just about it. DOSBox-X contains code only to emulate the 8086 through the Pentium III. In the last three months 86box has made a qualitative jump which (for me at least) tipped the scales in its favour. I myself reported a few of them and they got fixed. That is a demonstrable fact - Battler is not being biased on that specific point. Which one is "better" might be a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that 86box has a lot of bug fixes that other similar projects lack to this date. Battler wrote:86Box is better because VARCem lacks most bugfixes and additions from the last several months.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |