PCTask vs PCx vs Emplant e586 what is the best PeeCee emulator

[Dandy]

What is the best software PeeCee emulator???

PCTask, PCx, Emplant e586(I know this used the emplant board for timing, but the x86 code was still emulated) or other(not including bridgeboards).

...

Are any of these fast enough and accurate enough to be useful let us say with a fast CPU expansion like the vampire?

Well, my first attempts to run M$ soft on my trusty old A500 were back in 1989.
IIRC, I tried DosBox first and a bit later PcTask v2.

I stayed with PcTask for a while and then got me a Vortex AtOnce286 classic.
This gave me the best experience so far and I used it a lot with M$-Dos, Word v4/4.5/5, DBase, Fortran77 and QuickBasic. I could even run a Windows version for 286 cpus in monochrome mode.

Then I built my A4kPPC tower in 1997/98 and could not use the Vortex 286 add-on with that anymore.
So I got me a registered version of PcX and could run Win 3.1 with that. But soon the requirements to run run the latest Win versions increased and PcX was no longer sufficient, as I could not run Win9x.

When the PC world moved on to WinXP I got me an WIntelXP box, put it beside my A4kPPC and networked them, as I meanwhile had added a MediatorPCI busboard with 10/100 mBit NIC.

I used a registered version of Darren Eveland's 'RDesktop' and 'smbfs' to exchange data between them and have to say that this config allowed me to get the most out of 'both worlds'...

Meanwhile I have a Win10 core i5 quadcore box and my A4kPPC - but they are roughly 80 km apart. Currently the A4kPPC is the only computer I have here in my apartment in Cologne, while the WIntel box is at my other home.

Should I decide to get a new WIntel box for Cologne as well I will certainly go the RDesktop route again and not bother thinking about emulating a modern PC (capable to run Win10) on classic Amiga hardware...

Using emulation software may be nice to demonstrate the capability of the Amiga back in the eighties and possibly ninetees, but I'd say its pretty useless if you want to use it for serious work that requires Win10 - even on NG-Amigas...

[Dandy]

Sure, pc emulation on a classic Amiga, or even "NG" options isn't an alternative to having a physical PC if one wishes to use an even moderately version of Windows, but there's a universe of cool, useful older software out there for dos and win9x.
...
Even slower again, but 68k machines are also capable enough to run some software that doesn't exist on the Amiga.
It all depends on what sort of software a person wants to run, but in my opinion PC emulation can be useful on Amiga-oid systems.

That's why I used emu software in the past.
But today the (Amiga-)hardware to run them simply is too underpowered for my taste.

Look, my A4kPPC has an 68060 @ 50mHz - that's the max you can get from any physical classic Amiga on the 68k-side without overclocking.

This is simply too slow to run anything beyond Win 3.1 in emulation - at least, if you want to do serious work with it.

Despite having a dedicated Win9x box (I like seeing how useful older systems can be in the modern world) I actually use Dosbox + RunInDosbox for some productivity software on my AROS box. According to Sandra SiSoft plus a few other tests I get roughly 550mhz interger and 750mhz fpu p3 type speeds, which is more than enough for things like Paintshop Pro, 3d Studio Max, console ROM hacking tools, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, etc, etc.

Which cpu does work in your AROS box and at which clock speed?

The ppc options are more along the lines of a mid to higher spec 486, but even that's enough for some productivity stuff and early 90's games.

Which PPCs are you referring to?
On my CSPPC there is a PPC604e @ 200mHz.

Aside from the fact that no emulation software exists for WarpOS, what speed could I expect from an Win10 environment emulated on an PPC604e @ 200mHz?
There are only 68k versions of PcTask and PcX - no versions for WarpOS or even NG Amiga OS 4.x, AFAIK.

No idea if Bochs runs on PPC604e - I could not find a list of supported cpus.
Same for QEMU...

[Dandy]

@Dandy

The AROS box is using an i7-870 clocked at 3.8ghz. I used to use an i5-760@4ghz, but ended up with the spare i7 system so figured why not. The performance for the 2 is currently nigh on identical currently, but the i7 will be a bit more future proof for when I changed to 64bit AROS (multi processor support in the future).

Ah - I see.

Regardless, they're both pretty old machines, but I'm more than happy with them for AROS.

Core i5 and core i7 are 'pretty old'?
How should I call my A4kPPC then (mobo of 1993, CSPPC of 1997)?
 :laughing:  :rofl:  :biglaugh:

As for the ppc options, sorry, I actually meant the "NG" machines.

Ah - o.k.!

Probably the best option for os3.x is the WOS version of Dosbox I did some years back. Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the binary, but I did send it to a few people so hopefully its made its way onto the net (or at least some peoples hard drives) somewhere.

I never heard of a WOS version of any PC-emulator up to now!
Can't one of them upload it to Aminet?
You just need to remember the name of one of those guys and ask him to upload it or to provide you a copy...

Performance wise I'd guess something along the lines of a 50mhz 386 on a 200mhz 604e.

That's not as swift as an arrow, but its o.k. for this old hw.
Did your version of Dosbox emulate an 286 or an 386 cpu?

As in case of an 286 cpu all I can use is at best Win95 (first Edition - "95a").
Win95b and Win95c already require 386 cpu.
Win98 requires 486 cpu.
Win98 se requires at least 486DX cpu @66mHz
and
WinXP requires at least a Pentium@233mHz with 64mB RAM (better a Pentium@300+mHz with 128+mB RAM

Are there any PC-emulators for OS 4.x?

Besides Bochs though there's nothing on any Amiga-noid system that could run anything beyond Win9x anyway. Speed Aside bochs is the only option that let's you assign enough RAM to even glacially run WinXP and above on classic systems (although bochs is 68k only for os3.9).

That sounds as if there actually IS an OS 4.x version of Bochs.
I think I will give it a try, once I successfully finished my AOS 4.1 U1 setup.

Ram might be an issue for a Win10 install.
My Miggy only has the 128mB 64-Bit Ram on the CSPPC, plus the 2 x 256mB Z-III mem, plus 2mB CHIP. That's just 642mB altogether...

That might even be not sufficient for WinXP...

For my old Miggy there seems to be no better way than to network it with a modern core i5 or core i7 quadcore WIntel box...

[Dandy]

...  
There is for one "major" problem.   The video is very slowwwwwwww.  It uses the amiga's hardware to emulate the video.  
...
I found the video updates slowly.  

Yeah - that's the disadvantage of emulators...

I noticed you had to use monochrome mode.....  

With the 'Windows for 286' version I had back then, yes (Hercules monochrome mode).
With M$-Dos (4/5/6.2) I could use a few color modes (CGA/EGA, IIRC).

I had 3.11 (not with workgroups ie needs a 386) running with monochrome Olivetti video.  

Wasn't Win 3.1 the Version withOUT Workgroups and Win 3.11 the one WITH Workgroups?
I seem to remember something along these lines, but I could also be wrong - its sooooo long ago...

Further GVP PC 286 does not work with the VXL 030, (I only had a GVP A500 HD8+ but obviously works with the GVP A530).  

Well, my A500 back then had just 68010 CPU, but 1.8mB RAM in the trapdoor, 2mB MiniMegi Chipram, full ECS, 8mB SupraRAM and a 'selfmade' HD solution consisting of the so called 'ct-Interface (schematics from the 'ct computer magazine - providing one ISA slot for an OMTI 6510 RLL-controller with 2 65mB HDs connected).

Later I replaced the 68010 CPU and the 'selfmade' HD solution with a Viper520@28mHz+320mB IDE HD.
Then I moved on to my A4kPPC...

I wonder if work with the vampire. The vampire should surely improve the video emulation speed assuming it is compatible.

If compatible, it should offer enough power to speed it up significantly.

[Dandy]

@thread

I noticed over at eab that Jim Drew mentioned a potential update to his fusion and pcx emulators.
Seemed relevant so thought I'd mention it.
 

Thx for the info!

Did he also mention which Amiga-cpus/AOS-versions the updated versions will support?

I mean - back then a WOS Version of PcX was promised.
Precondition for the development being the ownership of FusionPPC.
I bought Fusion PPC back then, but PcX PPC was never ever released.
:angry:
Should I now - one and a half decades later - finally be able to get my WOS PCX Version?
:rolleyes:

[Dandy]

Today, just as back in the day, PCx and FUSION are hands down faster than PCTask and Shapeshifter...

https://youtu.be/Ga1_wfsl4rg

The beta version of PCx with Vampire optimizations that I released is the fastest version yet!

That's great!
I'm just wondering how usable it is today.
Roughly 15 years ago I ran PCx on an 060@50mHz and used M$-Dos and Win3.1 with it.
IIRC, it was not possible to run later versions of Windows, although the old HAAGE & PARTNER Amiga page says it would support the Pentium instruction set.
With a Pentium cpu @233mHz and 64mB RAM (better a Pentium@300+mHz with 128+mB RAM) it should be possible to run Win XP.
But today we have Win10 and I doubt I could use that seriously with PCx - even on a Vampire, not to speak of an 68060@50mHz...

So I'm afraid PCx is only a practical utility if one wants to run old Win Version with the associated (old) Software.

I'm afraid that if it is required to run modern productivity software with a modern Win version, the only option is to use a modern WIntel box and to network it with the (old) Amiga (e.g. with RDesktop/smbfs)...

I have no idea what "WOS" is.  

WarpOS (for BlizzardPPC and CyberstormPPC accelerator boards).

Back in the days a PCx version optimised for the BlizzardPPC and CyberstormPPC accelerator boards was promised, but was never released.

iFUSION along with all of my PPC stuff was sold, so I never made a PPC version of PCx. I have no desire to do anything PPC based ever again.  FPGA is the way to go.  

The PPC versions had been promised by 'Microcode Solutions'. iFusion PPC was released, but unfortunately PCx PPC was never published.

[Dandy]

Dude I don't know if you're kidding or not, I think you need to step back from the idea of a usable XP environment on a 233mhz CPU and 64mb RAM.

Well, that's not my idea - thats what's listed at Wikipedia as 'minimum System requirements' for WinXP...

The lowest spec machine I would even attempt to run XP (without adding the service packs, mind you) on would be in the 500mhz range with 256mb RAM.  

I know - my own WinXP machine back then was 1.8mHz and had 512mB RAM. Later this turned out to be insufficient (PC became incredibly slow) and so I expanded the RAM to the max wich was 1gB for my mobo. Unfortunately the machine got 'hickups' from that and so I removed 256mB and ended up with a stable system with 768mB RAM.

And even then, only to say "Okay, it boots up".  Once you start adding service packs to fix the various problems it has (like, security issues), that overhead goes way, way up.  You might run XP on those specs, but you won't run any programs in XP.

Yes.
That's why I later put the real WIntel box besides my Miggy and networked both. For transferring files between them I used RDesktop and smbfs. This way I could save the space for a second monitor, keyboard and mouse on my desk...

[Dandy]

Today, its just for nostalgia.  It's not fast enough (even on a Vampire) for any serious work.  It runs Windows 3.1 just fine, and probably could run Windows 95... but that's it.  Later versions of Windows expected newer architecture and won't run.

That's what I assumed.
I'm just surprised that you say "It runs Windows 3.1 just fine, and probably could run Windows 95... but that's it.", as at the old HAAGE & PARTNER Amiga page it is stated that PCx supports the Pentium instruction set. It was promoted there as "The Pentium Emulator For The Amiga".

And a 'Pentium CPU' is listed as 'Minimum System requirements' for WinXP, while for Win98se it still was 'just' an "Intel 80486DX2 66 MHz or a compatible CPU with a math coprocessor (Pentium processor recommended)" according to Wikipedia.

So I thought PCx would - at least theoretically - be capable to run WinXP (at an extremely slow speed, of course). Just the max amount of RAM in my Miggy seemed to be 'showstopper'. WinXP needed at least 256mB RAM, while my system just had the 128 mB on the CSPPC plus 2mB CHIP mem...

That's not true.  I don't make promises about software.  I was stating what was planned.  We did work on a PPC version of PCx briefly, and a version of PCx was released for the Mac and PowerMac.  When iFUSION was sold to Blittersoft (along with source code, etc.) I completely abandoned PPC.  

Well Jim, I don't know what was going on 'behind the scenes' back then.
I can only tell that this was what the customers here in Germany got as information for PCx on the old HAAGE & PARTNER Amiga page:

16 Juni 99: Fusion PPC Vorbestellung
 Microcode Solutions erwartet bis zum 1. Juli 500 Vorbestellungen um die Produkte Fusion und PCx für den PowerPC fertigzustellen. Wir finden dieses Vorgehen aus verschiedenen Gründen bedenklich, doch da die erste Stufe noch keiner Vorauszahlung bedarf, kann man so sein Interesse an dem Produkt nochmals bekunden. Link

(June 16th, 1999: Pre-ordering Fusion PPC
Microcode Solutions requires 500 pre-orders by July 1st to complete the products "Fusion" and "PCx" for the PowerPC. We find this course of action questionable for several reasons, but as no pre-payment is required in this first phase, this is a way to express interest in the product once more. link)

I think it's the worst CPU ever made.  IBM conned Apple into using it originally, and they finally got smart and switched to something much faster.  I was stunned when I heard that the next generation Amiga was going to be PPC based.  What a mistake that was.  That limited the sheer number of people who could have been exposed to the great Amiga OS.  

I'm no hardware expert, but I recall that back then the PPC was 'hyped'.
After the end of 68k cpu development it was clear that a new, more powerful cpu is required and most people thought it to be a good idea to go the PPC route.

Had the next generation Amiga gone x86 based, it would be at least (if not more so) popular as Linux is today.

It could very well have been that going the x86 route would have been a greater success for the Amiga platform than going PPC.

But would this have saved Commodore and the Amiga?
I'm not sure.

The Pentium 1 was introduced on March 22, 1993 and Commodore declared bankruptcy on April 29, 1994 and ceased to exist. So it seems it already was too late for a change...