6 ms·

There is a world of difference between your inability to see the appeal/utility of a thing and that thing being actually worthless, as you are so stridently ins

There is a world of difference between your inability to see the appeal/utility of a thing and that thing being actually worthless, as you are so stridently insisting here. For a mental exercise, just to prove it to yourself, why don't _you_ try examining all the reasons such accurate emulation might be desirable? The other poster already provided a reasonable motivation - preservation. But since this discussion started, you've only really come out swinging with disparagement. One has to wonder why you are putting so much energy into suppressing and trashing someone's hobby. Frankly it looks to me like you have some kind of preconceived and inflexible bias, or that you maybe trying to discover the appeal to this effort in a pointlessly adversarial way. Not a great look. If you really want people to think you have a smart, winning argument maybe try to show some understanding of both sides of the coin before floating your attempt at a clever and withering denouncement.

nitrogen 5y ago
To add an example to your arguments, the C64 and PC/XT demo scenes show what can be done with cycle accurate retrocomputing. Especially 8088mph: https://youtu.be/yHXx3orN35Y https://youtu.be/yHXx3orN35Y
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  Do you know a lot of demo scene binaries that only work with accurate instruction timings of a Pentium 3 ?
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    What's your fixation here? You're wasting a lot of people's time.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
      Feel free to downvote.
anthk 5y ago
PC games stopped being CPU cycle-bound long ago in mid-late 90's. The most issues you would have it's for high 486-Pentium I-II era games (specially the multimedia ones) which lots of them were speed bound, but for sure these games will be interpreted by ScummVM one day or another (Macromedia Director engine).
AshamedCaptain 5y ago
> There is a world of difference between your inability to see the appeal/utility of a thing and that thing being actually worthless, as you are so stridently insisting here. I am asking a question, and answering "preservation" (which is not really the answer the poster made, since his goal is new development) without giving an actual concrete example of what behavior needs such accurate preservation kind of defeats the purpose of asking the question in the first place. If the answer is "for the sake of it" that is also fine. But I'm unaware of anything post-P3 that would really require cycle-level emulation, so I ask. Most PC emulators "draw the line" around that era for a reason, even the ones who wouldn't necessarily have performance problems with newer machines (like DosBox). > But since this discussion started, you've only really come out swinging with disparagement. One has to wonder why you are putting so much energy into suppressing and trashing someone's hobby. What do you think? Because not only I have the same hobby, my work is also related to this. I am most definitely not interested in thrashing it. It is also the _main thesis_ of this entire article, so why shouldn't we discuss it?

nitrogen 5y ago

To add an example to your arguments, the C64 and PC/XT demo scenes show what can be done with cycle accurate retrocomputing. Especially 8088mph: https://youtu.be/yHXx3orN35Y https://youtu.be/yHXx3orN35Y

AshamedCaptain 5y ago
Do you know a lot of demo scene binaries that only work with accurate instruction timings of a Pentium 3 ?
- nitrogen 5y ago
  What's your fixation here? You're wasting a lot of people's time.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
    Feel free to downvote.

anthk 5y ago

PC games stopped being CPU cycle-bound long ago in mid-late 90's. The most issues you would have it's for high 486-Pentium I-II era games (specially the multimedia ones) which lots of them were speed bound, but for sure these games will be interpreted by ScummVM one day or another (Macromedia Director engine).

AshamedCaptain 5y ago

> There is a world of difference between your inability to see the appeal/utility of a thing and that thing being actually worthless, as you are so stridently insisting here. I am asking a question, and answering "preservation" (which is not really the answer the poster made, since his goal is new development) without giving an actual concrete example of what behavior needs such accurate preservation kind of defeats the purpose of asking the question in the first place. If the answer is "for the sake of it" that is also fine. But I'm unaware of anything post-P3 that would really require cycle-level emulation, so I ask. Most PC emulators "draw the line" around that era for a reason, even the ones who wouldn't necessarily have performance problems with newer machines (like DosBox). > But since this discussion started, you've only really come out swinging with disparagement. One has to wonder why you are putting so much energy into suppressing and trashing someone's hobby. What do you think? Because not only I have the same hobby, my work is also related to this. I am most definitely not interested in thrashing it. It is also the _main thesis_ of this entire article, so why shouldn't we discuss it?