> 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 i

> 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?