VARCEM VS 86Box
Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:30 pm
What are the differences, which is better, and why?
The community for beta and abandonware collectors.
That's a quite hypocritical statement.Darkstar wrote:Your opinion might be a bit biased, Battler
So does 86Box - anything that's not working is maybe not removed, but in the Dev branch, but it's still not in the main branch at all. And actually, I can easily show you stuff that was partially implemented in 86Box, that VARCem's main developer went and ported to VARCem anyway, before I even finished it.Darkstar wrote:VARCem development is slow atm, but it focuses on only having things that are proven to work, and on making development easier. For example it has also lots of non-working and badly-implemented stuff removed.
And a lot of the accuracy originates in 86Box. See the 808x emulation for example, or the floppy emulation.VARcem emulates less machines and hardware than PCem, but what it emulates is confirmed to be as accurate to real hardware as possible.
86Box is just as good as well, and its UI is essentially identical to VARCem's, except it's less rough. For example, there's some things such as the ISA memory carts for which VARCem requires you to save the settings, hard reset the emulator, then go to Settings again and configure, while 86Box allows you to configure them right away.So if you're a new user that just wants to emulate a certain older system without fiddling with the config until you have it working, use VARCem.
Please show me one example of feature overload in 86Box, and I mean in in the main branch. I'm fully open to the possibility there is a case.If you want feature overload and tons of devices, at the cost of it probably not working correctly, use 86box.
A lot of older applications don't require any such communication. Not to mention, parallel I/O is supported by both 86Box and VARCem, and in fact, they both emulate a generic text printer and an Epson ESC/P compatible printer. However, I agree that these emulators are quite lacking in these areas. It would be interesting to see the LPT/COM ports accessible either via pass through to a real device, or via pipes or similar to applications running on the host.Hyoenmadan86 wrote:To be fair with all the projects... 86Box, VARCem and PCEm btw are useless a bit useless for anything serious that isn't gaming since all them lack both parallel and serial i/o. A lot of older applications (that aren't games again) require these to print or do any communication, or even debug. Right now only DosBox for DOS apps (using a hacked/patched distro), and Bochs for old OSs which don't run in VirtualBox are the only alternatives for these scenarios.
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. That is a demonstrable fact - Battler is not being biased on that specific point. I myself reported a few of them and they got fixed.Battler wrote:86Box is better because VARCem lacks most bugfixes and additions from the last several months.
Is good to know it. No serial i/o, no real fun.Battler wrote:Serial passthrough is planned eventually, I think I still have waltje's old code for it, I just didn't bother with it because the serial port emulation needed fixing first. Now that the serial port emulation is correct, we could even take the dust off that old code and hook it up.
I guess you're right. One could think maybe a new development team might try a diifferent approach to PC emulation and start a fresh codebase from scratch, but this does not seem to be the case. The NES emulation scene has always been extremely fragmented - not so the PC scene. I wonder why; it cannot be for lack of interest. But this is a digression on the original topic.Battler wrote:How much is it competition, though, when we all for the most part port each other's code to our respective emulators?