BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 1d, 11h, 28m | CPU: 72% | MEM: 6094MB of 12287MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:57 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:19 pm

Posts
1057
Overdoze wrote:
Well, that's the sad truth about VPC. While it's compact, handy and works with many Windows builds, it's severely dated and doesn't even work on Windows 8 and later without modifications. And WVPC is a total lackluster IMO, but we really need something modern that's VPC-like or VPC-compatible.

Sad news but I have to agree. I also have some minor glitches with VPC on Windows 8:my display turns black temporarily when installing anything in VPC for no reason, and flickers like this for many times :S .... I guess I am one of the "lucky ones", because I have and older PC here that runs VPC smoothly, with XP SP3 as the host OS.

Anyway, here's the setup background in 1964(VPC):
Image

Here's it's bootscreen(unique in leaked builds):
Image

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:42 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
2019

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
Overdoze wrote:
but we really need something modern that's VPC-like or VPC-compatible.

What's wrong with PCem-X? If anything, it should run these old OS'es even better than VPC because it actually emulates a period CPU rather than making a modern CPU masquerade as a Pentium II.

Courage wrote:
Again, no VPC, so I can't get decisive evidence.

Try PCem-X.

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1626

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
I meant a hypervisor, not an emulator.

_________________
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager - my configuration manager for 86Box


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:27 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
2019

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
- Overdoze: Does it make a different for running old OS'es?

Edit: Well, apart from the fact an emulator is going to be better because it doesn't depend on the host hardware, which is why it also gives much more predictable results, while with a hypervisor, what runs and what doesn't depends a lot on the host hardware.

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:04 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1626

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
Yes, because you can't really run e.g. Longhorn builds on pcem, or can you? I'm not looking for total 100% compliance, but for something that can run most builds fine. And that's where hypervisor has an edge because it's more universal than an emulator. VPC can run many builds from DOS to 7 just fine. All it needs is support for newer hosts and some feature upgrades. VirtualBox is pretty close, but it has some rather weird issues sometimes, and VMware is just too heavy. Emulators, like I said, while great for period hardware, go too deep into specifics and while they're perfect for some builds, they're completely useless for others. In fact, I can't imagine using an emulator for anything remotely modern (think 95 and later), other than some really troublesome builds.

_________________
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager - my configuration manager for 86Box


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:38 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
2019

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
- Overdoze: PCem-X runs everything up to and including XP SP0 perfectly fine. If something doesn't work, report the problem and a fix can be attempted. Good luck achieving the same level of support from, say the VirtualBox developers, or even the VMWare ones, which aren't likely to bother. Heck, the VirtualBox developers couldn't even bother to fix the BSoD's when running VirtualBox on Windows 10 at first.

Also, VPC itself has problems with most Win9x versions because on fast enough machines, you get the Windows protection error with it and have to patch some files. Builds like Chicago 122 run for some but don't for others. Others run but with problems, eg. the floppy drive doesn't work inside 58s in VPC (but does in PCem-X from what I've been told by one person who tested it, need to try myself to reconfirm). And I remember 99 and 116 barely being able to run outside Safe Mode on VPC 2007.

Korean-language DOS versions render incorrectly in any VPC unless you patch the VPC executable (though I have provided a tutorial for that here on BA), but if you do patch it, then anythng actually using the 640x200 mode will render incorrectly.

Some OEM versions of MS-DOS 1.x and 2.x don't even boot correctly on VPC 2007 because for one its incomplete FDC emulation.

And then you have non-Microsoft OS'es, such as IBM PC DOS, IBM OS/2, DR-DOS, etc. You may not care about them but they shaped history just as much as Microsoft OS'es. And VPC might have trouble running some of them.

Sure, you can't run Longhorn etc. on PCem or PCem-X, but noone ever said that emulator is designed for that. And even VPC becomes useless when it comes to anything later than Windows 7. So you need to run at least two hypervisors anyway. So what exactly is different from running PCem (or PCem-X) alongside, say, VirtualBox or VMWare for more modern OS'es?

Let's face it, Virtual PC 2007 is dead, Microsoft broke it for good with Windows 10 (something which I don't like myself, but what can we do), and they aren't likely to make it work. VirtualBox and VMWare developers won't give a damn about making their programs better support old OS'es. So running an emulator alongside VirtualBox or VMWare is something you'll have to do.

Quote:
In fact, I can't imagine using an emulator for anything remotely modern (think 95 and later),

Windows 95 is turning 20 in August this year. I'd hardly call that modern. And as CPU's evolve, eventually I doubt even 98 SE will run on virtualizers. Eventually, Intel will make some changes to x86 big enough that not even XP will run. While by that same time, emulators will be complete enough to run all that and more.

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:02 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri May 14, 2010 1:29 pm

Posts
883

Location
Southern Germany

Favourite OS
IRIX 5.3
Overdoze wrote:
And that's where hypervisor has an edge because it's more universal than an emulator.

You got that backwards. An emulator is much more universal than a hypervisor. For starters, a hypervisor requires the same CPU model as the guest system. Also, a hypervisor running on (for example) your PC reports different hardware to the guest than, say, a hypervisor running on my PC. That's why an emulator, which always emulates the exact same (predictable) hardware is much better and more universal. Not only for emulating but also for debugging (the fact that some people have lots of guest OS crashes with VirtualBox or VPC while others don't is another proof for that)

Emulators are the future, you'll just have to accept that at some point (although I agree that they're mostly not quite there yet... but some are pretty darn close). My guess is that in 5 years we'll see the first x86 CPUs which can't even run 32-bit code natively anymore. Sure, virtualizers (or even the OS) will work around that with binary translation and stuff, but in the end, virtualizers will be a thing of the past, at least for running old OS'es.

_________________
I upload stuff to archive.org from time to time. See here for everything that doesn't fit BA


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:51 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
8041
Actually I doubt emulators are the future. Hypervisors are by far more efficient and since the market is dominated by companies with a lot of money they will want the most performance for the least amount of money. Emulators are by far more heavy on a system than a hypervisor. 99.9999% of all companies don't need to emulate an extinct platform, they want to virtualize a modern one to run their modern server software. Emulators are great for legacy stuff, and x64 has been around for quite some time now. There are not many companies today that exclusively rely on x86 code, and those that do usually setup a specific server for that, and let the rest run on modern Xeon, Opteron or ARM platforms where virtualizing is absolutely the most cost efficient and secure way of serving the company.

For you and me emulators are great, but they are difficult to develop, uses a lot of resources (tell me any full emulator that is even close to a virtualized environment, that would be impossible by nature if software that emulates 100% hardware is faster than software that perhaps emulates 10% hardware and passes the rest to the native hardware as hypervisors do) and are not really supported by any major companies. The last time any emulators were done on a large scale commercially was Connectix VirtualPC for Mac. And only to allow Mac users to access PC features and that emulator was slow as a dog. Even the best emulators today has serious flaws and issues, not to mention performance problems.

The words themselves explain it quite well, where emulators has to impersonate the whole system (BIOS, CPU, chipset, I/O, RAM management, peripherals etc), while virtualizing it only mimics the framework of the system and passes the rest to the host, such as CPU calls (which is the most heavy part of emulation), I/O and peripherals.

Tell me, what's the easiest part, to mimic a whole piece of hardware, say a Geforce videocard (emulation), or to just pass through the DirectX calls to the real hardware (virtualization)? Granted you can't pass through data to a device that doesn't exist, but that's not an issue in the corporate world where they hardly need to setup server farms to emulate a Sound Blaster 16 and a CGA videocard is it? Not even Apple hardware has the issue as you can virtualize OSX since Apple uses Intel hardware, and the ARM platform isn't designed to emulate x86 but run its own niche software.

The more advanced systems become the more difficult they will become emulated, while virtualizing it is a fairly simple matter with minimal overhead to the performance. So no, hypervisors won't go away for some time, and emulators will die far long before hypervisors will. It's still a very complicated to emulate a PowerPC system on a PC today (extremely slow and buggy), heck, even emulating an old Nintendo 64 is a buggy hit and miss today, while every modern computer today can easily hypervise any x86 OS you want, with minimal speed penalty.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:20 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
2019

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
- mrpijey: Except you hit the problem right there - virtualization relies on the host hardware. So the moment Intel makes some breaking change somewhere, Windows 95 may no longer run under a virtualizer. And it also means it is beyond the hypervisor developer's control. Hence why hypervisors are mainly used to run OS'es from the same period as the host hardware. Sure, there were some that could also run older software, such as Virtual PC 2007, but that came as a bonus rather than an intended feature, and was something was being actively phased out, eg. Virtual PC 2007 dropped official support for MS-DOS, and Windows Virtual PC 2007 dropped official support for anything earlier than Windows XP. For running anything older, an emulator becomes the requirement.

And no, emulators won't die. For exame, MAME was started over 15 years ago and it's still actively developed. And with most present-day emulators being open-source, even when the active developers go away, there will always be someone to take over. So if, say, by 2025, Tom Walker and I had both lost interest in emulation and the Microsoft releases, say, Windows 14 which breaks PCem and PCem-X, someone can take the source code and make the emulator work again. Same is also true for some hypervisors, such as VirtualBox, which happen to be open-source. But for example, Virtual PC no longer works on Windows 10, and since only Microsoft have the sources and have decided to not fix it, the product dies there. And if VMWare eventually folds and subsequently a Windows version breaks VMWare, well, the product dies there too.
So both emulators and hypervisors have an equal likelihood of dying or surviving.

Quote:
The more advanced systems become the more difficult they will become emulated, while virtualizing it is a fairly simple matter with minimal overhead to the performance. So no, hypervisors won't go away for some time, and emulators will die far long before hypervisors will. It's still a very complicated to emulate a PowerPC system on a PC today (extremely slow and buggy), heck, even emulating an old Nintendo 64 is a buggy hit and miss today, while every modern computer today can easily hypervise any x86 OS you want, with minimal speed penalty.

Except, the difference is, emulators are designed to provide us virtual versions of systems from the past, while hypervisors are designed to provide us virtual versions of systems of the present. The usage cases are completely different.

Also, emulation will evolve too. Some day, someone will come up with better emulation code. Host hardware will also evolve, so emulators that are now slow will then become faster. And so on. There's also the fact, as you rightfully point out, that hypervisors tend to be developed by corporations which can invest in full-time development of them, while most emulators tend to be hobby projects. But that's not the developers' fault now, is it? How many people have you seen willing to make even a small monetary donation to an emulator developer? Yep, that's right, none. So yeah, if we have to spend time looking for another job to make a living, you can't expect us to progress as fast as corporate-developed hypervisors progress.

But as I said, emulation will keep improving. And as I said, the usage cases of emulators and hypervisors are completely different. The former are used principally for either entertainment or software archaeology, while the latter are used principally for running modern software. And here we are talking about software archaeology, ie. running old software for the purpose of learning from it. For that, emulators win hands down as they provide a virtual version of the hardware the software we are talking about is expecting to be run on, even if said virtual version is imperfect. Hypervisors were only good for software archaeology while host hardware was still reasonably close to period hardware, but the gap is increasing, and I gave a whole list of what doesn't run on Virtual PC 2007 for example, and the list gets longer for VMWare and is the longest for VirtualBox.

Edit: And I just remembered, that even in the usage cases hypervisors are primarily designed for, emulation is gaining a foothold. Specifically, QEMU (or KVM which is based on QEMU) seems to be widely used in all sorts of settings, and it seems it works just as well as hypervisors, if not better because it's multiplatform (ie. can just as easily run on ARM, IA-64 (Itanium), etc.), and provides much more predictable behavior of guest OS'es. Of course, it performs better than PCem-X for example, but it's designed for a vastly different usage case. It is still however an emulator.

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:33 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:59 pm

Posts
1012

Favourite OS
6.0.4083
ovctvct wrote:
Overdoze wrote:
Well, that's the sad truth about VPC. While it's compact, handy and works with many Windows builds, it's severely dated and doesn't even work on Windows 8 and later without modifications. And WVPC is a total lackluster IMO, but we really need something modern that's VPC-like or VPC-compatible.

Sad news but I have to agree. I also have some minor glitches with VPC on Windows 8:my display turns black temporarily when installing anything in VPC for no reason, and flickers like this for many times :S .... I guess I am one of the "lucky ones", because I have and older PC here that runs VPC smoothly, with XP SP3 as the host OS.

Anyway, here's the setup background in 1964(VPC):
Image

Here's it's bootscreen(unique in leaked builds):
Image


These things are not exclusive to 1964, as 2000 and 2031 have the same graphics. :)

Darkstar: Did you have any luck with the 9x and NT 4 builds yet?

_________________
Linux/BSD Distribution Betas
Enabling Aero in Windows Vista 50xx+ (VMware)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:00 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
8041
Well, Intel won't make any drastic changes that would break everything. x86 support won't go away for a very long time since it's the basis of the CPU (remember, x64 is an extension to x86, not a replacement), and whatever minor changes they do can most likely be circumvented in software as well. But yeah you're right, hypervisors major drawback is that they do rely on the host software. My point however is that emulators will never replace hypervisors as they are both really meant for different environments. It's also far more expensive and difficult to make a proper emulator than hypervisor, which is why the latter will be done than the former to achieve the same result. Hypervisors will outlast any emulator in terms of performance, stability and endurance because its where the money lies and where all the major developers are behind. MAME is really a bad example because as a whole it's no near even a beta stage as its components are very experimental. And I am talking about the hardware it emulates, not the systems individually as with any emulation 100% emulation isn't always needed if it works "ok" on a given host platform. The hardware MAME emulates is also extremely simplistic compared to what an emulator would require to emulate a modern system. If anything compare it to Pear or anything else modern such as Xbox360 etc. Even Microsoft solved Xbox360 support in XBone by partially virtualizing it rather than emulating the whole thing (which the Xbone is far too slow to do, even a modern PC wouldn't do it properly today).

Better emulation code doesn't just pop up automatically. The more advanced the emulation is the more difficult it will become to make ANY code for it. As I mentioned before, even Nintendo 64 is difficult to properly emulate today and that system is antique by far. So why hasn't anyone produced better code for it? There are lots of good N64 emulators but none of them manages to emulate the hardware to such degree that it would be "production worthy"... Same goes for PS2 and such. The more advanced hardware the more difficult to emulate, and the least likely chance it will be emulated. The only chances that emulators would become far better and within the emulated hardwares lifetime is:

- The hardware becomes "open", i.e the hardware developers fully publish specs, code and support. Very unlikely that will happen. Even Intel has its hardware secrets and it's the most common hardware out there. And there's still the need of devs with exceptional hardware knowledge that are willing to undertake the task of making the emulator.

or

- The hardware devs make the emulator themselves. Won't be free, won't be open sourced and will only happen if there's a financial benefit.

Yes, emulators are better for software archeology but that's far from a priority for anyone. Preserving software today is still considered technically illegal and no company wants to freely allow you to copy their stuff, even for preservation. As for hardware? Forget it. Try to force Nintendo to give the full specs of the Gameboy. Or Sony to give the specs for PS1. Even when the systems are antique, not manufactured anymore the manufacturers won't give out the specs. And without the specs you can't even begin to attempt emulating anything unless it's a lot of time invested in trial and error, backward engineering and guesswork deluxe. The day companies start investing time and money into preserving their work then we'll also see a more open attitude towards helping out emulating the hardware needed to run it.

And please, even if QEMU is becoming better it's still decades away from becoming anything widely usable. It's good for some scenarios, but not as a general purpose emulator. QEMU is also a dog to configure and use. I would today rather use a hypervisor than QEMU for modern stuff. Remember also that current x86 emulators are easy to make because the host shares the same hardware as well. It's a lot harder to code VirtualPC on a PowerPC CPU, or make DOSBox run on ARM (DOSBox of course is partially a hypervisor by itself). If Intel or AMD decides to make drastic changes to their hardware then all current emulators will die as well requiring massive code rewrites to make it work again, and most likely also emulate a lot of more stuff than it does today. QEMU for example is a lot faster on x86 hardware because it doesn't need to fully emulate it, it can do just quick and dirty emulation of the opcodes and such. Do the same on a vastly different architecture and there's a lot more required to do the same which slows it down and makes it more complicated to emulate. That's why for example Nintendo 64 is difficult to emulate even on modern hardware. So no, QEMU doesn't run "just as easily" on ARM etc as on x86. Perhaps you care to port PC-em to ARM or even PowerPC then? Since it's so easy... I'd love to run PC-em on my Microsoft Surface tablet. Most emulators today doesn't even do proper per-cycle emulation but takes a lot of shortcuts to increase speed, and that's not acceptable if you want emulators to reach business requirements.

But my main point is that even if emulators will always exist the main driving force will always be in hypervisors, because that's where all the money and resources lies. Emulators are always done by a select few, but the time when a guy or two could whip up an emulator is decreasing as systems become more advanced. In the end you will need a whole engineering team and company around it to make an emulator. Compare it to games, once a single coder could make a game that was modern, quick and good, today you need half a country to make one with a billion dollar company behind it to support its development. So yes, you will most likely be able to run DOS in 100 years by using an emulator, but I doubt very much you will be able to run even an Xbox 360 efficiently by then. Nintendo 64 is 19 years old now and can't be fully emulated. PowerPC is far from emulated (PearPC being the closest and it's a dead turtle in the water now) and it's a lot newer. Xbox etc, forget about it.

Emulators will simply always be a hobby project for those interested while hypervisors will be backed by major corps where the money lies, as well as the hardware needed. But for vintage hardware enthusiasts emulation will always be the answer yes, but it will never be up to par with hypervisors, and it will always take a considerably longer time to develop. Maybe to the extent one day that it will be impossible.

----

Sorry for the extreme offtopic, Darkstar just managed to hit on a topic I am very fond of :). However Overdoze and Darkstar have a point and that is that emulators will always be far behind when it comes to hardware support, and the span will only increase as the hardware needed to be emulated becomes more complicated.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:40 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1626

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
Well I think we all made our point. :)

_________________
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager - my configuration manager for 86Box


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:09 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri May 14, 2010 1:29 pm

Posts
883

Location
Southern Germany

Favourite OS
IRIX 5.3
Sure, Emulators will be behind for quite some time. But we're talking about 20 year old operating systems here, so that is not really an issue. There are emulators out there that can run 90's and early 2000's systems at native speed right now. Even in JavaScript (PCJS, jsMESS).

It's not like we're talking about business use here, of course in that specific area virtualizers will continue to exist for quite some years (although I think that they'll be sooner or later replaced by containerized virtualization, but that's just a guess)

But for accurate emulation and preservation of old systems, a virtaulizer simply cannot (and will not) work. And for that use case, emulation will be the future. Maybe I should have been more clear in my initial post but again, I'm not talking about any business use case here just accurate and pixel-perfect emulation of very specific hardware.

Also, emulation is the only thing with a future if you think in larger time frames (say, 10, 20, 50, 100 years). I really doubt that we'll still be using x86 then :D By then, it doesn't matter if the emulation lags 2, 5, or 10 years behind, even in performance terms. Every smartwatch will be powerful enough to run multiple Longhorn installations via emulation then :D

It all depends on a) what you want to do within the emulated system and b) what timeframe you're looking at/talking about.

_________________
I upload stuff to archive.org from time to time. See here for everything that doesn't fit BA


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:52 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:19 pm

Posts
1057
Battler wrote:
-*snip* Hypervisors were only good for software archaeology while host hardware was still reasonably close to period hardware, but the gap is increasing, and I gave a whole list of what doesn't run on Virtual PC 2007 for example, and the list gets longer for VMWare and is the longest for VirtualBox.

Edit: And I just remembered, that even in the usage cases hypervisors are primarily designed for, emulation is gaining a foothold. Specifically, QEMU (or KVM which is based on QEMU) seems to be widely used in all sorts of settings, and it seems it works just as well as hypervisors, if not better because it's multiplatform (ie. can just as easily run on ARM, IA-64 (Itanium), etc.), and provides much more predictable behavior of guest OS'es. Of course, it performs better than PCem-X for example, but it's designed for a vastly different usage case. It is still however an emulator.

Well, pretty much agreed, but there's one point that could be not exactly right: there are some things that don't work in PCem-X, for example. You can't get aero in Vista 5270, for example, in PCem, you could barely install the build at all.While VMWare will work, but, at the same time, some older builds, like 1877, won't even install in VMware, but work in VPC or PCem-X. The point is, PCem-X won't be perfect either, to be it would need to be capable of emulating anything from a 8086 to a Core I7(plus the AMD counterparts!).Same would apply for the GPU. There are so many different variations for the GPU that they won't fit in PCem-X either, say only if we add a radeon 9800 pro and anything similar. As for VPC, it's quite incompatible with NT 6.2+, but it's good for older builds such as NT5 betas. And, another problem: I can't ever understand why so many people complain: "I can't install NT5/Win98/etc. in VirtualBox :S " while it's known that VBox has by far the longest list of incompatible OS'es with it. For example, it once took me almost 4 hours to install 98 in VBox, plus that the graphics driver is hard to install. While in VMware, it only took about 15 minutes to install, and also the gpu driver is much easier to install. Eventually, I had given up using VBox almost completely, since it's so incompatible.
Offtopic Comment
Also, VPC gives General Protection faults for no reason when running 3.1 in 386 enh. mode. PCem-X doesn't act like this.

Back on topic, 1964 is pretty weird, since it is branded as both NT5 Beta 2 and win2k, plus the server configuration window that pops up on startup is partly broken, possibly because of IE. Also, in VPC, sound doesn't work in 1964(it worked in 1965, 1877,1946 etc.).

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:39 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:59 pm

Posts
1012

Favourite OS
6.0.4083
Darkstar wrote:
I might be on to something here. I just browsed through the collection and found a few possibly unreleased Windows 2000 betas (neither in the MCB nor on the BA FTP). Build numbers (taken from NTOSKRNL.EXE) are the following
  • Server(?) Build 1835
  • Server Build 1964
  • Professional Build 1965
  • Professional Build 1969
  • Professional Build 1994
  • Professional Build 2020
  • Professional Build 2151
I can't really believe that these are all unreleased versions, but I'll uploading them to BA anyway. Anyone knows if they are legit?

I'll check Windows 95, 98 and ME next...


Have you got any luck with the 9x builds (other than 2136 and 2404) yet? Sorry for the inconvenience.

_________________
Linux/BSD Distribution Betas
Enabling Aero in Windows Vista 50xx+ (VMware)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:01 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
2019

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
ovctvct wrote:
Well, pretty much agreed, but there's one point that could be not exactly right: there are some things that don't work in PCem-X, for example. You can't get aero in Vista 5270, for example, in PCem, you could barely install the build at all.While VMWare will work, but, at the same time, some older builds, like 1877, won't even install in VMware, but work in VPC or PCem-X. The point is, PCem-X won't be perfect either, to be it would need to be capable of emulating anything from a 8086 to a Core I7(plus the AMD counterparts!).

Well, PCem-X isn't designed to run Vista anyway. The latest OS that runs should be XP SP 3, and even that's slow because what's emulated is at most a Pentium MMX 233 MHz (or a Mobile Pentium MMX 300 MHz). PCem-X is mostly for software from the 1980's, 1990's, and at best, the first few years of the 21st century. Anything later than that right now works best under virtualization. And of course, noone ever claimed PCem-X is perfect. :p

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:29 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:14 am

Posts
205

Favourite OS
6.1.7601
Battler wrote:
Well, PCem-X isn't designed to run Vista anyway. The latest OS that runs should be XP SP 3, and even that's slow because what's emulated is at most a Pentium MMX 233 MHz (or a Mobile Pentium MMX 300 MHz). PCem-X is mostly for software from the 1980's, 1990's, and at best, the first few years of the 21st century. Anything later than that right now works best under virtualization. And of course, noone ever claimed PCem-X is perfect. :p


The main problem with PCem (and PCem-X) is to find stable combination of ROMs for optimal working configurations - let's say one for 808x, another for 286, 386 etc. On the other hand sometimes it's not clear which ROM is better for emulation, i.e. FDC - Intel, NEC, ITE or SMSC (and if SMSC - which one). But anyway personally I find PCem/PCem-X optimal for old OS (from pre-Win95 era) emulation.

p.s. Btw nightly (or maybe weekly ?) builds with small changelog would be nice.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:34 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
8041
Why not make a list here on BA which ROM configs are better for what platform etc? What ROMs to use for a standard 286, 386, and also some info on what ROMs work best with some of the betas etc? I think it would be quite valuable information. Put it in the tutorials section...

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:39 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am

Posts
1212

Location
Brisbane, Queensland

Favourite OS
OS/2 Wrp 3.0
The wallpaper in mrpijey's post is the same as the setup.bmp in Windows 2000 server. This is replicated as ntos2\b1996\setup50s.bmp on my wallpaper cdrom (on the ftp site).


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:17 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri May 02, 2014 10:49 pm

Posts
456

Location
Mute City, F-Zero

Favourite OS
Windows 2000 Betas
Darkstar, wondering if there are any new Betas or anything, no one has been posting here for awhile, sorry for the inconvenience

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:40 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:05 am

Posts
153

Favourite OS
7601
Darkstar wrote:
If everything goes according to plan I'll be receiving a harddisk filled with a large bunch of his stuff next week or so. I'll see what I can find that's of interest and post/upload it

I'll keep you updated


If you're having difficulty searching through it, why not send me the drive? I've got plenty of free time on my hands.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:54 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm

Posts
1508

Location
Inside the space between . and I

Favourite OS
Nashville 4.00.83
Hey, Darkstar and Overdoze. If you have them, could you please check the following ZIPs?:
1991_03.html wrote:
DOS5_1.ZIP 632420 03-17-91 & 5
DOS5_2.ZIP 652348 03-17-91 & 6
DOS5_3.ZIP 527485 03-17-91

These zips appear to contain a pre-release version of MS-DOS 5.0. I sent him an email regarding these zips and even traded with him, but he never responded to my email. So if you have the zips, could you check them and see if it's fresh material or not? Thanks for sharing builds ;)

_________________
Image
You cannot escape Windows 10.


Last edited by DiskingRound on Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:09 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1626

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
I believe I checked those and it's a leaked build.

_________________
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager - my configuration manager for 86Box


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:26 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm

Posts
1508

Location
Inside the space between . and I

Favourite OS
Nashville 4.00.83
Overdoze wrote:
I believe I checked those and it's a leaked build.

What are the dates of the files inside the td0s? If you provide them then we can see if the build is 490 or a Release Candidate. Release Candidates sound interesting to me because there is only 1 proper one leaked and 1 other leaked but missing first 2 disks including command.com and therefore useless.

_________________
Image
You cannot escape Windows 10.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: SCiZE's warez BBS collection        Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:38 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1626

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
Hold on, I've lost all downloaded files after formatting, I'll see if the link I got it from is still online. But I'm 99% sure it was exactly the same as the leaked copy of whatever build it was (something in the 4xx range I think).

EDIT: It's not Teledisk dumped, it's a folder dump. Files are dated 13th December 1990, it's the exact same as 409c which already features proper dumps.

_________________
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager - my configuration manager for 86Box


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2020

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS