Welcome to Emulationworld

Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode


SubjectNew C64 Emulator Comparsion new Reply to this message
Posted by[aep]chaos
Posted on10/04/04 11:44 PM



I wrote an C64 Emu Comparsion a week ago, where i tested several Emulators: CCS64, Hoxs64, Frodo and VICE. Xtale and retroK from AEP helped me translating it into english. Its now available at AEP. Comments are always welcome!




SubjectRe: New C64 Emulator Comparsion new Reply to this message
Posted byredshift
Posted on10/05/04 00:16 AM



> I wrote an C64 Emu Comparsion a week ago, where i tested several Emulators:
> CCS64, Hoxs64, Frodo and VICE. Xtale and retroK from AEP helped me translating
> it into english. Its now available at AEP. Comments are always welcome!

Nice. I like VICE too. :)
By the way where can we see the original German article?







SubjectRe: New C64 Emulator Comparsion new Reply to this message
Posted byXTale
Posted on10/05/04 02:56 AM



http://aep.emubase.de/Sections-req-viewarticle-artid-90.html
> > I wrote an C64 Emu Comparsion a week ago, where i tested several Emulators:
> > CCS64, Hoxs64, Frodo and VICE. Xtale and retroK from AEP helped me translating
> > it into english. Its now available at AEP. Comments are always welcome!
>
> Nice. I like VICE too. :)
> By the way where can we see the original German article?
>





SubjectNo offense, but new Reply to this message
Posted bythumperward
Posted on10/05/04 10:51 AM



I really don't know how hoxs64 came off so badly. For what I want to do (recreate my childhood on a laptop with a hugely different keyboard layout to the C64) it's totally perfect. Emulating mice and hard disks might be cool, but do you actually use them for anything?

Same with turbo loading and such. If you want a debugger then hoxs64 isn't what you're looking for, but it's lacking nothing for people who just want to bang about in BASIC or play Dizzy again. (and joystick ports were always completely random on the real thing anyway).

- Chris





SubjectNeeds to cover more aspects new Reply to this message
Posted bygzsfrk
Posted on10/05/04 01:47 PM




The comparison really didn't cover some aspects that I think are valid points of comparison for C64 emulation:

- Sound: The quality and authenticity of the sound produced by the various emulators varies widely, with CCS64 probably reproducing the most authentic SID chip emulation.

- Cartridge support: Some emulators support cartridges (CCS64, VICE/WinVICE) such as EPYX fastload, Super Snapshot, etc.; some do not.

- GEOS functionality: GEOS doesn't work correctly on all the C64 emulators, and this would be considered a significant problem for any C64 "power user" (yes, I use that term with tongue planted firmly in cheek :). Likewise, the ability of WinVICE to provide Internet connectivity to the C64 build of the Contiki OS is a notable advantage as well.

- Ethernet support: WinVICE is the only emulator I know of at this time that supports emulated C64 network adapter cartridges (TFE & RRNet), but this is something that should be looked at, even if it's only applicable (to my knowledge) for running the Contiki OS.

- Speed: The article mentioned in passing that Hoxs was the slowest of the emulators, but a somewhat objective speed comparison would have been nice to include. (I recall using the old C64S emulator running at full speed on my old 486DX2/66 back in the day.)

Just some points I thought were worth considering. Also, as far as compatibility, not all emulators are equal; several compatibility issues do exist, although I can't recall the specific programs or games off the top of my head. Here's a link, though, that contains some C64 disk images with tools that can be used to test various emulators' compatibility to a real C64 (search for "compatibility" on this page):

http://www.censor.net/newdesign/tools/



SubjectRe: Needs to cover more aspects Reply to this message
Posted byXTale
Posted on10/05/04 04:49 PM



Good points I've to admin.
I didn't do the test, but I think its easy to write down all these aspects, but it's a pain to really test them all.
You have to find the "right" games to test compability.

This test is not _THE_ ultimate C64 emulator test, but I think its a good start for newcomers to C64 emulation.

>
> The comparison really didn't cover some aspects that I think are valid points of
> comparison for C64 emulation:
>
> - Sound: The quality and authenticity of the sound produced by the various
> emulators varies widely, with CCS64 probably reproducing the most authentic SID
> chip emulation.
>
> - Cartridge support: Some emulators support cartridges (CCS64, VICE/WinVICE)
> such as EPYX fastload, Super Snapshot, etc.; some do not.
>
> - GEOS functionality: GEOS doesn't work correctly on all the C64 emulators, and
> this would be considered a significant problem for any C64 "power user" (yes, I
> use that term with tongue planted firmly in cheek :). Likewise, the ability of
> WinVICE to provide Internet connectivity to the C64 build of the Contiki OS is a
> notable advantage as well.
>
> - Ethernet support: WinVICE is the only emulator I know of at this time that
> supports emulated C64 network adapter cartridges (TFE & RRNet), but this is
> something that should be looked at, even if it's only applicable (to my
> knowledge) for running the Contiki OS.
>
> - Speed: The article mentioned in passing that Hoxs was the slowest of the
> emulators, but a somewhat objective speed comparison would have been nice to
> include. (I recall using the old C64S emulator running at full speed on my old
> 486DX2/66 back in the day.)
>
> Just some points I thought were worth considering. Also, as far as
> compatibility, not all emulators are equal; several compatibility issues do
> exist, although I can't recall the specific programs or games off the top of my
> head. Here's a link, though, that contains some C64 disk images with tools that
> can be used to test various emulators' compatibility to a real C64 (search for
> "compatibility" on this page):
>
> http://www.censor.net/newdesign/tools/
>





SubjectRe: Needs to cover more aspects new Reply to this message
Posted bywildcat
Posted on10/05/04 09:29 PM



> - GEOS functionality: GEOS doesn't work correctly on all the C64 emulators, and
> this would be considered a significant problem for any C64 "power user" (yes, I
> use that term with tongue planted firmly in cheek :).

Hell, as I recall, GEOS didn't work correctly on all C64 computers. Something about unimplemented opcodes suddenly not doing what they said they didn't do on the 8502 (yes, I know) and later revs of the 6510. GEOS 2.0 supposedly fixed it.




SubjectRe: No offense, but new Reply to this message
Posted bynintendont
Posted on10/06/04 02:01 AM



> I really don't know how hoxs64 came off so badly. For what I want to do
> (recreate my childhood on a laptop with a hugely different keyboard layout to
> the C64) it's totally perfect. Emulating mice and hard disks might be cool, but
> do you actually use them for anything?
>
> Same with turbo loading and such. If you want a debugger then hoxs64 isn't what
> you're looking for, but it's lacking nothing for people who just want to bang
> about in BASIC or play Dizzy again. (and joystick ports were always completely
> random on the real thing anyway).
>
> - Chris
>


I rarely ever use the turbo loading feature in any of the C64 emulators I have (or in WinUAE..the Amiga emu..for that matter) and the reason being is that some programs/games will not load correctly unless true drive emulation is enforced. Take G.I Joe for the c64 for example...




Previous ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode