System Requirements
- Thread starter fORTE9k
- Start date
RJARRRPCGP
The Rocking PC Wiz
But, another problem *will* exist:
DOS *cannot* use UDMA, thus hard disk drive data transfers *will* be limited to 16 MB/s.
Thus, it is recommended to write games for Windows or Linux.
DOS *cannot* use UDMA, thus hard disk drive data transfers *will* be limited to 16 MB/s.
Thus, it is recommended to write games for Windows or Linux.
This is a hoax. Here is why.
If a program author develops software in entirely ANSI C99 or C++98 compliant code then it will easily be ported between operating systems - even between 32-bit Microsoft Windows and the various versions of DOS.
However, most programs developed for 32-bit Microsoft Windows require the use of the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFCs) and Component Object Model + (COM+). These use non-standard libraries and routines developed by Microsoft. Component Object Model (COM) is a standard developed by <a href="http://www.opengroup.org">The Open Group</a> [opengroup.org]. A standard library for C++ should be added into the 2003 version of the specification due out shortly.
I see a couple of things, however, that make this emulator a complete hoax.
The PlayStation 2 uses 128-bit memory addressing. Without getting too technical, this will require the use of "banking" to translate those 128-bit addresses into 32-bit addresses (which is what the current crop of IA-32 and PowerPC processors use). MS-DOS adds an extra layer of complexity to this by being a 16-bit operating system. It is already incapable of using 32-bit addressing without special software.
Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but there is no MS-DOS related code samples listed <a href="http://www.opengl.org/developers/code/samplecode.html">here</a> [opengl.org]. This is their sample code page.
I'm sure if I actually cared I could think of some more, but overall I'd have to say this poster is some child who wants attention. Let's all ignore him.
If a program author develops software in entirely ANSI C99 or C++98 compliant code then it will easily be ported between operating systems - even between 32-bit Microsoft Windows and the various versions of DOS.
However, most programs developed for 32-bit Microsoft Windows require the use of the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFCs) and Component Object Model + (COM+). These use non-standard libraries and routines developed by Microsoft. Component Object Model (COM) is a standard developed by <a href="http://www.opengroup.org">The Open Group</a> [opengroup.org]. A standard library for C++ should be added into the 2003 version of the specification due out shortly.
I see a couple of things, however, that make this emulator a complete hoax.
The PlayStation 2 uses 128-bit memory addressing. Without getting too technical, this will require the use of "banking" to translate those 128-bit addresses into 32-bit addresses (which is what the current crop of IA-32 and PowerPC processors use). MS-DOS adds an extra layer of complexity to this by being a 16-bit operating system. It is already incapable of using 32-bit addressing without special software.
Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but there is no MS-DOS related code samples listed <a href="http://www.opengl.org/developers/code/samplecode.html">here</a> [opengl.org]. This is their sample code page.
I'm sure if I actually cared I could think of some more, but overall I'd have to say this poster is some child who wants attention. Let's all ignore him.
WhtDrgnGG42
New member
PS2 emulators
How about creating an OS that is almost like that of the PS2, there are about fie or six people that i know of that already have the PS2 OS code finished, you just create a second Non-DS partition on your HDD, then in your startup file, you include the dual boot=1 line, then select the Non-DOS partition, the ones that i have seen, and debated on which one to use, were pretty much the same as the PS2, but they were GUI instead of using the controller to select things. Also, I ment to put that the emulator will be "Freeware", not "Shareware".
http://EMUR2.u4l.com
this site will be up in about two or three days, and that is his site.
RJARRRPCGP said:
How about creating an OS that is almost like that of the PS2, there are about fie or six people that i know of that already have the PS2 OS code finished, you just create a second Non-DS partition on your HDD, then in your startup file, you include the dual boot=1 line, then select the Non-DOS partition, the ones that i have seen, and debated on which one to use, were pretty much the same as the PS2, but they were GUI instead of using the controller to select things. Also, I ment to put that the emulator will be "Freeware", not "Shareware".
http://EMUR2.u4l.com
this site will be up in about two or three days, and that is his site.
Last edited:
Flash
Technomage
Lillymon said:
Some comments here.
Although it's possible to write PS2 emulator for DOS and emulation of CPU and some other parts using optimized assembly can be faster than win32 because low system resources usage by OS. But...
1) We need to emulate complex GFX hardware, to do this in software
is extremely slow.
2) Only well-working 3D acceleration API is glide2x, so we can't even use all features of Voodoo2 - it will be only 12Mb fast voodoo1.
3)Even modern video cards can't do everything we need - for
example framebuffer reading - extremely slow because PC video hardware not designed for this and AGP is a bit one way bus.
5) Disk access - DMA under DOS only possible on some very old
Intel chipsets (430VX,TX etc)
6) Direct hardware usage or DOS OpenGL port... More difficult than emulator itself. And impossible w/o docs. Only well documented hardware
is 3Dfx cards ( docs, BIOS and drivers sources leaked)
So we can do not very fast emulator for V4-V5 only after a few years of insanely hard work.
So, it's definitely a hoax.
BTW I know computer capable to run PCSX2 with more than 200fps ( through PC emulator), even 150 emulator tasks at same time. Only one thing - $6900000, 450kW, 200 tons ... some sort of cheap PDA
Let's close this thread,eh ?
Paul_tulkas
New member
Dear WhtDrgnGG42
Dear WhtDrgnGG42,
i recently just read you info on making a ps2 emu
i am not gonna request but merely ask if there is a possibilty of windows version of your emu... instead of Dos
cause alot of people now of days depend on newer version of windows like xp pro... millnium me so on so on..
although running dos is genius.. but my xp doesn't allow me to. i meet req with out a prob .
i would love to beta test it.
Paul m ford is the name
video is his game
dec 21, 1981
blaine WA, 98230
currently living and breathing video games
Wild Arms 2
ADDed info..
i have experance with asherons Call beta release.... before entire open server but i did get to beta test
Dear WhtDrgnGG42,
i recently just read you info on making a ps2 emu
i am not gonna request but merely ask if there is a possibilty of windows version of your emu... instead of Dos
cause alot of people now of days depend on newer version of windows like xp pro... millnium me so on so on..
although running dos is genius.. but my xp doesn't allow me to. i meet req with out a prob .
i would love to beta test it.
Paul m ford is the name
video is his game
dec 21, 1981
blaine WA, 98230
currently living and breathing video games
Wild Arms 2
ADDed info..
i have experance with asherons Call beta release.... before entire open server but i did get to beta test
Trotterwatch
New member
I guess you didn't read the thread where this emu was thoroughly debunked.
pandamoan
Banned
Trotterwatch said:
ok, i'm going to come out with it:
my ps/2 emulator is totally ready for beta testing. it only runs on casio calculator watches, and the resolution is low as a result, but it makes 99% of commercial roms "playable".
Now it would help alot if i had a real casio calculator watch for testing, so i'm going to put up a paypal button, if anyone is interested in helping.
thanks!
jamie
pandamoan
Banned
Lillymon said:
of course. my next project will be a sparc emulated on a tamogochi. i'm programming the whole thing in object oriented java ++.
after that i'm going to emulate the xbox2 on an abacus. it would help greatly if someone would donate an xbox2 for this purpose. Billy G are you listening? go ahead and mail me one and paypal me enough money to quit real life, so i can focus on xxxboxxx2ownage full time.
frankly, i just rock at an incredible level.
jamie
Don't knock it. I personally believe that games would be much better if they still ran under DOS.
Hold your horses people... I'm not suggesting that we all go back to the DOS 6.2 CLI, just a seperate OS specifically for games. If windoze was programmed to run on a PC, why should an alternate "GameOS" be less efficient in it's use of hardware just because it deosn't use windoze API calls? What you are implying is that Windoze is the *only* operating system that can ever be run on a PC and everything that runs on a PC has to go through it.
Windoze is very resource hungry and insists on background tasking which slows everything else down. Many of the latest games would run on processors half the speed and require far less memory if software houses created their own games GUI and did away with the MS bug-ridden non-operating system the labelled Windows, (commonly called MS NOS by most people I know). Typically, many of the "back to desktop" crashes experienced by games players are due to NOS suddenly taking exeption to something the game has done successfully several times before.
I would eventually like to see self booting cd's with their own mini-OS specifically for games, or a "GameOS" CD that players use to start their PC before playing games. If it was easy for the novice to elect to boot from CD instead of HD, my guess is a "GameOS" would have been written by now. The biggest problem with Windows is that it hates sharing a hard disk with other OS's so dual booting from a hard disk is difficult at best.
I think anyone who has enough experience to create an emulator to fool a PC into thinking it's a console should give a "GameOS" some careful consideration, If it could dual boot, it would be supported by many of the leading hardware manufacturers and drivers would be abundant. That would negate the requirement to use Vesa and standard Soundblaster drivers that are available to DOS, giving a broader range of hardware compatibility. Software houses currently stuck with the pitiful handouts that MicroShaft offers in the way of DX support would flock to buy it if it was supported well. If royalties were payable for every game it was shipped with, the author would be on a par with Gates himself.
Food for thought...
Unfortunately, it's way above my capabilities or it would have been reality around the time of the release of Windoze 98, when many of the games were being ported to the Windoze platform and dying a horrible bug ridden death.
Hold your horses people... I'm not suggesting that we all go back to the DOS 6.2 CLI, just a seperate OS specifically for games. If windoze was programmed to run on a PC, why should an alternate "GameOS" be less efficient in it's use of hardware just because it deosn't use windoze API calls? What you are implying is that Windoze is the *only* operating system that can ever be run on a PC and everything that runs on a PC has to go through it.
Windoze is very resource hungry and insists on background tasking which slows everything else down. Many of the latest games would run on processors half the speed and require far less memory if software houses created their own games GUI and did away with the MS bug-ridden non-operating system the labelled Windows, (commonly called MS NOS by most people I know). Typically, many of the "back to desktop" crashes experienced by games players are due to NOS suddenly taking exeption to something the game has done successfully several times before.
I would eventually like to see self booting cd's with their own mini-OS specifically for games, or a "GameOS" CD that players use to start their PC before playing games. If it was easy for the novice to elect to boot from CD instead of HD, my guess is a "GameOS" would have been written by now. The biggest problem with Windows is that it hates sharing a hard disk with other OS's so dual booting from a hard disk is difficult at best.
I think anyone who has enough experience to create an emulator to fool a PC into thinking it's a console should give a "GameOS" some careful consideration, If it could dual boot, it would be supported by many of the leading hardware manufacturers and drivers would be abundant. That would negate the requirement to use Vesa and standard Soundblaster drivers that are available to DOS, giving a broader range of hardware compatibility. Software houses currently stuck with the pitiful handouts that MicroShaft offers in the way of DX support would flock to buy it if it was supported well. If royalties were payable for every game it was shipped with, the author would be on a par with Gates himself.
Food for thought...
Unfortunately, it's way above my capabilities or it would have been reality around the time of the release of Windoze 98, when many of the games were being ported to the Windoze platform and dying a horrible bug ridden death.
Last edited:
Making a PS2 emu is an enormous task under Win32/Linux and an impossible one for DOS... WhtDrgnGG42 you're so full of it I can hardly believe it... A nontechnical person should easily notice you're seeking recognition which a programmer of your supposed caliber would definitely not need (and not have time to participate in this forum either).
The general idea that windows slows down the machine because of "all the unneccessary stuff" is misguided. Yes, OS arbitration and context switching wastes some CPU cycles, but only a fraction (say less than a percent) that is decreasing with every new and faster CPU... The constant increase in CPU speed is another fact professional programmers realize - it's futile to spend a month optimizing that function in assembler instead of simply writing it in C (or revert to DOS as proposed) because in 6 months the CPU speed advance will make up for it. It's is hardware that is inexpensive and programmer's labor that isn't!
I very much recommend the following article:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/ps2/ps2vspc-1.html
comparing the "spreadsheet CPUs" (i386) and "multimedia CPUs" (EE).
dcook32p:
I don't see your point... Since the emulators interpret the native CPU instructions and thus provide a virtual environment, the address translation has to be done anyway... What you're talking about (if I understand correctly) would need to be done if the alien code would be translated into native code (like JIT compilation in .NET, since I see you're familliar with Microsoft's technologies) and then executed. This would be insanely more difficult to implement and I don't think emulators work this way - at least not nSX2, I've looked at the source.
Anyway, I hope the developers of nSX2 don't give up on the project. As the i386 is unfortunately here to stay, in a couple of years when they think of new ways to make it (the CPU) faster, I'm sure nSX2 will be a perfect emu. It's made of all the right stuff - portability and open source!
Regards,
Matej
The general idea that windows slows down the machine because of "all the unneccessary stuff" is misguided. Yes, OS arbitration and context switching wastes some CPU cycles, but only a fraction (say less than a percent) that is decreasing with every new and faster CPU... The constant increase in CPU speed is another fact professional programmers realize - it's futile to spend a month optimizing that function in assembler instead of simply writing it in C (or revert to DOS as proposed) because in 6 months the CPU speed advance will make up for it. It's is hardware that is inexpensive and programmer's labor that isn't!
I very much recommend the following article:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/ps2/ps2vspc-1.html
comparing the "spreadsheet CPUs" (i386) and "multimedia CPUs" (EE).
dcook32p:
I don't see your point... Since the emulators interpret the native CPU instructions and thus provide a virtual environment, the address translation has to be done anyway... What you're talking about (if I understand correctly) would need to be done if the alien code would be translated into native code (like JIT compilation in .NET, since I see you're familliar with Microsoft's technologies) and then executed. This would be insanely more difficult to implement and I don't think emulators work this way - at least not nSX2, I've looked at the source.
Anyway, I hope the developers of nSX2 don't give up on the project. As the i386 is unfortunately here to stay, in a couple of years when they think of new ways to make it (the CPU) faster, I'm sure nSX2 will be a perfect emu. It's made of all the right stuff - portability and open source!
Regards,
Matej