Can't wait

MeddlingMonk · Post by **MeddlingMonk** » Fri May 15, 2009 11:40 pm

Ezekiel000 wrote:Same result from the end users point of view.

Except that with emulation, the hit on system resources is a bit higher. The more recent the system being emulated, the bigger the hit.

In other words, emulating an Apple II makes hardly any impact on performance. Emulating a 700 MHz Pentium processor is something you'd notice.

So, rubacava, that makes what ResidualVM does "better" than emulation because it doesn't pile emulation system requirements on top of the actual game's system requirements.

ezekiel000 · Post by **ezekiel000** » Sat May 16, 2009 9:37 am

Yes your right emulators take up more resources, but by same result from the end user point of view I meant that they both enable you to play (or run something) that you normal couldn't.

MeddlingMonk · Post by **MeddlingMonk** » Sat May 16, 2009 5:04 pm

If no other choices are available, yeah.

Longcat · Post by **Longcat** » Sat May 16, 2009 11:01 pm

MeddlingMonk · Post by **MeddlingMonk** » Sun May 17, 2009 1:45 am

...like virtualization, Wine, or new binaries (like ResidualVM). Things that don't have the added resource hit emulation does. It can make a difference. For example, one computer I have is a G4 PowerBook. Using DOSBox, the 13-year-old 2D graphic adventure game The Case of the Rose Tattoo is too slow to be playable. Yet with a Mac-native binary the more-recent, fully-3D Quake III runs at a good framerate on the same machine.

Longcat · Post by **Longcat** » Sun May 17, 2009 5:59 am

The end users point of view is still the same ...

rubacava · Post by **rubacava** » Mon May 18, 2009 4:32 am

sorry to derail the thread, but that does clarify it for me. sounds groovy.