3. CJS' performance just sucks. fMSX-DOS rules so many times

Really... Try the thing it seems that there hasn't been work done after the first release :|

Remember CJS was optimized for 486, that means the code runs much slower on todays processors with all them pipeline stalls 'n such.. Especially with Intel CPU's!

fMSX-DOS is compiled with a compiler with knowledge of pipelines and stalls and does register allocation accordingly.

Try a 486 and see if fMSX-DOS still performs better than CJS!

Quote:

3. CJS' performance just sucks. fMSX-DOS rules so many times Really... Try the thing it seems that there hasn't been work done after the first release :|

I didn't talk about emulator performance, just about which emulator was the very first one to be released. Quite some people think fMSX was the first one and someone just had to correct this... and it might have been somebody other than me.

Quote:

Try a 486 and see if fMSX-DOS still performs better than CJS!

If there are still people having a 486 up and running.

Quote:

I didn't talk about emulator performance, just about which emulator was the very first one to be released. Quite some people think fMSX was the first one and someone just had to correct this... and it might have been somebody other than me. [quote]I do agree fMSX is the most used for ports due to two reasons:

I was talking about this fMSX is most used for ports due to its performance

I'm quite sure it's because of the sources being available, but who am I to complain about differences of opinion?

At the time both emulators were fresh, the CJS emulator was better than the fMSX version that was released at about the same time. I agree with BiFi, the reason many emulators are based on fMSX is because it's an open-source project.

Also, if CJS was written in assembler, it would probably not been as easy as fMSX (written in C) to use as a base for other emulators even if it was open source. Assembler has some portability problems...