Hardware Virtualisation?

Support and general discussion.
Post Reply
Staticblast
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed 24 Jun, 2015 2:45 pm

Hardware Virtualisation?

Post by Staticblast » Sun 05 Jul, 2015 12:42 am

Does PCEm make use of VT-x and the like? If so, can it be switched off specifically for PCEm without disabling it in BIOS, like VirtualBox can?

I'm encountering issues running Windows 95, which I only encountered before when running it on VirtualBox without disabling hardware virtualisation first.

The specific problem is an error message on startup: "Windows protection error. You need to restart your computer."

User avatar
SarahWalker
Site Admin
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 24 Apr, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Hardware Virtualisation?

Post by SarahWalker » Sun 05 Jul, 2015 8:31 am

No, PCem is purely software. What configuration are you using? What drivers/software are you using in Windows 95?

Staticblast
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed 24 Jun, 2015 2:45 pm

Re: Hardware Virtualisation?

Post by Staticblast » Wed 08 Jul, 2015 8:03 pm

TomWalker wrote:No, PCem is purely software. What configuration are you using? What drivers/software are you using in Windows 95?
It crashes on first run after install, before I can even install any drivers.

Settings right now:
Machine: AMI WinBIOS 486 (ROM from the download section)
Video: S3 ViRGE/DX (Configured to 4MB with dithering & bilinear enabled)
CPU Type: Intel
CPU: iDX4/100
Cache: A Lot
Video Speed: Slow VLB/PCI
Sound Card: Sound Blaster2.0
Memory: 32MB

Hard Disk configured as follows:
Sectors: 63
Heads: 64
Cylinders: 2047

My actual PC is as follows:
Intel Core i7 4790K
16GB RAM
MSI GeForce GTX970
Windows 7 x64

User avatar
SarahWalker
Site Admin
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 24 Apr, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Hardware Virtualisation?

Post by SarahWalker » Wed 08 Jul, 2015 9:13 pm

Which version of PCem is this? Does it crash at the same point every time?

Staticblast
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed 24 Jun, 2015 2:45 pm

Re: Hardware Virtualisation?

Post by Staticblast » Thu 09 Jul, 2015 4:47 pm

TomWalker wrote:Which version of PCem is this? Does it crash at the same point every time?
The version is V9 for Windows, from the download section.

It isn't PCEm itself that crashes, just to note. It remains fully functional and such.It's just the Windows 95 guest process that fails during startup, at the same place every time.
To be precise, just after the dialog that gives you the option to start up in safe mode, it stays on the Windows loading screen for a while, then goes to a black screen with the error message I describe.

Another thing to note, it can start up in safe mode, but not in normal mode.

User avatar
SarahWalker
Site Admin
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 24 Apr, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Hardware Virtualisation?

Post by SarahWalker » Thu 09 Jul, 2015 8:26 pm

Okay, that does imply it's one of the default Windows drivers that is failing. What exact Windows 95 version is this?

Also (just to try and eliminate a known v9 bug), are you emulating a CD-ROM drive? And if so, is it empty? If it is then try either disabling it or putting a disc in it.

Another possibility might be the unusual hard disc configuration, normally the maximum number of heads on IDE is 16. Maybe try a drive that doesn't exceed this.

Staticblast
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed 24 Jun, 2015 2:45 pm

Re: Hardware Virtualisation?

Post by Staticblast » Thu 09 Jul, 2015 10:49 pm

TomWalker wrote:Okay, that does imply it's one of the default Windows drivers that is failing. What exact Windows 95 version is this?

Also (just to try and eliminate a known v9 bug), are you emulating a CD-ROM drive? And if so, is it empty? If it is then try either disabling it or putting a disc in it.

Another possibility might be the unusual hard disc configuration, normally the maximum number of heads on IDE is 16. Maybe try a drive that doesn't exceed this.
I'll try & let you know how it works out.

Staticblast
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed 24 Jun, 2015 2:45 pm

Re: Hardware Virtualisation?

Post by Staticblast » Sat 11 Jul, 2015 2:30 pm

Looks like it was the odd hard drive configuration. Once I changed that to your recommendation, Windows 95 worked fine.

Post Reply