View Full Version : Pj64 vs Windows

Pages : [1] 2

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
Jabo's recent video update brought up the issue of Windows version compatibility. Currently the core PJ64 team all use WinXP or MCE but we want to assure people that the recently launched Windows Vista will definitely be supported in the next version of PJ64, and internally (for members) will be supported... as soon as Jabo gets access to Vista to develop on (the next build hopefully, so a matter of weeks).

So the list of supported operating systems for PJ64 will include at least: XP, Vista and the MCE (Media Center) versions of both (if there's time we have planned some features specifically for cabinets&HTPCs)

The question is, should we drop support for Win98&WinME at this point? I think probably we're better off spending our limited time on other things, like MCE support and emulation, but here's your chance to make a case for supporting Win98 - or for dropping it. also, is Win2000 support important to people? Please use the comments if you have any opinions on any of this.

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
I think you should only support the two last or so operating systems. So, in this case, WinXP and Vista 32 and 64-bit. MCE is a good thing also. But, you should drop support for ME (full of bugs anyway) and earlier versions. I'm working on Vista Home Premium 64-bits with an Intel Dual Core 2 Duo with 2 gb of 800Mhz Ram and Project 64 with all the latest files (yes i'm a member) is working almost perfectly. All my games work or almost all of them (i have 40 games). Thank you for your time!

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
You should support
Windows 2000 (many use it still)
Windows Xp
Windows Vista
And a Linux and/or Mac version of PJ64 would be nice :)

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
Yeah... I don't think it makes any sense to support any non-NT Windows based version....

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
A Linux Version Would Be Nice

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
I still use Win2000 and WinXP but I'd like to see it support Windows Vista a little better now that DirectSound has been removed from DirectX 10, the default DirectX in Vista so that makes Jabo's DirectSound plugin not too good in Vista. But I believe that you should at least continue support for Win2000/XP since most people will be sticking with that for quite a while.

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
I would like to keep Win2k support, as I only just started running this on Win2k :P

Prior to this, I have used it primarily with XP, but now I've got a machine dedicated to this purpose, and I'm running Win2k as a compromise between usability (USB2.0, Bluetooth, etc) and speed (older versions of Windows run faster... because they have to).

I don't really want to give up this speed gain (even if it's only minor), however I could cope with having to run XP.

Also, other legacy systems support (95/98) could be useful to some people who further value the speed of the old OSes over, say, their USB2.0 driver stack, so if it isn't too much work, I think they should stay around.

But yeah, 2k at the least, because it's faster (slightly) and supports much the same stuff at the moment.

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
It should support those OS:
Windows 2000
Windows XP (32bits and 64bits)
Windows Vista (32bits and 64bits)

windows 95/98 if don't too difficult to keep it running on that platforms

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
Win98/ME are not necessary.
I would like to keep Win2k support! ;)

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
Windows 98 is dead, only machines still running it are ones that cannot run PJ64 properly anyway, so kill off support, XP and Vista are all that's necessary.

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
All systems running XP (all verions and bits) and Vista....the older systems are not really worth it. Everyone should have at least one person running XP by now, or at least a dual boot.

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
I use Windows 2000... And it could be a long time before I could upgrade to XP (Vista is out of the Question... Too Risky)

I finally got an install of that done and setup in the last 3 months...
So you definitely have to support Win2k XP Vista (yes.. 32bit 64Bit).. :)

I can run PJ64 not as fast as I would like, but fast enough to get a few games playing.. (More Upgrades to follow. :) )

PS: I just donated too so it would be ..... a disapointment.. if Win2K was
droped too soon.. Another 2 years at most should do.

Thanks PJ64.

17th April 2007, 10:07 AM
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And in the case of 9x users: the miniscule. The developers should not waste time bending over backwards to cater to these dinosaurs. If they insist on using 9x, then they can use the perfectly fine 1.6. But the rest of us deserve something better. But a warning before donation needs to happen to inform everyone that 9x is not officially supported anymore.

17th April 2007, 10:19 AM
I would LOVE to see support for 2000, I run a computer shop and have many personal machines, but the two operating systems I run the most are 2K and XP (all versions of both) I do have a laptop or two that have 98 but just aren't worth messing with really...with limited driver support for 9x it really shouldn't be worth your time...Also, I'd like to add that I've been using your emulator for a looooong time now and I have to say...STAND UP JOB GUYS *Standing Ovation* ;D ;D ;D ;D

17th April 2007, 10:50 AM
Hi out there!
Yeah... I don't think it makes any sense to support any non-NT Windows based version....
And why? Many people (just look at gentoo forums; mupen64 makes maaaaannnnyy problems) would like to remove mupen64 and use a good emulator like pj64.

I think droping support is always only acceptable, if it makes to much work keeping it. I'm not that a Pro Developer, but dropping 2k Support, would that even be possible? I mean without adding a checkt that tests on which platform you're running pj64, are there commands that 2k couldn't handle?
95/98: Drop if too much work
Win2K: Don't drop.
Linux / Mac (don't think that it would make much work to port between that 2 Platforms): Add support, you would make many users happy with that! :)

So lon, _Dragon_

17th April 2007, 11:50 AM
I think you should focus on 2000/XP/Vista...

2000 is still used by many people. As more, it supports Unicode, etc. so keeping 2000 compatibility shouldn't be too hard. Can you give us more details? For exemple, will Project64 depends on the very latest updates of DirectX? Will it depends on MSXML or stuff like that?

Personally, I think (but it's a subject of long debating) you can drop Win9x support. I see more and more developers dropping Win9x support. Win9x is less stable, drivers for it are not made anymore, more and more software don't work on it. Majority of people have left Win9x, because their new hardware, or their favourite software, doesn't work on it.

Finally, a computer which is able to run Project64 with decent quality/speed is also clearly able to run WinXP.

17th April 2007, 12:47 PM
I think your time is better off spent supporting the newer sytems (3 latest) and adding new features than making it compatable for the old systems (only remove compatability for ones that would be to hard or take to long to keep compatable). If a lot of people want pj64 1.7 for windows 98 you can also just release after the final public release of it is available for the newer systems. The people who use their computers for gaming or project 64 probably have a computer that is newer than 7 years anyways. Also anyone with windows 98 still (like me) can always just download v.1.6

17th April 2007, 01:10 PM
by removing 9x support, you would be able to optimise the core better for NT's memory handler, which would probably get you between 5-10% performance increase.

17th April 2007, 01:20 PM
Macintosh version would be cool you know how im always talking about it on the beta forums ;)

17th April 2007, 01:39 PM
I can't imagine what API function not present in 9x you require in the development of pj64.
Please at least don't do anything specifically to drop 9x support.
Danial Horton, what are you talking about? Either you don't have experience as a coder or you talked about some compiler optimizations which isn't the same as dropping 9x support. Sorry for my English.

17th April 2007, 05:22 PM
I vote of Windows XP and newer only.

17th April 2007, 06:17 PM
Windows 2000, Xp, and Vista. I still use windows 2000, but mostly I stick to XP. Still though, a lot of people still use 2000, and to me, it's one of the best OS's available (much faster than XP at times).

17th April 2007, 06:47 PM
Definitely support Win 2000... Most all other companies still do. I wouldn't support 95/98 though as they have been officially ended by Microsoft.

17th April 2007, 08:04 PM
smiff wrote:
there isn't really any "Win98 code" to remove and get a magic speedup (there is some Win9x specific code but for things like ini operations where that OS has limitations, not in core emulation) - this is mostly about us no longer having to test every build on so many operating systems. which is a PITA. and as someone above said, so we can be clear about exactly what we support. there is no intention to deliberately break Win9x support either afaik..

17th April 2007, 09:47 PM
I also think that Windows 2000 should still be supported. A lot of people use it as an alternative to XP because it isn't as much of a resource hog.

17th April 2007, 09:50 PM
Win2k and WinXP support should be sufficient for the Windows users (nobody should be forced to use Vista so I wouldn't mind dropping the Vista support efforts :-) ). Also I would be happy to see a Linux / Unix / MacOS port; for example using Winelib.

17th April 2007, 10:01 PM
Windows XP and Ubuntu would be nice. Maybe just get it working in wine? It's not hard to test it against winelibs. Of course that means it will PROBABLY run in ReactOS, too...

18th April 2007, 02:15 AM
i don't give much of a damn about vista, but i'm using win2k and still sticking to it. supporting it should be relatively easy, since XP is merely an overhauled win2k and therefore shares the same core features. on the other hand, i agree that previous windows versions should be just dropped. just my tuppence.

18th April 2007, 03:40 AM
my two cents?- drop win9x support! thanks guys! keep it up!

18th April 2007, 06:40 AM
Oh, the win98/ME/2000 suport is very important!!!!!!

18th April 2007, 06:46 AM
I actually use 98 only because it is inside a converted arcade cabinet and at the time it was built 98 was the best idea. I think that it would be cool to support win9x versions, but in all honesty if it takes a lot of time and effort then best to focus on Vista and XP.

Just make the old versions available for people to get at.

18th April 2007, 06:47 AM
and linux would be awesome ;D

18th April 2007, 07:59 AM
Windows 2000 and XP should definitely be the primary set of operating systems to test with. Vista support is inevitably going to be needed since it's being forced upon society, but the only people I know who use it unwittingly and regrettably purchased a new PC with the OS pre-installed.

As far as Windows 9x goes, I agree that supporting that OS is not necessary. I am only running it on an old Pentium MMX machine that I keep around for old game compatibility (e.g. DOS or FFVII) and web browsing (when my main PC is occupied with a full-screen game like FFXI.) Of course, as was said, there currently isn't a reason for PJ64 not to work on Win9x, but I'm sure that will change as PJ64 becomes more compatible with Vista.

One thing I don't want to see happen is for DirectX 9 or 10 to be required. I think it's best to stick with DirectX 8 as long as video card drivers support it. Either that or switch to OpenGL, which would probably make Linux support easier should that be implemented at some point.

18th April 2007, 10:46 AM
You people on the side of Windows 98 are nuts, why are you still using that outdated piece of crap? It's extremely unstable, it's old, XP is so much better than it in every possible way, heck even windows 2000 is so much better than it in every way.

Drop Windows 98 and get a real OS.

18th April 2007, 12:31 PM
I realize my last comment was a bit harsh but really if you want to keep supporting old operating systems where do you stop, Windows 95? Not to mention the fact that 1964 0.9.9 dropped support for windows 98 a long time ago and nobody cared that much.

As far as I know It is not the goal of Project64 to support Work computers*, arcade cabinets or old computers (or old arcade cab?). All of which are pretty much the only systems still using this operating system.

Most of the computers still running Windows 98 will struggle to run this emulator under normal conditions so I am firmly against supporting it for this reason, why waste time on that when you can focus your resources on your true userbase: 2000/XP/Vista and beyond.

* Someone mentioned in the beta forum about work computers, I laughed my ... head off about that. You're not supposed to play games at work ;)

18th April 2007, 12:59 PM
Dear Zilmar! Nice to hear that you don't plan to drop 9x support deliberately. Could you please enlighten us upon what API functions introduced in nt you need when programming ini operations.
P.S. Dunno about other countries but in Russia where I reside not less than 10% of PCs operate under 9x.

18th April 2007, 03:37 PM
Scott, supporting cabinets *is* important (to me at least, i think PJ64 needs more features for them. i have an HTPC running XP-SP2 and Jabo has one running XP-MCE). do many arcade cabs use Win9x? if so, why, is it because they're old or to support older emulators or what?

18th April 2007, 05:07 PM
I'd say go with 2k and up at least. I don't give the slightest bit of a care in the universe about Vista compatibility, as I'm never upgrading until they get rid of the encryption requirements, requiring a Hotmail acct., DRM, and all that other junk.

18th April 2007, 05:37 PM
I'm with you Questwizard88. I'm using XP Pro until the next OS in 5 years...Vista is nothing but absolute garbage. But I do understand that developers (Zilmer) unfortunately has to waste their time trying to make their software compatable with Vista as people are being forced to use it. So 2000/XP/Vista support.

If Zilmer only has TEN HOURS A WEEK to work on PJ64, I don't want him wasted one second on 98/ME!!!! And all of you 98 users need to realize that and allow him to not waste his precious time for all 6 of you. USE PJ 1.6!!!

18th April 2007, 05:56 PM
I still Use Win98 but only for PJ64 Testing Purposes as many of the team do not.

My Wife however uses Win2k and will not change it.

So in understand on those grounds that we should consider that some people would prefer to stay with 2k and be a shame to force them to change OS just so they can continue using PJ.

18th April 2007, 06:59 PM
i not want WINDOW 2000 SUCK PROBLEM!

18th April 2007, 09:34 PM
errrr.... well said cjjar.... ... ... >.>

18th April 2007, 09:59 PM
Windows 98 is unsupported by almost everyone now, so theres no reason pj64 should follow suite

the people using 98 are usually using machines not capable of using the dx8 plugins anyway,

in all reality, the 9x Core isn't good enough to run pj64 due to the way it handles memory and virtual memory.

i had 2 systems setup exactly the same way, except for windows versions, and the NT core was always better at running PJ64 due to the more efficient memory handling.

@ Serge
Windows 9x uses a different code system to 98, and the more bug code in any compilation, the more chance of slowdowns on any system, an example of this is Homeworld 1, which was written for 9x/NT4, yet it runs like ass on XP (which is also NT based)

on the topic of Windows 2000, as long as SP4 is installed, it should be supported.

18th April 2007, 10:46 PM
Smiff I was trying to argue that arcade cabinets and work computers are not the general userbase so therefore should be less important, theres no reason a cabinet cannot use XP though.

19th April 2007, 12:51 AM
hi Gent i didn't know you were still testing it on Win98 :o

there's a clear picture emerging:
drop Win98/ME*
keep testing on Win2000 (with last service pack).
(btw, who in core PJ64 team has Win2000? i don't any more)

*perhaps put in a check & warn on first run, for those OS are not officially supported. or, if changes are required that mean we know PJ64 won't work for that OS, then actually it should refuse to run

19th April 2007, 01:44 AM
I would love to see Linux support :D

19th April 2007, 03:10 AM
sorry john, thats not happening, not with this team anyway.

19th April 2007, 03:11 AM
written by Smiff, April 19, 2007
(btw, who in core PJ64 team has Win2000? i don't any more)

Well Pixi Still has it Smiff so i guess i still have access to Win2000

and yea i have kept 98 testing lol and me and jabo did establish a while back the last d3d8 that did work :P

19th April 2007, 03:15 AM
Yeah drop tha shitty ass versions of Windows.. there outdated and should have been dropped a long time ago.. You guys should only keep Windows XP and Vista.

19th April 2007, 03:16 AM
Windows XP and Windows Vista support only.
Win98 is obsolete.
Windows 2000 is not for gaming

19th April 2007, 04:07 AM
@Gent - I was waiting in the wings for you to come by about the win98, I thought I'd lure you out ;-)

19th April 2007, 06:58 AM
@Smiff: You forgot Linux :'( :)
And for the ppl saying Linux is not for gaming:
a) Change it and make games for Linux like id does
b) Thats not true! Look at PCSX2, epsx, Mupen64(ok, bad example... very bad example ;)) and all Games for linux!

19th April 2007, 09:37 AM
that is not what they are saying

19th April 2007, 09:42 AM
Sakarin, shut up! It's 20$ bucks to have the priviledge to beta test. In a year or so, it'll get relesed to the public for free. I'm so tired of this idiotic debate. Use PJ1.6 then damnit! What is this self-entitlement bullshit?

19th April 2007, 05:18 PM
I say stick with 2000 . Sure it might be nice to have 98/ME support. The problem is that the team has limited resources. They have to budget those resource in such a way to get the most out of them. The number of people using 98/ME is much, much smaller than the XP community. The 2000 community is as well, but it is still an NT kernel and is still supported, at least partially, by Microsoft (unlike 98 and ME). No matter what someone's personal opinion on Vista is, people will migrate to it as they replace their computers. Support for it will effectively be a requirement eventually, so they might as well get started now. If they skip this OS generation entirely (which someone suggested but I find highly unlikely), it will only make it that much harder next generation and could also significantly reduce their userbase in time. If you are only going to support 2 go with XP and Vista. XP because pretty much everyone uses it, and Vista because, like it or not, pretty much everyone will use it eventually.

19th April 2007, 05:56 PM
Well if we are going to say dump 9x and keep with NT (2K) then i guess i can finally get rid of 98 and build a vista box, the only thing stopping me was pj testing.

That would mean i will have:


I just hope all concerned wanting to keep 9x support in will use this time to speak up or forever hold their peace ;D

19th April 2007, 08:36 PM
Would just like to add my vote too for a Linux version. Now that would definitely be a good thing! Is it a consideration for the team, or just not an option? Let us know, please. :)

19th April 2007, 09:48 PM
RE linux
sorry but now we are not offering a linux version. that would be the first non-windows OS that we'd support if PJ64 was to support a non-windows OS. since that would be a large additional amount of work so it's unlikely.
please keep this discussion to just which versions of Windows we should support.

20th April 2007, 03:28 AM
I think you guys should supports all windows because not all people wants vista you know.

20th April 2007, 06:24 AM
Drop ME and 98. There is no reason to keep on doing those OS's. Everyone who still uses ME or 98 are dimwits. Drop those two, but keep 2000.

20th April 2007, 07:21 AM
I say drop anything older than Windows 2000 for sure. If you want to drop 2000 go ahead too :) It's better to spend your time getting it to work on XP/MCE/Vista since that's what most people use.

20th April 2007, 08:27 AM
Don't support Vista. If you do, your condemning your soul to hell. Supporting Windows Vista is supporting evil. Use Windows XP - the lesser of two evils. A Linux version would be appreciated too.

As for old versions of Windows, 2000 shouldn't be too hard because it has most of the API's that XP had. No one uses Windows 98 anymore, except for playing games in DOS mode.

20th April 2007, 03:57 PM
3 versions

**Ultimate Project64 for Win9x (and no continuo, maybe only bugfixes, no reason to keep on doing those OS's.-win200, win95, win98, winme)

**project64 for Windows

**and Linux version :-)

Philippi Christophe
20th April 2007, 07:55 PM
Use Vista developpement ,but Xp is not dead too !
thanks to author jabo to develop plugin video for vista
thanks PJ64 team

20th April 2007, 08:28 PM
I think it's not worth to keep Win9x support at this point. As said before, people that can run the emu already have at least a Windows 2000 OS.

You should focus on Win2k/XP/Vista development, as they are the most popular these days.

21st April 2007, 03:11 AM
Still support for Win2000, please. I use it and like it.

21st April 2007, 07:05 AM
damn spammers.

I would say optimise pj 64 1.7 for vista

21st April 2007, 08:19 AM
Dont optamize for anything in perticular

but support everything you can, right back to win 95 if ya really want

and all you people who say vista is best, and dont support crappy old win98

have non of you noticed how the system requirements for vista are nearly twice as much as xp . and xp is more than twice as much as 98 . .its not because their better, its because win98 and win95 (also know as Windows NT . . cant remember what numbers tho) and XP AND vista and all versions of windows since 3.11 are based on windows NT, and any of the later versions while able to support bigger drives and more ram due to the 48bit addressing system are not much better than the erlier versions except by their fancy graphics and ability to make your computer even slower than the last version did


support for 98 up would be good (considering it and win 2000) are still the fastest windows OS' out there

linux and mac support would be good too

21st April 2007, 11:51 AM
ehh, it is not true that all versions of Windows since 3.11 are based on NT. Windows NT was a different product line. It wasn't until after Windows 2000 was released that Microsoft consolidated to a single Windows product line.

Windows 95, 98, and Me all use 16-bit and 32-bit code. Windows 2000 and XP are based on NT, which does not use 32-bit code. That's why it's difficult or impossible to run 16-bit applications on those operating systems.

Windows 9x may have much lower system requirements than 2000 or XP, but it's also not as capable as its successors. It suffers from unstable drivers, problems related to its 16-bit code, lack of new hardware support, etc.

Windows 2000 and XP are both pretty much the same at the core, though XP is more stable and has better hardware support. XP's system requirements are higher because it's GUI is more bloated than 2000's. If you turn all of that off, it's just as fast as 2000 (or even faster in some cases.) XP does need more memory no matter what, though. Windows 2000 would be the OS of choice if you only had 128-256MB of RAM.

Vista is just a monstrosity. Its minimum requirements for Premium/Business/Ultimate are about eight times those of Windows XP. Even if you exceed the minimum requirements, the OS is dreadfully slow, and the new interface is enough to drive a user mad. Things that used to be easy to get to are now buried with extra steps and endless pop-ups.

21st April 2007, 11:53 AM
Correction: NT does not use 16-bit code.

p.s. There needs to be an edit button for comments.

21st April 2007, 07:28 PM
I would say drop win9x support. Anyone with hardware capable of actually running PJ64 has long switched over. Or should migrate their old machines to Linux.

It has been 6 years since I personally used windows 98 and I don't see anyone in their right mind going back to or should be using that OS anytime soon. All the hardware enthusiast that I know (myself included) have gone to Windows 2000.

My AthlonXP 3200 with a 9800pro still runs windows 2000, and I would have all of my machines run windows 2000, except for the fact that it doesn't support Hyper-Threading or Dual-Core.

I personally love Windows 2000. I think it's Microsoft's best OS. It's extremely stable, runs super fast on my 667Mhz Celeron unlike Windows XP, and it's not bloated. The only machine that I have windows 98 installed on is my old Sony VAIO with a 200Mhz Pentium, but even that machine isn't _running_ windows 98 anymore, it's now running Linux.

I'm currently dual booting xp/ vista/ ubuntu right now on my main machine. But please... don't drop windows 2000 support.

*I know this isn't the proper forum but we need more great emulators for the linux platform.

22nd April 2007, 11:03 AM
good point xannonite, my bad. But . . all windows os' since 3.11 are virtually the same, and xp is suposedly a merge of the 9x and NT lines in which they took the NT side of things and dropd the 16-bit code

my point is, if your partial to old games such as the ones this emulator is designd for and definatly produced arround that time, surely you'd have a pc with one of the older (16-bit included) operating systems, probably win 98, which can cope with the high power required for an emulator such as this but can also run all those other nice old games that you have, that were all designd to run in DOS and win95, and the comlete lack of backwards compatibility of XP and Vista stops you from doing

22nd April 2007, 01:21 PM
Spread the greatness of pj64 to Linux! Linux has my vote.

22nd April 2007, 01:22 PM
I really do believe pj64 should be on Linux also. Linux is being more widely used now. Hope to see a Linux version soon!

22nd April 2007, 02:15 PM
So in understand on those grounds that we should consider that some people would prefer to stay with 2k and be a shame to force them to change OS just so they can continue using PJ.

One could say the exact same thing about Windows 98. Some people just like using it.

Also, at those of you saying that it's "ZOMG RIDIKYULUZLY UNSTABL!11!111!!!one" — I haven't had a Blue Screen of Death in MONTHS. My Windows 98SE comp is QUITE stable. :)

I may get Windows XP in the future, but at the moment I don't have room for another hard drive in my computer, and I like Windows 98SE and don't want to overwrite it with XP. :P

Anyway, I would very much appreciate it if Windows 9x support was kept. ;D

22nd April 2007, 04:25 PM
I use XP and am going to eventually upgrade to Vista Business 64-bit when I upgrade my computer (64bit because of the 4gb page limit of a 32bit OS). But I say there should be support for at least XP and Vista (32 and 64bit eventually).

Kizul, I am guessing that you do not have more than 512mb of ram and do not have a hard drive bigger than 137gb? When you do upgrade going over these amounts will cause win98SE to become unstable. Actually from what I have read putting 1GB of ram into a system normally caused 98 to not start at all.

xp is suposedly a merge of the 9x and NT lines
Actually all Microsoft did with XP is take Windows 2000 add a few features that would make it "attractive" to the average user and from there improve the emulation of the Win9X line of software including the old 16bit line of software. When XP first came out it was really no better than Windows 2000 it wasn't until SP1a and SP2 that XP started to really shine although that was mainly because Microsoft didn't patch 2000 to include some of the fixes included in those Service packs.A major change that hurt 2k users that is in XP is the 137gb HardDrive support during installation aka LargeLBA in the 2k registry (PARTITIONING does not HELP).

until they get rid of the encryption requirements, requiring a Hotmail acct., DRM, and all that other junk.

QuestWizard88, Requiring a hotmail account? what? Encryption requirements?? are you talking about HDCP? If Microsoft didn't put that in more customers would be angry.. The junk I kinda understand, but it won't keep me from moving to it.. DRM... well I just hope the world becomes sane later, but in vista it isn't implemented to the point of mutiny yet. And if you use are going to use a highend PC I wish you luck, because a 32bit OS doesn't support more than 4gb RAM (Videocard and CPU memory COMBINED ex: 2gb ram 512mb videocard = 2.5gb RAM to the OS)

One thing I don't want to see happen is for DirectX 9 or 10 to be required.

Xannite, are you talking hardware or software? A software requirement shouldn't hurt you to much as downloading new software isn't too hard not to mention it is available for all the OS's listed including 98 apparently... A hardware requirement isn't likely as I'm pretty sure the N64 doesn't need the capabilities that DirectX 9 and/or 10 require and also note since it is going to be compatible with XP DirectX 10 support would only be for Vista and would likely be a separate coding path or a plugin.

DirectSound has been removed from DirectX 10

Brian, Actually it was removed from DirectX 9 in it's Vista implementation believe it or not. DirectX 10 does NOT support 9 and below so in Vista DirectX 9 and 10 are separate entities altogether. This is what is causing all of the problems with DirectSound in Vista.

22nd April 2007, 06:31 PM
thats quite right caqde

"I use XP and am going to eventually upgrade to Vista Business 64-bit when I upgrade my computer (64bit because of the 4gb page limit of a 32bit OS). But I say there should be support for at least XP and Vista (32 and 64bit eventually)"

so hopefully microsoft or some other company will come out with an OS that actually works, doesnt eat up most of your system and make it seem that little bit less worthwhile AND is based on 64bit

untill then i (and probably many others) am glad to be stuck with the 4Gb page limit . . im not entirely sure but i think my 2Gb of ram and 512Mb of graphics memory giving a total of 2.5Gb to the os is plenty for any of my gaming needs, and anyone elses for that matter . . i have yet to come accros a game that doesnt work fine on my system, even tho its comparativly old

oh and if any of you have tried that wounderful 64bit XP (havnt even botherd with vista, seems too much like a waste of time) you will probably have noticed that alot of hardware doesnt work properly, alot of programs dont work properly . . and in general the system doesnt work properly. basically, 64bit is a new thing, and whiles component producers are all up and ready for it, most software engineers arn't. any console is a perfect example of how this works, console first comes out, lots of fancy looking games for it (seeing how its the best thing on the market at the time), you give it a couple of years and games programmers will be coming out with stuff hundreds of times better for the same console . .why? . . because it takes time for the full capabilitys of any new technology to be realised.

23rd April 2007, 03:15 AM
I used pj64 under windows2000 and windowsXp
i think is not necessary the win9x compatibility
i vote for the compatibility with only NT based systems (2000,xp,vista)

i'm sorry but recently i've upgraded my operating system to linux and i cannot run pj64. support to linux would be very appreciated.
I hope to see a linux version

thank you
you've made a good emulator :D

24th April 2007, 04:08 AM
Why not just continue to "support" Win'98 but don't test the platform. If '98 users run into trouble, let them be your beta testers/trouble shooters. You say the problem with '98 has nothing to do with API, or core programming, but more about just testing on each platform. You can continue to ATTEMPT '98 support, but don't beat yourself up over it. Let those using '98 that want to use PJ64 let you know if something breaks. Best of both worlds.

24th April 2007, 04:44 AM
XP and Vista only please. Windows 2000 and below, it's time to upgrade :P

24th April 2007, 08:20 PM
Instead or working with no Nt Systems why don't you start working in a linux version? windows98SE, milenium, 95, they are all dead.

25th April 2007, 12:46 AM
I think you guys should make people pass a grammar/spelling test before allowing them to post.

That said, fuck Win 98. The narcissistic bastards that want you to cater to their needs at the cost of everybody else can go fuck a pig (while admiring themselves in a mirror).

25th April 2007, 08:45 AM
I think only XP and Vista(x64 and x86) should be supported. Anyone running earlier versions is just asking for trouble since MS no longer supports Win2k/98/ME.

Also, for those who are confused about Vista's drm, directsound and such...

The DirectSound was removed from hardware to reduce the amount of system crashes due to bad drivers. Now all sound is rendered in software. The only way sound can be rendered through hardware is to have an OpenAL supported soundcard.

As far as DRM in Vista goes, DRM only allows you to PLAY DRM protected content. It does not prevent you from playing your current collection of movies/music/videos.

Driver support has so far proven to be good in Vista, from me and my friends experiences. The same can be said about application support. With that said, not all applications will work on Vista.

In the end, I do hope that DirectX10 can help better PJ64.


25th April 2007, 11:33 AM
I agree with xiphi
XP is now becoming old but 98 and older versions are getting archaic
PJ64 should only be compatible with vista and XP and we're all fine

25th April 2007, 02:21 PM
Well, I think that a Linux port would be excellent, but better it would be if ALL of the source code would be released. Maybe someone with some of time would port it to another platforms, and not limited to Linux only. And if to drop or not to drop Win 9x support, well my opinion is do what ever you want. By the way, from Win 9x to Vista those (can I say operating systems?) things are just crap.

25th April 2007, 10:01 PM
first i'd like to say great job on p64 and i wish the best.

if dropping 98/2k/etc support results in more resources that could make p64 better then it should happen. for the long term it's the best.

i'd hate to see supporters of older OSes whine and convince you guys to put the effort to support the older OSes because later it'll come back to haunt you when they upgrade in the future and then complain about why things don't work in Vista.

26th April 2007, 01:06 PM
I know we've already been told to stop talking about Linux, but I think a lot of people really would be ecstatic about a Linux version of Project 64. I'm one of them.

27th April 2007, 07:36 PM
Vista is agendaware with no substantial improvement over XP. It looks better. OOOHH! WOW! What a compelling reason to buy an unfinished, DRM-infested, broken, bloated OS for a totally unreasonable price. Windows 2000 and 98 on the other hand are legitimate operating systems that people still use. I used Windows 98 until about 2004 because I couldn't stand all the useless bullshit stuffed into XP (dog in search bar, stupid GUI, inflated start menu, unnecessary services that run by default like Portable Media Serial Number, Automatic Updates, Indexing Service, Remote Registry, PSMP, IMAPI, BITS, Error Reporting, Fast User Switching, Telnet (who even uses telnet anymore when there's ssh?), etc.).

Vista contains an inordinate amount of unnecessary BS (~10GB worth), is horribly buggy, DRM/TC-ridden, and DX10 does not support a lot of good things that DX9 did in order to more effectively enforce DRM (i.e. no more hardware accelerated audio). Vista forces you to use Microsoft's proprietary filesystems and I could go on for about a week about other reasons why I'm never in my life going to use vista. I'd rather use Fedora Core, SUSE, Windows 2000/98 or even (god forbid) ME. I'd take a bash prompt any day over an overpriced corporate agenda conglomeration with Aero slapped on top of it.

I'd very much appreciate continued support of Windows 2000/98 along with, or better yet instead of support for Vista. Vista was a failure from conception, or as the FSF has aptly said, "Defective by Design".

Thanks a lot and keep up the excellent work. On my next pay check, I'm planning on donating something in the area of $100 to this project (I'm not rich, either :-/).

Cheers, Nekurakami

27th April 2007, 08:14 PM
Can someone explain to me where the debate is now so I don't have to read all the post above :)

27th April 2007, 08:47 PM
I know i'm beating a dead horse and I've probably already said more than my share about this topic, but honestly more people use Linux than Vista, and Vista hasn't exactly been an astonishing success. I just don't see the reasoning behind putting hours into making PJ64 vista compatible when it's quite an inconsequential matter considering how many people actually use it and how there are more important things the time could go to (netplay, variable framerates for games, whatever). It's your project obviously and you will do with it what you want. Like ko said, if dropping 98 support will lead to more time spent on more important things, sure go for it. Oh well. Unlike ko said though, there are a whole lot of people who are utterly unimpressed by vista and have no intention of "up"grading until they are absolutely forced to. Adding vista support is a waste of time. Using vista at all is a waste of time and other resources. I did install a copy (I didn't wast money on) on a Athlon X2 5200 with a 7900GT and 1GB of DDR2-800. It still managed to run things slowly. It also took about an hour to install the 10 to 11 GB of shit I'll never use or see the justification of.
And to clarify:
Yes, I've used Vista. I'm not impressed and many people share my sentiments.
Yes I know those unnecessary services can be shut down. It's still ridiculous.

No, I'm not trashing Windows XP. It's much more stable than 98 and below and supports a lot more devices. It's all around "better". Unfortunately, if you can't even use the damn thing without constantly being accosted by asinine animated vermin and asked inane questions like "Do you want to search Windows Update for the driver?" (yeah, right) with the choices of "Not now", "Yes", and "always" (where the hell is "never"?), it becomes more of a pain to use than something that has a Christmas light effect if one program crashes.

Yes I know that the DRM in vista allows you to play DRM'd files and doesn't restrict other files. Part of the problem is that the more mainstream support DRM gets, the more incentive there is to use it.

What I'm more worried about is the Trusted Computing garbage that vista was designed from the ground up to support. My computers take orders from ME. Not some asshat in a suit at Microsoft or any other corporation or entity. While they will always try to pass it off as a way to ensure more "security", it's actually an enormous opportunity to lock out undersirable (from MS's standpoint, not yours) software.

I've said enough and gone horribly off-topic. My main point is that from all of my experience with vista and the literature I've read about it, my conclusion is that Vista is simply an operating system without any legitimate purpose. It's the obligatory new windows from Microsoft that everybody's just expected to eventually adopt. That's it. My opinion is that there are more productive things that can be done with PJ64. And as for the DX10 argument, although I'm no expert on graphics APIs, it seems to me that even DirectX 8 is overkill for N64 graphics. There's only so much you can actually do with the models, lighting and textures that are built into the game, am I right?

If adding Vista support really isn't a problem, go for it. I'd just hate to see 1.7 delayed further in the name of supporting a trash OS. Considering that there's a whole topic about support for operating systems though, I'm assuming a lot would have to go into it.

29th April 2007, 12:14 PM
I'm sorry Nekurakami, but many don't feel the same way you do. Many are already using Vista. Anyone who has actually USED it have returned positive results. Unlike the nix and mac fan boys, who just take any chance to bash another os just cause they don't like it. If you don't like it, that's fine. But you get no respect by stating false information. Just like on the system you claimed to have installed Vista on, a pc like that should have installed in 15-20 minutes. I would know, because I have a pc that has an amd x2 3800 and vista installs in 20 minutes.

Take your propaganda back to FSF and keep it there. No one wants to hear it.

29th April 2007, 01:09 PM
You have obviously never installed Vista then, or installed a much more compact/crippled version. I wasn't using a superfast hard drive at the time, but even so, I can transfer 10-11GB to that drive in a lot less time than it took to install vista. It was Vista Ultimate 64 bit. 15-20 minutes is ridiculous. Oh and BTW, PLENTY of people who have used vista don't like it.


To make a comment like, "Anyone who has actually USED it have returned positive results." is not only a naive generalization, but absolutely false, as even one person using it and not liking is means that statement is wrong. I'm not interested in turning this discussion in to a flamewar or anything, but as far as false information goes, you really don't have a leg to stand on. I'll at least admit I have a bias.

29th April 2007, 01:19 PM
I suggest that you only support Win 2K/XP/Vista for the time being. I'd like to see what fun you can do with DX10 or latest OpenGL.

Win 95/98/ME is dead. You have perfect PJ64 1.6 for those last 98SE flag wavers. So spare yourselves from the wasted effort of supporting those OS:es.

Linux on the other hand is so light and great for every one, be it older or newer system. Ubuntu is collecting users faster than Vista. So I'd suggest you put a lot of effor to Linux version. (Free hint: Make one quick)

29th April 2007, 02:43 PM
Nekurakami, i don't have time to read everything now, but it's not that we like Vista, it's because Vista is very easy to support when we already support XP (the only reason Vista briefly didn't work was because jabo had a bug which Vista actually helped us to find! it appears to be stricter in some cases) and because PJ64 has always been a Windows emulator. porting to Linux would be a major task. it's possible but the less time spent on non-emulation coding the better at the moment imho.

i will go through these comments and tally up the results when i get time soon.

29th April 2007, 03:55 PM
Hey, sorry to be a pain

29th April 2007, 03:58 PM
i know Windows 2000 is a buiseness OS but,
windows 2000 is much like xp and it is run on NT just like xp. i think you should drop support for the MSDOS operated systems though like 98,98se, and the worst ME(gag) >:( :( :(. last time i checked 98 wasnt supported by microsoft and im sure that me will be the next to go if microsoft didnt drop it already.if you drop any of them keep the NT systems but drop the MSDOS SYSTEMS,

29th April 2007, 04:08 PM
Well, I currently have 2 Computers hooked up right now.

One computer is a Windows 2000 Machine and the other is a Vista Home Premium machine. My Windows 2000 Machine is hooked up to my TV and that is where all of my emulation runs from. As you can see here


I understand that screenshot looks like Vista, but its not... its really WIndows 2000 using a program called Aston Shell to make it look like vista.

Anyway, I would love continued support for this Operatoing system since I have already tryed installing XP on this system and it causes nothing but problems while playing heavy 3D games (Project 64 included) but I experence no such problems with Windows 2000.

30th April 2007, 12:12 AM
I suggest dropping 98,me,2000,ect. Keep XP, Vista, maybe 2000 but screw me 98 and say fuck 95.

30th April 2007, 12:54 AM
Most computers that are running Windows 2000 and higher are most likly going to have the required system requirements to run the emulator. Where as Windows 95 and 98 where mostly used during the time of Processors being below 1.0GHz and when we were still using slow ass SD-RAM. Drop WIN95/98/ME and stick with Win2kPro, XP (all Editions) Vista (all editions)

30th April 2007, 07:38 AM
I think you should support XP/Vista and 2000 not to sure cause it's not that one half of the world uses 2000. Now everyone uses XP. Making it compatible to 2000 could take more time to make the 1.7 release. ;D The only thing is that it has to run in 128mb RAM computers!

30th April 2007, 10:32 AM
keep Windows 2000 (many computers from '99 through XP's release run Windows 2000 better than XP but still have good enough hardware), XP, and (of course) add Vista

30th April 2007, 02:44 PM
Keep supporting Windows 2000, XP and add Vista.

30th April 2007, 03:30 PM
mmm these older os is really underated i was a xp user but pc crashed ...got windowsa me and ill never go back to xp now.but i dont program on it do what you want.here would be a os i would use when its complete for a xp subsitute called reactos.

30th April 2007, 03:33 PM
by the way isnt 2000 xp the same in a nut shell ? like 98 me?

30th April 2007, 04:00 PM
another comment jabos jnes is really great!!

30th April 2007, 04:16 PM
XP and Vista. That's all that matters.

1st May 2007, 06:17 AM
Well, days ago I wrote about Linux support and became open source. I found something interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_64_games
Now I think that the challenge should be make a checklist of all of the 396 games released for the Nintendo 64 and then try to support all of them (Trying to work perfectly). Later decide about the rest, Linux port, to Vista or not to Vista, Mac or not.
What do you think guys?

2nd May 2007, 10:38 PM
I use windows 2000, and don't have any plans to change to XP currently... It's a very stable version of windows and uses very little resources in comparison to XP/Vista... also viruses are no longer extensively directed toward it. I would appreciate it if you guys continued to support 2k in your next releases. :)

3rd May 2007, 01:05 AM
I'd actually suggest keeping support for Win98,98SE and ME: this is because N64 was an old unit and a fair number of the folks into emulation use, they use older OS's.. I can't justify Win95 though....

though I'd prefer Linux support over 9x if that choice had to be made.

4th May 2007, 04:02 AM
I think you should drop support for the Win98/ME, but not for Win2000.

I can guess the difficulty, but a Linux/Mac port would be very appreciated!
Wine couldn't be helpful in this case, because PJ64 uses DirectX.. so only Cedega can execute the emulator. Am I right?

4th May 2007, 09:52 AM
Dont Drop 2000, its still a good os and is actually the best for running PJ

4th May 2007, 03:39 PM
will vista support the Nintendo 64 controlers

5th May 2007, 11:51 PM
Yes, I think too:
You should make the Emulator Win2k compatible, but the older systems are too old to keep the compability.
You should support:
Windows 2000
Windows XP
and Vista

7th May 2007, 09:44 AM
First of all you have a really great program, with an easy to use interface.
I Think that Windows 9x probably should be dropped due to functionality issues, but keep 2k and later.
Also Linux would be awesome.

7th May 2007, 09:40 PM
Honestly, most people already dislike Vista. I know a lot of people who, when they get their new computers are going to delete Vista and install 2000. Dropping support for 200 would be a major upset and you would lose a lot of different customers. Personally, I don;t like windows at all. I use a mac, but I read up on things like this and in my opinion it would be the worst move you could make to drop support for 2000 and possibly 98. Besides, if you could ever get around to installing pj64 on vista because of all the secruity warnings, you would probably end up having to stop your game 5 minutes in because your computer would ask "you have pushed "up arrow key" for more than 5 seconds, is this correct?". lol. Anyways, that;s an outsiders opinion.


8th May 2007, 11:14 PM
Really great, Smiff why you (or one other of the pj64 team) haven't inform the public about your Win9x/ME/2k drop plans a little bit earlier? Since Dez 2006 I and several others worked intensively with rabiddeity to make the completely revised NRage Input-Plugin Unicode and Win9x/ME ready... (http://www.emutalk.net/showthread.php?t=36135) Now well, if the legacy Win32 support needs really so much of work and time then drop it, if it's not such a complex thing then let it be!

9th May 2007, 12:50 AM
Vista (32-bit, 64-bit), XP (32-bit, 64-bit), Xp media center, win2k.

You should start considering linux versions - linux is on the rise.

12th May 2007, 08:54 AM
I think you should keep Win2k support, but drop 9x support. If your computer is old enough to have those OS's, you probably won't be unning an EMULATOR on them ;)

12th May 2007, 11:36 AM
Is possible migrate code for pj64 for LINUX UBUNTU?

I like play this emulator in linux (not using wine).


14th May 2007, 12:04 AM
Hey, here's an idea - since there are a lot of people who want a linux version (I'm no exception!), maybe you could release the source code to another devteam and let them do the work? The code for PJ64 is probably highly proprietary, so it would likely need work (especially for plugins), but hey! Lots of people are whining about it, so let them (us?) fix our own problem! Just an idea...

14th May 2007, 04:49 PM
Oh man, the suspense is KILLING me! When will the Vista version be released? It feels like it's been weeks since you guys announced the project...

14th May 2007, 06:52 PM
Download link above "account login" :P. Down with Vista! Blech.. I've heard nothing but bad reviews from the folks at my job, and I worked at Microsoft. :-\

15th May 2007, 04:44 PM
written by Bjørnar, April 17, 2007

You should support
Windows 2000 (many use it still)
Windows Xp
Windows Vista
And a Linux and/or Mac version of PJ64 would be nice
:End Quote

I very much agree with him and what he said, however I feel that Mac support is not nearly as needed as Linux. People using emulators are much more likely to be using Linux/Windows than a Mac.

Also, why bother to make sure 1.7 works with 98 or ME. For starters they are both not used very often. I would go as far to say that ME is not used, period, as the OS is basically unusable. Also 1.6 will still be available for download, so its not like you haven't provided an emulator for them.

I am using vista ultimate 64-bit, and 1.6 and 1.7 work for me. (just putting that out their)

15th May 2007, 04:46 PM
VISTA IS GREAT! As long as your P.C. can actually run it, its wonderful. Features are great, it runs faster than XP on my main desktop (and also on my laptop).

16th May 2007, 03:13 PM
Oh pleaseget a linux version plz plz I have tryied every other 64 emulator for linux nowhere near as good a project64 trust me!!!

16th May 2007, 04:27 PM
I really think it would be good to cut off win98.
Also, I don't know if it's possible or too much work, but maybe if ther was DOS version of Project, it would be easir for OS to use it

19th May 2007, 05:10 AM
I got Vista Home Premium 64-bit, works fine for me. I wonder how fast an actual 64-bit build would go...

Works great already.

20th May 2007, 06:12 AM
I am using Windows Vista Home Premium 64 Bit.
The 32 Bit emulation part works fine, but as
soon as I open any ROM Vista says there is a
problem with the program and forces me to shut
it down. Probably PJ64 is using some Windows
function that was removed or changed in Vista.
Oh and where I am just going to add a comment
on the internet: Do not buy Vista it is gay.
Just wanted to warn anyone who is going to buy it.

21st May 2007, 06:41 AM
Win2000 support is important to me xD, for now at least...
I plan get into XP with some custom version (the complete package is loaded with too much shit for my taste) of it someday, since so many things I'm interested in are getting their w2k support dropped.
For me, I would love all this planned obsolescence crap wasn't done, but I guess one can't but deal with it, as there's no real viable alternative right now (and yes, I migrated completelly to linux, and stayed there a whole year without touching windows... the more I knew about linux the less I liked it and the less I believed it's superiority... For what I care, they are equally crap, and at least in windows I can have some fun without dealing technically with attrocious OS desing or absence there of).

If you drop w2k, it's just one more reason to "update" after so much time. I would need to buy a better computer to take advantage of the new and exciting stuff anyway, so why not update along the way???

21st May 2007, 11:15 AM
PJ64 team, use common sense. Trying to appease the lowest common denominator is simply bad policy. You, and us the majority, should not have to pay for someone else's laziness of not wanting to upgrade their system. Forget about the 95, 98, and ME hobos, and just get it work with XP and Vista. The only reason XP should get compadibility is because Vista is a steaming pile of crap ATM.

21st May 2007, 11:10 PM
"Why not just continue to "support" Win'98 but don't test the platform. If '98 users run into trouble, let them be your beta testers/trouble shooters."

I'm in! This guy has the right idea. I've kept 98SE purring like a kitten since 2002 (cloned across 3 HDDs, and 3 MOBOs). I'm sure other Advanced Users will accept the challenge! Please, restrict Noobs from flaming old dogs, and only let Users who 'know' their OS vote on this subject. Regardless, I will continue to use PJ64 versions 1.4-1.6. Thanks, for the best N64 emulator!

22nd May 2007, 11:09 AM
a linux version would be AMAZING

23rd May 2007, 12:55 AM
indeed, macosx and linux versions would be super! Those OS are amazing !!

23rd May 2007, 11:47 AM
Yes Windows 2000 support is important! Please don't drop it! It is still the best version of Windows and the only version I will run. A rock solid OS

24th May 2007, 06:11 AM
Here's another vote for Linux/Mac as I run a linux server at home and travel with OSX. Choices for N64 emulation on OSX are pretty skimpy, though what there is is not bad.

24th May 2007, 10:07 PM
"written by Smiff". "because PJ64 has always been a Windows emulator. porting to Linux would be a major task."

No disrespect, but can ya'll read the above quote? I'm sure Linux and Mac OS-X are fine operating systems, but unless someone volunteers to write the appropriate Ports, this is non-discussion, IMHO.

Besides, I believe one of the Dev team members already asked us to keep this focused on 'Windows' versions. Am I correct?

Someone, please correct me if i'm wrong, but won't Vista's lack of support for DirectSound make it difficult to support it AND all of the OSes preceeding it (ie. NT/98/98SE/ME/2000/XP)?

If so, maybe a 'Vista ONLY' sound Plug-in could solve that problem.

Oh yeah, Noobs; this smart "hobo" has Win98SE running on a AMD Athlon 1700 at lightning speed, with PJ64. I suggest you not make asumptions about what can, or can't be done, until you have tried it yourself. Of course, i'm talking to people that suggest a full re-install, when they get a fatal BSOD {sigh}.

Hey Dev team, I think ya'll should focus on the Core emulation, that's what's important. As long as the Plug-in specs remain compatible, I could still use the older Plug-ins with the new Core. Am I wrong?

25th May 2007, 09:35 AM
Please keep 98 support I'm too poor/cheap to upgrade

25th May 2007, 11:31 PM
Support only:

Windows 2000
Windows XP (fuckoff MCE!)
Windows Vista with Special Sound Plugin

26th May 2007, 11:43 PM
I know it won't do any good, but I'm throwing my lot in with the Linux crowd here, because we need developers to start taking it seriously. It's a growing market, I know I'd donate for a native Linux version.

28th May 2007, 10:23 PM
i think you should support xp, windows 2000, vista

29th May 2007, 04:20 AM
To my great dislike, many people are still running on Win2K (including the one-third of my school that hasn't gone to Mac) so some consideration should be offered, but also with a good kick in the butt to upgrade. Windows XP is still very widely used, as many people, like myself, are reluctant to move up to the 64-bit Vista, because the many open source programs we download that were built in 2003 or earlier might not work on the new OS. As for Vista, it's new and flashy, maybe some cool new features could be thrown in with it, so why not dabble around with it? It's what we're all gonna be using by about 2010 anyway :P
Macs are becoming somewhat popular, due to their almost-immunity to viruses (for now), so many people are converting. Research into a Mac version would be nice. Ahh, Linux. I've never used a Linux machine, so I really can't say about these. And as for systems below WinME? Toss 'em. Anyone that can't afford to upgrade probably has no business on the internet anyway. I've seen few computers of this era that can run PJ64 on them, and the only ones that can are super-customized, which costs hundreds. Instead of spending all that money on your ancient machine, UPGRADE!
Still loving the emulator, great, job, keep working on v1.7 (lol, so buggy!~)

29th May 2007, 08:57 PM
To be honest, I don't think support for Win98 is really needed. Anybody using Win98 that could possibly use Project64, should really consider at least upgrading to Win2k, as it is more robust, as well as more compatible with current-day software and hardware.

Of course, based on what I just said, I think that if support for Win2k isn't *too* hard to maintain, it should be kept. It's a good OS, especially for people without the money to buy a new computer and don't want to bog down their current one with WinXP. Certainly, if a computer running WinXP can barely run PJ64, that same computer with Win2k would run it faster. So it's not quite correct to say that anybody trying to reasonably play PJ64 has a fast enough computer to easily run WinXP.

I guess it boils down to this... Get rid of Win98 support and keep Win2k support if it's not too much trouble. If there are users out there trying to play PJ64 on Win98, their computer is either much too crappy to ever run it, or they choose much too old an OS for their computer. Anybody with at least 64 MB of RAM and a 300 MHz CPU should really be using Win2k anyway.

1st June 2007, 05:38 PM
People have asked why others use "outdated crap" like Windoze 9x and ME.

I'll tell you why I keep ME on my hard drive: it came with my computer and lets me run emulators that don't have a Linux port yet. So please, if you really need to drop 9x/ME support, please just capitulate and add a port over to POSIX, SDL, and OpenGL. That will just about automagically give you ports to Linux and Mac OS X with only minor tweaks between each.

3rd June 2007, 12:55 AM
Roberto Vlasman Raif: Google it. Due to legal reasons downloads are not available from this site (nor are links either.) You'll have to do what everyone else has to and google or yahoo or whatever.

To everyone still running 98...

Past versions of P64 are STILL available to download. I doubt this will change in the future. In order to properly build a better product, you have to look to the future. Also, Vista is completely FINE. The only problem I've had with Vista is driver support for a wireless network card that I used on my old computer (which didn't even WORK on that computer either, by the way.) Likewise, I had a bit of initial trouble running it on Vista. However, I am now connected wirelessly to the internet despite the fact that Dynex (I would reccoment NOT buying from this company under any circumstance btw) did not supply Vista drivers for their product. Checked the site and everything. So it's not Vista that was the problem, but Dynex.

Also, quit looking for an excuse to hate on a system. It just came out. Problems will arise. You cannot test an OS when there are millions of different system combinations available. Give them a break.

So, in conclusion...
Drop 9x/ME support. Older versions are available for them, besides, 1.6 is still a fine emulator as it is.
As for Win2k, if you guys can find time for it I'd say go for it, but if it's going to get in the way of progress, than I say drop it. But only if you're going to have to do too much more work to include support for it.
Go for full Vista support. It'd be nice to see people supporting Vista more (then again, I'm still slightly ticked that Dynex didn't have Vista drivers so that could be it) and Vista is nowhere near as bad as people are making it out to be.
Keep XP support too, because it's one of the better operating systems out there, and it should have support. It should be around for a while too, so keeping support for it is crucial as to not alienate those who keep it for gaming.

As for the Linux crowd, nothing is stopping you from partioning the hard drive and installing XP or 2000 and playing there. Sure, it may not be the most convenient, but it's not like you are unable to play. It's clear that the developers want to keep it for Windows, respect the hard work that they've been doing and leave it at that.

5th June 2007, 11:23 AM
I would like to see this emulator available for linux (and all unix based systems at that) but that most likely won't' occur unless the emulator is open sourced (as pcsx2 recently did).

5th June 2007, 11:35 PM
if you want my opinion, drop Windows 98/ME support for the next version, but keep the latest version supporting Windows 98 always available for download, also getting Linux and Mac support would be good for the near future. keep up the good work hey. so keep Windows 2000 and XP Support, i'm not sure but does this support Windows 64bit? (XP and Vista wise), might be a good idea also :), alright that's my say, laters.

5th June 2007, 11:37 PM
me again. i was just thinking, maybe you could get this working on the old Windows 3.1/95, maybe even DOS, hehe that would be interesting and maybe just for fun. anyway, laters.

6th June 2007, 09:05 PM
Put it on Vista and Xp, others can get screwed because there is plenty of older versions which work perfectly!

7th June 2007, 04:03 PM
Yeah, drop support for old OS's, if people really need to run N64 games on them, they'll do fine with older versions of PJ64.

7th June 2007, 07:57 PM
Just thought I might point out that I am using it (PJ64 1.6)on Vista Ultimate x86 and it seems to be working just fine, it seems that it is working for some but not others though. Perhaps I am just lucky?

Athlon 64 x2 5200 dual core
Dual ATI x1600 pros in SLI
4096mb RAM
On-Board Realtek AC97 sound

7th June 2007, 08:35 PM
That's starange, I use Vista Basic:-\ and it runs pretty fine with no problems at all. Only a slight slowdown when I use the GUI.

10th June 2007, 07:43 PM
I have a computer hooked up to my TV specifically for emulation. That machine runs Windows 2000 and probably won't run another operating system for a very long time, so please don't drop 2000! I personally don't care about Windows ME/98 or 95 though.

11th June 2007, 10:25 PM
Hey, I can't get majoras mask to work right, is there a plugin of configuration I should be using for this game?

12th June 2007, 08:14 PM
vista mac and linux, drop the rest, you should spend your time on developing super sal 64

13th June 2007, 03:36 PM
I running windows 98 se(Looking hard for drivers for usb. pc="AMD 750 mhz 256mb ram 30 gig hd 8mb video card") I might burn the emulator to a disk to get it on my machine. I would love to see some mac support(OS X 10.1 and up) I have a Power Mac g4(500 mhz x 2,512mb ram 20 gig hd x 2, 16mb video ram, OS X 10.1.5). I want to upgrade so bad, but lack of money comes into play and prevent me from doing this task.

15th June 2007, 12:05 PM
You should do win 2000 too for those of us using really old laptops on the go...

16th June 2007, 09:27 AM
I would make 2000/XP/Vista officially supported, and (if the source code is going to be available) let other people handle any ports they need. I believe that's how SNES9X is. ;)

18th June 2007, 09:41 PM
If PJ64 supports Windows XP, doesn't it automatically support Windows 2000 as well? Either way, I request continued Win2k support... I'd also encourage Linux support.

20th June 2007, 07:22 AM
As I'm still running PJ-64 on a Win-ME machine[for speed reasons], I'd personally like to see support for ME to continue. However I'd be willing to move that machine to Win2k if needed. BTW, for all of you out there who seem to be confused about the issue, unless a software developer writes out a routine that rejects the win2k environment, ANYTHING that runs on WinXP will also run on Win2k. C&C3 is proof of this as a patch to allow it to run Win2k, even though C&C3 was written to reject Win2k. The mod patch changed fewer than 8 lines of code. So if PJ-64 runs on WinXP, it will run on Win2k. Unless they lock out Win2k, which would be more of a headache and I don't see them doing that...


24th June 2007, 07:06 AM
well i would hope you will still keep it win98 compatible as I am on a Linux system and mt wine tools is only win98 please don't leave me out in the cold!

24th June 2007, 08:58 PM
I run Windows 2k pro on 2 machines and 98 se on 2 others, please keep 2k support and 98 would be appreciated. also i havent messed with pj64 on win 95 very much at all.

25th June 2007, 02:20 PM
For the record, Ubuntu is growing by leaps and bounds. I realize that the code is probably in some proprietary format for some MS compiler, but switching to gcc and having a true cross platform emulator would be much better and garner a lot more attention, and possible developers as well. Personally, I don't plan on supporting Windows any more as a tech support guy for the 75 people in my family that require tech support. Most of them only want mario kart anyway, and that does work in mupen, but I like project 64 better for a number of reasons, and would love to use it without trying to coerce wine into working.

26th June 2007, 06:10 AM
i keeps telling me that direct 3d is not compatible with my card and i nee to get some 3d graphics card what the hell do i do it wont let me play

26th June 2007, 10:25 PM
Drop 9x. 98 is now considered obsolete by Microsoft, and hardly anyone uses it. Old games for me tend to work fine in XP, and for DOS games, there's always DOSBox (freeware DOS emulator).

I hear many good things about 2000 and it's an NT kernel, and apparently it's got lots of the same features as XP. I say keep 2000 as it won't be too hard to keep up. Anyone who has a comp worthy of running this should have 2000 anyway, as said before.

ME is just garbage. From what I heard, it was a crappy attempt to blend the 9x and NT kernel - didn't Microsoft discontinue support for it after only a year because it sucked so bad? Either way, no one uses it unless they're idiots or like experimenting. Drop it.

So yeah. Vista/XP/2000. 9x would be too hard to keep up with and it's obsolete, ME is just crap. 2000 is NT4, XP is what, NT5.1? Same kernel base, so 2000 shouldn't be terribly hard to keep up. I actually think I'd start looking at dropping 2000 support around next OS, depending on how support for 2000 goes. However, MS now considers 9x obsolete, not many companies support it anymore, drivers can't be found, no one uses it. If anyone NEEDS PJ64 for a 98 box, just keep 1.6 up for them - it shouldn't be too hard on them to get 1.6.

28th June 2007, 12:37 AM
Just to back up what rhY says above; Ubuntu is fast becoming the de facto Linux desktop. I know you guys have already said that a port to Linux is unlikely, but I would urge you to reconsider. Linux is really taking hold now: witness Bill Gates efforts to destroy it. More and more are making the move, especially as Vista offers nothing but woe to many people. Dell are now selling Linux PC's, and many hardware manufacturers are including Linux in their plans. I say all this just to illustrate the growing popularity of Linux, and hopefully to urge your thoughts in that direction. Project 64 is an amazing piece of software, and really ought to be available to Linux users. I do still use XP myself, but when it is killed off by Microsoft, that is when my relationship with Microsoft products comes to an end. I am pretty sure I am not alone in this.

28th June 2007, 07:03 AM
Linux version would be cool

28th June 2007, 09:35 PM
I think you should seriously consider releasing Project64 under the GNU General Public License. This is a Free Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) license, where "free" refers to freedom, not price. Free software usually doesn't cost money, but it [b]gives the USERS freedom[/url]. This includes the freedom to make modified versions that run on old versions of Windows or Mac OS. I recommend the GNU General Public License, which allows you to charge money for beta (or stable) versions, providing you include the source code. For more information on Free (as in "freedom") Software, please visit www.gnu.org (http://www.gnu.org)

29th June 2007, 08:53 AM
Just to clarify my above post: I do still use XP, but I only really use it for programs like PJ64. I've been a Linux user for a year or two now, and dual-boot with Windows. Just thought I ought to make that point, as it isn't so clear in my above post. It seems to suggest I don't even use Linux! Like many, Ubuntu is my main system.

I think PJ64 going to GNU GPL would be a great idea. Isn't ZSNES already under this license too?

29th June 2007, 10:39 PM
Ditch Vista and start supporting OS X and Linux! (OS X is in desperate need of an N64 emu)

30th June 2007, 03:38 PM

Thanks!!! :)

1st July 2007, 01:33 PM
I have Project 64 in Windows Vista and the program didn't work, when I open the program, it said " Direct3D failed to initialize your HAL device make sure you have a properly configured 3D graphics card compatible with Direct 3D 6.0" Someone know how to resolve this problem???

2nd July 2007, 05:12 AM
i also have this problem!

i downloaded it , and i have Vista,

when i choose the ROM it loads it to 100 then it says something about direc3d

2nd July 2007, 11:09 AM
I can tell you people that there's tons of people using Win98/ME, so discarding support for these OSes is somehow cruel.. but... since I'm on XP.. do as you like!!! xD

4th July 2007, 08:06 AM
For everyone who is still trashing/hating/bad mouthing/putting down Windows Vista should get a life!
I have a dual boot Windows XP and Windows Vista home premium computer and although there are a lack of device driver support and software compatibility at the moment Vista can do many amazing things and more to come in the future.

In 1-2 years from now Windows 95/98/ME/2000 will be all outdated just like dinosaurs and nobody will use them so the owners of those operating systems will need to upgrade because only XP/Vista/Vienna will be left.

In the future if you decide to buy a truly powerful vista machine e.g a 2.2 or 2.4Ghz Intel Core2Duo or even a 2.0Ghz Quad Core with 2Ghz ram you will be able to play and burn Blueray discs, play directx 10 games using e.g a Nvidia 8800GTS with 16x Anti-aliasing, capable of high resolution monitors like dual 22 inch LCD HDCP ready with 2048x1536 at 85Hz, play PS2, Xbox and GameCube games without many technical difficulties (providing the emulation software works), be able to watch and record digital satellite t.v. in high definition.

My advice for everyone not using Vista is to wait about 1-2 years and by that time Vista will be much better with more updates, support and stability. Remember this: Windows Vista is still young and new, just wait until it ages and matures.

Summary: Project64 v1.7 doesn't need 95/98/ME support, 2000 can be included until it is either not in use or outdated and most definitely include XP/Vista for both 32 and 64-bit editions. Thats my 2 cents, thanks for reading.

4th July 2007, 02:28 PM
As long as support for Windows 9x isn't purposely broken I don't see a problem. For example if you guys find that rewriting a certain part of the code boosts performance and compatibility in Windows 2000 and beyond but breaks Windows 9x then let Windows 9x die. As for Windows 2000 it should continue to be supported and as long as XP is it would be really hard to break 2000 support. Remember Windows XP is BASICALLY Windows 2000 with a few newer features slapped on top, albeit better security since Service Pack 2, but XP is still just a fancy Windows 2000.

Windows Vista is something I do not understand why is treated so harshly. I happen to have picked up a copy when it came out in January and yes.. it was horrible with compatibility at the time but ran full blast on an aging system (Pentium 4 2.4ghz HT, 1gb RAM, Geforce 6600. Yes i consider this an aged system. However I am going to college in a few months and purchased a Laptop (AMD Turion 64 x2 1.8ghz TL-56, 2gb RAM, ATI Xpress 1150 graphics) and it came with Windows Vista Premium. It runs like a champ! Fast, Aero is a nice modern look, and compatibility had improved VASTLY since i had last used it. Windows Vista will be the future.. Like some have said it just needs its time to mature. Drivers aren't quite perfect yet and not every single XP program is going to run 100 percent right but I run PJ64 1.6 on it with zero problems and full speed.

Drop Win9x only if you have to... but a note for anyone still using it... Upgrade to a Windows NT based operating system, at least windows 2000. You won't regret it. -If your computer can't handle Windows 2000 then you dont meet the system requirements for PJ64 anyways-

4th July 2007, 02:29 PM

I noticed you said Direct 3D complained about not finding a 3D device. Make sure that you have the latest video drivers for Windows Vista. Its not a PJ64 problem because it runs nicely for me. Its a driver issue.

4th July 2007, 02:30 PM
;D ;D ;D i vote for 2000 and XP but not vista BUT i want project 64 1.7!public!

4th July 2007, 07:54 PM
:-*i used 98 with my 6600gt with pj64 good cheesy combination version i used worked fine
lets see some vista ,holey xp sucked

5th July 2007, 06:37 PM
Not Vista? I have no special bias for Vista but sadly my laptop can't run XP due to the Wireless being so new the company doesn't have a XP driver :-\ in any case Vista will be the future... its in that beginning phase where everyone hates it. I remember when everyone disliked XP because it was a resource hog lol.

8th July 2007, 10:32 AM
Hey, if you want to be one of those arrogant developers that forget about perfectly good 98/ME, go ahead. Google and Apple are that way. I don't care either way now 'cause I'm on an XP MCE computer.

While I'm commenting on this site, let me rant about how much I dislike this whole "donate to beta test" scam. If it's a freeware project, why the hell do I have to pay money to use the latest version? Sounds more like shareware to me. And really, who charges money for a program used primarily for piracy? Oh, that's right. Limewire does.

Don't get me wrong, I love Project 64. I got my entire junior high's computer network installed with it and a few choice games long ago. Nobody did anything productive in that library. Ever. :)

But... nobody should have to *pay* to use an emulator, even if said money goes toward alleged development costs. As I understand it, the average Project 64 user is a preteen. He doesn't have a job, and the only way he can pay for the emulator is to bum money off of his parents. Does the average parent want their hard-earned money to go towards the development of this sort of thing. I mean.. Nintendo asserts that emulators are illegal. *shrug*

8th July 2007, 10:49 AM
I'd say just support Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and Linux.

9th July 2007, 09:05 AM
Why don't work in a Linux Version?, Get some look to Nexius or OpenArena, there are games that are running amazing on Linux. I think that emulator should be multi-plataform. Support for 95/98/ME?, for what?, who used them anyway?.
On the other hand, Linux has a great potential. It is necessary to choose by a free alternative. Just think about it!!!

PJ64 Linux Versión!!!

Sorry about my English. It is the language that has imposed, the most not spoken.

10th July 2007, 02:17 AM
Now that Ive talked about Windows versions, I'll now talk about Linux/Mac.

The Project64 team have already said NO to developing for these operating systems but If someone knows how to use open source code from windows and change it into Mac OS X and/or Linux operating systems then that would be good but to do that would take a lot of work.

Look at Mac OS X for an example, Mupen64 works and so does Sixtyforce but the problems are a) Sixtyforce is Shareware so the save states and full screen is disabled b) the annoying logo cannot be removed c) there is Joystick/Gamepad support but I could not get my Joytech Neo S gamepad to work because the analog sticks wont work in Mac OS X even with Game Companion etc. With Mupen64 a) you don't have save states to use b) there is no joystick/gamepad support at all so on a MacBook you are restricted to using tiny keys which is too difficult.
Someone should definitly make a freeware Nintendo64 emulator which has save states, full joystick/gamepad support as well with different Graphic plugins to use.

I have never used a Linux OS in my life so I can't say much about it.

11th July 2007, 10:22 AM
i use windows 2000 and debian linux ( on P4 2600 and radeon 9800 )
XP is 2000 with a new GUI.
in win2000 i play without problems:
all Valve games Half Life, Half Life 2 , and all Source Mods Dystophia
all opengl games: quake 1,2,3,4
and UT2004 and mods with full details.
and in conclusion grand prix legends with Logitech full support for G25

WIN2000 is for gaming.
Linux is difficult because driver ati and no support for joystick, G25, and similar device.

11th July 2007, 11:51 AM
Debian is difficult. Linux for the most part offers excellent support for ATI/nVidia drivers, other devices such as joysticks etc. I use Ubuntu 7.04 and have up to date nVidia drivers which affords me 3D gaming and desktop effects, and I use both my dual analogue joypads fine for all types of gaming. So maybe for you Luca I might recommend an upgrade to the latest Ubuntu!

12th July 2007, 06:41 AM
I would love to see a GNU version, or a Mac version, but the first step is to make Project64 FREE SOFTWARE (a.k.a. "open source"). This gives the users the freedom to modify the code and create other ports, which gives the Pj64 developers the freedom to not have people screaming for Mac and GNU versions. Everybody wins!

12th July 2007, 02:55 PM
Playstationportable version

13th July 2007, 02:21 PM
Thank you for giving us the fun to play our Nin64 favorite game on pc !

For Windows, you shouldn't support more than the 2 last OS available (same opinion as Sebastien Bareil, April 17, 2007 said). The Win9x family is obsolete. Even in the WinNT family, NT4.x is also obsolete, Win2000 is not but almost. The bare MINIMUM sould be WinXP SP2.

To run WinXP decently, a typical 4 year old machine can do the job. So, if you have a 4 year old machine or less, you should at least install WinXP.

If these people just don't want to upgrade and stick with obsolete system, it's there decision/problem and not our/yours. Personaly, I don't want a software that have extra programming code and is subject to make my pc crash just to stay 'compatible' for OS that only a few folks used today ! The best example : Windows...

The only reason why people want support for obsolete OS is that they don't want to buy a new system or get a good used one with decent specs. A good machine is very afordable today and anyone can get a more recent machine even if it's not brand new. Except extremely poor people, there is absolutely no reasons to demand support for more than 4 years old hardware. You have to follow technologie. If not, play DOS game !

For example, this is my 3 year pc that run the emulator just fine :

cpu: athlon xp 2200 (not overclocked)
ram: 1 gb ddr 400 (dual channel not overclocked)
hdd: maxtor 120 gb (7200 rmp, 2 mb cache)
os: winxp sp2 pro

14th July 2007, 12:41 PM
please need this pj64 :'( send my mi e-mail is shiko_inuyasha@hotmail.com

14th July 2007, 07:25 PM
Serously why. The only reason they run those dinosaurs is

-they are using a family computer (bought back then)
-are too poor (probably have no money) and using a computer not their own. (see first reason)

OMG why even ask people just do it. Seeing as the Project64 team has already asked this question.

15th July 2007, 10:28 AM
keep windows 2000 support, it is still the one I use when playing unless xp is required. less garbage in the background.

15th July 2007, 11:07 AM
Don't support Windows Vista. Very few have switched over and most of those who have switched had issues and problems with the OS and it slowed down their computer. Drop 98 support, its old and if people haven't switched over yet, they should just install Linux if their computers can't handle it. Please make a Linux port. There are still no good N64 emulators and many people are switching over to Linux. Please support Windows 2000/XP and Linux. Thanks.

15th July 2007, 03:45 PM
i supposed to download project 64 from this page and i couldn found nothing to download.......

15th July 2007, 07:51 PM
kte is bang on, it would be appreciated if you could keep windows 2000 as a supported OS. Windows Vista is still awaiting it's first full update and according to the article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10450489) it will not be ready until November 2007. Goodness knows what that will mean for developing on it - but you guys will know best...

16th July 2007, 07:34 AM
it is sick tell all your friends

17th July 2007, 03:59 PM
What are the controls on windows, like A is x, B is c i dont kno z tho

18th July 2007, 03:08 AM
thanks very goooooooood

18th July 2007, 11:58 PM
Please keep the supportand developing for:
Windows 2000
Windows Xp
Windows Vista

19th July 2007, 02:37 AM
I think that that the team has to support only:
Windows XP (all editions)
Windows Vista (including 64-bit editions, many pepole use it, including me) ;)
The reason is: Old OSes are usually used by users with weak computer configurations.

19th July 2007, 06:13 AM
Personally, I think a project like this one should KEEP 9x support.

1 **everyone** has a copy of 98 kicking around.

2 Old computers are plentiful (only get more plentiful as Vista takes over)

3 Since the computers are older, the old 9x installations have already proven their durability (I can't believe EVERYONE overlooked this fact!)

4 Arcade cabinets are DIY projects-- DIY projects use whatever is available-- I ain't buying new crap for a DIY hobby project to play N64 games.

Now, it isn't like I honestly *deserve* a vote (first time here actually), but my voice is shared by more than you think.

If supporting 9x is a *burden*, then make a FINAL version for those systems... perhaps even continue plugin support for them as well.

My take on it is that anyone still running 9x **MUST** be doing something right. Removing it for the sake of optimizations should ultimately lead to a splitting of the project into separate projects, one 9x the other NT. Which is why I say make a final version for 9x... makes everyone as happy as they will ever get...

And I include Windows 2000 with the XP & Vista version... eventually, I foresee the W2K version going the way of the 9x version, but not for another 2-3 years at least.

If you cannot maintain the 9x line, just pop out a final stable 9x version and archive it everywhere.

Keep W2K compatibility in the current builds.

thanks for reading this post.

20th July 2007, 11:52 AM
Ok, here it is in a nutshell. I am a collector of rare PC console ports who has actually considered configuring my computer as a dual boot (XP Pro/98SE) for the sake of those old games--however, I've thought twice about it since it would demand running XP on FAT32, and I have found XP fixes for all but 1 (Sonic R). And as such, even I am willing to concede that there's no real need to keep the Win9x support around--it just bogs down development with all the extra testing.

Mac/Linux users need to show a little respect to the wishes of the dev team--these OS's while fine, are just too different, and it's already been made crystal clear multiple times that they want to keep PJ64 Windows ONLY! You guys have been bragging for years about being able to run Windows on a partitioned dual boot system, or even emulate it within the OS, so GO DO IT if these old N64 games really mean that much to you, and you insist on emulating them instead of buying a used N64 off ebay, or in a pawn shop. Older versions of PJ64 work just fine on even the most modest of XP/2K systems, and are readily available with plenty of 3rd party plug-ins, so it's not like you're being left out in the cold.

Windows XP/2K support should be retained because these are still viable operating systems allot of people use. DOS-based, Win9X OS's need to get the boot kick. Vista development is fine, but I would advise against it because of all the same reasons Nekurakami cited--my experience, as well as my friends who have bought it reflects nothing but headaches and regrets. WinXP Pro is the best Windows to date, and many people (Halo 2 cronies, and rich elitists buying purely for the sake of bragging rights not withstanding) are waiting until the first couple of Vista service packs have launched before purchasing. Vista is simply catching on too slowly to be worth devoting allot of time to--the overwhelming majority of your user base is staying with XP.

21st July 2007, 07:08 PM
Should support MAc OS x

22nd July 2007, 12:48 AM
I like the old OS's too, but I am sorry, they are outdated, and continued support of them is not only a waste a time, but in the end halts overall progress by forcing the team to use outdated techniques just to cater to a very small percentage of users...

In the end it would accomplish nothing to support the 9x platform, because sooner or later its going to have to happen, they can't carry you forever, because your systems can only do so much, its hardware limitations, I know, I bit the bullet and spent a bit upgrading myself, but its well worth it, I can play awesome games like oblivion, with SM3.0, HDR, etc..

So trust me upgrade, by some good new games, you won't regret it, and let the team move forward without the fucking guilt trips..


Now, onto the newer systems..

WinXp 32 bit, is a no brainer, to many people use it to cut it out, same with 2k, which is XP, sort of, it could be considered XP's mother, and is basically the same system, Xp just has friendlier interface, and a little better driver/hardware support.. So XP, and 2k, should obviously remain supported..

Which leaves the 64bit OS's...

You should really support WinXP Pro x64 Edition, because we don't get no love from nobody, hardly,.. :(

This OS is completely neglected, and its really the best OS out there, its WinXP, and 64bit, its what Vista wishes it could be, its only problem is the lack of support for it(apps, games, etc), I doubt DX10 even works on it, which is lame considering its 64bit, so it should work, if M$ were so inclined it could, I think..

I have a dual boot with XP 32bit, and XP 64bit, and I benchmarked them both, XP 32bit got whooped on, and that was using a 32bit test(obviously on the same hardware), I seen a 10% increase in all aspects, had the test been 64bit based, I would have seen much more, at least another 10% I would imagine, so XP 64bit is truly superior to its 32bit counterpart, its just not very supported, even M$ doesnt really support it, they have pretty much dropped it to push Vista.

And so the developers of course have followed suit, thats why even though WinXP 64 outdates Vista, Vista has much more application, and driver support for it already.. (I think they released the beta XP 64 back in 2004, or 2005 somewhere in there,.)

Which brings me to my last comments, Vista, while it should be supported, because M$ is forcing it down everyones throats, should be a lower priority, at least until the majority of users migrate, I personally can't stand it, it took 15 minutes to find the control panel, and it kept harrassing me, are you sure, you just clicked a restricted item, please input your password, blah, blah,... STFU!!

Most annoying OS ever conceived, im sure you can turn most that crap off, but I am equally sure it wouldn't go down without a fight, it would more than likely harrass you every step of the way, I honestly don't know what the hell they were thinking, its supposed to be user friendly, yet it ended up being user abusive, annoying, bloated, etc, etc..

And worse of all its condescending, I felt like Vista should have had a target user guide on it, you know, a little picture of a guy in a helmet, on a short bus, drooling on himself, you know, a retard, because thats how that OS treats you, like you're retarded..

All the important stuff is hidden, and password protected, as if I am going to have a fucking spasm, and go click crazy or some shit, Im sorry M$ I am quite capable of not screwing up my PC, I don't need you holding my hand..

I am sure it was for a reason, perhaps so kids couldn't screw up stuff, or whatever, but still, not everyone has kids, or wears a helmet, and rides the short bus, you know, that crap should have been optional.. But, alas, instead you have to become a damn Vista expert, download all kinds of tools, and hacks, and spend 10 hours removing excess crap.. Not that XP was much different, but Vista was bullshit on a whole new level man..

To be fair, I am sure in time it will probably become a good system, a couple service packs, and some patience to aid you in shutting down, all the "helpers" they threw in, and it would probably be an alright OS, just like XP after its been fine tuned..

Anyways, sorry to go on for so long, I know I wrote a damn mini novel here, but simplicity isn't my style man.. ;)


P.s.. If any thing seems weird, or mispoken, its because I had to trim it down for length, cus the forum rejected my original post, so I haphazardly(sp?) went through trimming for length.. ;)

(Which also accounts for the large increase in obscenities, it was originally very well spoken, till I got pissed off at having to rewrite, and edit it..)

22nd July 2007, 06:47 PM
linux support would be great

23rd July 2007, 05:31 PM
Its amazingly easy to ditch 9x/ME/2000 support when your not stuck using it

For a long time, I was forced to use outdated systems. My family isnt into computers at all, with most of the computers I owned being outdated, free givaways. Its easy to say "upgrade, upgrade, its totally worth it!!" but getting the money to upgrade for teens (or younger..) can be difficult. Alot of people own cheap computers dialup, simply for the benefits of having a computer. Email, instant messaging, basic internet browsing, ect. There is probably a shockingly large amount of ppl in this situation that also use their computers for emulation.

Yet, if I was developing a program, I'd have a very, very hard time justifying the time investment of testing on 9x systems, to be honest. While it would be great for them to remain supported, it isnt really practical, I guess.

Continued support for Windows 2000 seems obvious, as it is still very widly used. If you do drop support for Win9x/ME, then make it very clear that PJ64 1.6 still works just fine with these OS. Besides, 'we' are used to not getting the absolutly best of everything, and finding programs that instead offer us something to do, and not worrying about what few features we may not be able to use..

Besides, not testing on 9x =/= incompatability. You might not test for 9x, but who knows, it might work anyway? XD

In the end, less testing more feature adding (for the majority) is where my vote goes, so I say drop 9x/ME.

Note: I was eventually able to get a decent WinXP comp, with AMD Athlon 64 3500 , 512 RAM, 130 GB HDD, so I am no longer apart of the mentioned minority..

23rd July 2007, 08:50 PM
I havent ever played this game so i cant comment ok but does this project 64 game have to go on a floppy disk tell me if it does and tell me if it dosent ok bye.

23rd July 2007, 10:14 PM
I'll put in another vote for Linux as top priority. In fact Project 64 is one of the few remaining reasons I still have any Windows version (XP Pro) on one of my machines. I've tried Mupen64 and there are still some major issues, mainly its too slow and the textures aren't fully aligned in many games. The same machine with PJ 1.6 dual booting into XP runs fine.

I know a lot more people who are trying to migrate from XP to Linux/ Mac than to Vista. If Microsoft wasn't forcing it down people's throats by trying to prevent XP from being sold, almost no one would be running Vista. And just to be fair, I actually have used it. I had to decide whether to upgrade one of our computer labs to Vista or keep the new machines with XP so I loaded Vista Ultimate on a Core Duo 2 with a Radeon X850 PE. It seemed slow! Considering Linux and XP fly on that machine, and I personally have no problems using older PIII Linux or older SGI IRIX workstations, all signs show there is something majorly wrong with Vista.

As far as 9x support, I'd vote to drop it. Machines that need 9x (worse than a single PII 450 Radeon 8500) can't really run PJ64 well either.

25th July 2007, 12:55 PM
Support for linux and mac os x would be cool, as well as support for outdated versions of windows, but if they make it open source, this won't be an issue.

27th July 2007, 02:00 PM
I'm new to osx and i definately want to do not miss project64!!!!

30th July 2007, 07:21 PM
Linux support would be great.

As far as windows, 2000 is still somewhat important but there is no real reason to keep supporting 98.

31st July 2007, 06:19 AM
I'd say drop 9x and add Linux support. It seems there are a lot of people trying to migrate to Linux and emulators are a great way to add games (one of the few areas Linux lacks).

31st July 2007, 07:58 AM
I'd drop 9x support. Windows 2000 I can kinda see having but I don't think I actually know of anyone who still uses anything below XP or Vista. There's no reason not to really, and if people are unwilling to upgrade to the best version available (XP in this case) then they'll miss out on support for newer software. I don't think PJ64 should make an exception for them at the sacrifice of stability, time, and features.

3rd August 2007, 12:41 AM
I am all for Linux when it comes to saving my favorite old games. There are compatibility issues with every new Windows version. Linux would not waste your resources like this...

3rd August 2007, 03:32 AM
There are many linux versions as well, you cannot say that it doesn't waste your time.

Many people still use Windows 2000, so dropping that is not the best idea. Most software(except for Microsoft) still supports 2000. Most people who used Windows 95, 98, or Me, on the other hand, have upgraded by now.

I think you should support Windows:

5th August 2007, 11:46 AM
Personally, I suspect that users with Win XP or better, will also have better performing hardware (more RAM, better motherboard, better video and stronger processor), then those operating Win 98/ME. So, obviously, it's easier for you to stick to WinXP or better, because you have an "easier" task of getting PJ64 to emulate the speed required to play games as on a real N64. I'm not a hardcore programmer, so, that being said, there could be a strong case where Linux would also be an alternate platform for you, seeing how efficient Linux is with resources.

6th August 2007, 06:45 AM
I always used project64 on my old XP computer and was ver happy with it but I moved to Macs and I really hope you guys can make a OS X version of it because the only ones out for it are terrible in comparison to your product.

6th August 2007, 09:41 AM
always used project64 on my old XP computer and was ver happy with it but I moved to Macs and I really hope you guys can make a OS X version of it because the only ones out for it are terrible in comparison to your product.

:) ;) :D ;D

13th August 2007, 12:09 PM
Only the 32 and 64-bit versions of 2K, XP, and Vista should be supported; anything older then these are no longer being supported by Micro$oft. maybe keep an older version of project64 available for the older oses? A linux version would be nice though.

15th August 2007, 01:54 AM
One last try...

[written by DeadDude, July 19, 2007]
"3 Since the computers are older, the old 9x installations have already proven their durability (I can't believe EVERYONE overlooked this fact!)"

Finally, a voice of reason, in this vast sea of ignorance!

[written by DeadDude, July 19, 2007]
"My take on it is that anyone still running 9x **MUST** be doing something right."

Bravo! Now _that_ is what I call _respect_! Thank you, kind Sir. ;-) (And, the GEEKS shall inherit the Earth.)

[written by DeadDude, July 19, 2007]
"eventually, I foresee the W2K version going the way of the 9x version, but not for another 2-3 years at least."

Yeah, in about 5-7 years, I'm going to be laughing my @$$ off, when the recent crop of Micro$oft Bloatware, *also* becomes "obsolete". (heh heh heh)

[written by DeadDude, July 19, 2007]
"Which is why I say make a final version for 9x... makes everyone as happy as they will ever get..."

;-D - For a "DeadDude", _this_ guy sure is 'Alive' - Unlike, _all_ of the fascist 9x bashers, for whom have posted on this topic.

[written by KnyteOwl, July 20, 2007]
"WinXP Pro is the best Windows to date..."

Allow me to impose *my* opinion, too, since the most _obvious_ reasons for this topic are:
1. To beat the Code out of 9x, until it is in 'Alpha', again.

2. To allow 2KKK, XPee, and Vi$ta fan-people to kiss-up to their Master, Mr. B. G.

3. So, that said ignoramuses can spend their online time, freely flaming 9x users, with a new form of prejudice - OS-tracism.

4. So, Linux and Mac users can waste their time, trying to convince the Dev Team that their 'OS of choice' is *also* worthy of consideration, whilst our cries fall on 'deaf ears'.

[written by Smoke, July 22, 2007]
"But, alas, instead you have to become a damn Vista expert, download all kinds of tools, and hacks, and spend 10 hours removing excess crap.. Not that XP was much different, but Vista was bulls**t on a whole new level man.."

HA HA HA! Now, that's the best description of the, so-called, "Windows eXPerience", that I've seen to date! When Win98SE (rarely) tells me that I need "Administrator rights", I just Bitch-slap it with my brain, and continue-on with my session, without frustration. (I will _not_ be assimilated - Persistence is brutal!)

By the way: Does no one else realize, that we're debating about emulating an obsolete Console, on an obsolete OS, using what will eventually be, an obsolete Emulator? {Sigh}

Well, I rest my case - Y'all keep on having fun beating this 'dead horse' topic. It now seems like a _moot_ _point_, in my opinion...

15th August 2007, 07:23 AM
>:( esta pagina me da asco jodanse, todos son unos ñoños unos nerds, vallanse al averno jotos

26th August 2007, 09:55 PM
I would like to keep Win2k support! :D

29th August 2007, 05:41 AM
I need to get prodject 64 for windows 2000

31st August 2007, 06:23 PM
I'm in favor of making it open-source. I'd like to see support for Windows 2000, and if it's open-source, someone can make a fork. I think we should push the developers to re-license under the GNU GPL. Who's with me? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

8th September 2007, 06:44 PM
This one's for 'Delta Dreamer'

Never ONCE did I diss Win9x operating systems in any way. As a collector of rare PC console ports which often demand older, discontinued operating systems to run, I simply pointed out what should be a couple of few obvious things:

1: I collect rare PC console ports which often demand Win9x operating systems to run, and even being in this tiny niche group, WinXP fulfills even MY needs as the ONLY remaining WinXP incompatible title I have and haven't been able to find a compatibiltiy fix for is Sonic R.

2: The inclusion of these operating systems bogs down development time because it demands testing on a wider variety of operating systems.

3: The Win9x userbase is shrinking by the day--even now, it's userbase has gotten so small that only an increasingly small niche group of people who like me who collect rare PC console ports which there are no XP fixes available for still use it--and even then, not as a primary OS in most instances.

4: Older versions of PJ64 remain readily available, and work fine with the exception of minor glitches in a handful of titles.

If that's your idea of "flaming" Win9x users, you are WAY too trigger happy pal. I used Win98SE for a long time after WinXP launched (even to the point of being mocked by peers), and have absolutely nothing against it, or anyone who continues to use it. But dude--seriously--XP is faster. XP is more stable. XP supports more devices. XP is more compatible with modern hardware. XP is more feature-rich, and user friendly. And XP has even been combed down to the point that there are user-created compatibility fixes available for all but the ABSOLUTE rarest of PC console ports. And as before, my own experience with Vista, as well as my friends reports, and even the word of a tech who WORKS ON COMPUTERS FOR A LIVING reflects nothing but headaches and regrets after "upgrading" to it. And that's not a diss either--it's simply saying that Vista is having some teething pains that need to be ironed out before people begin to flock to it. Sorry, but based on these things, I stand by my assertion that WinXP Pro is the best Windows to date. That's my OPINION, I presented it respectfully, and am not shoving it down anyone's throats, and I'm entitled to it.

And in response to your "tracism" characterization (trash facism=tracism), my beliefs which you know nothing about since you don't know me are the POLAR OPPOSITE of facism, and I always have been, and will continue to always be respectful when I post on forums. You're waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of line pal--you're the one resorting to name calling, and attacking people for respectfully expressing a valid opinion--not me. Now who's the "tracist"? Maybe you'd better go do some soul searching before responding to that one . . . .

10th September 2007, 08:44 PM
I'm going to cast my vote for Linux also. There are more Kubuntu/Ubuntu users than Vista users. Hell, the ONLY reason anybody uses Vista is because it was installed on their PC by the manufacturer and they don't know any better. Dell forced M$ to offer XP on new machines since all the customers who needed/wanted Windows and knew what they were doing didn't want Vista either. Linux won't be a waste of time as desktop Linux only continues to grow. Since Mupen64 exists and uses the same plugin system as Project64, I don't know why its so hard to port.

This is my analysis of XP. Every install I spent 1 hour installing and 2 hours removing all the extra crap, turning off services I didn't need, dealing with the endless patches and updates, and then the WGA crap. Meanwhile Linux was getting better and better. Finally I got tired of M$'s beta quality OSes and switched over to Linux full time. I still have a Windows partition with an old version of XP and nearly the ONLY thing I use it for is Project 64. The dev team should switch to Linux support immediately and ignore Vista. Leave in support for Win 9x since in many ways those OSes worked better than anything today.

12th September 2007, 02:04 PM
Windows sucks and there really should be a Linux version. Re-licensing under an open-source license such as GPL is the best solution to this dilemma. If Project64 was open source, people could create Linux and BSD forks (or maintain compatibility with obsolete versions of Windows).

23rd September 2007, 05:08 PM
At least try to support wine or something.

I ain't gonna restart to run PJ64... I'm actually trying to find the source to nineteen64 0.9.9 at this moment, but i'm certain they hadn't released it before it got abandoned. So, I'd actually be willing to go through disassembly to get some pointers, get the old source code, and update it, Then go through porting just to get a good n64 emulator on Linux. Now, I know my message means nothing, But has anyone searched for the word Linux on this page? Theres a lot of occurances...

The demand for a good n64 emulator running on Linux is crazy. Please... Help us. I know you don't want people to discuss it and its not gonna happen, but for Christs sake I'm going crazy over this... (Goes back to WINE and disassembly)

23rd September 2007, 05:28 PM
Oh, BTW, I'm aware of the fact that WINE runs the Project64 core great but the graphics are my concern. I use Rice anyways (Kirby64 works on it... I was helping my brother get it running, ask him why XD... BTW, for that game, the only perfect combo I know of: Interpreter CPU on 1964 with Rice Video 6.1.0c) so i can run OpenGL mode wonderfully, but Jabo's Video plug in is really nice for most things, and the GUI erases to black in every 3D frame on all plug ins... Sure, I can figure that one out eventually myself, but still. Sometimes there are small issues other than that, but i make custom Wine builds so i can throw in a few patches for myself...

25th September 2007, 04:10 PM
Mupen64 is still being developed. There hasn't been an update on the news page, but I contacted the developers awhile ago, and they're still working on it. nmn, maybe you could join the dev team?

30th September 2007, 12:35 PM
I'd love to, but I'm afraid I'm pretty sure I could never get into the team... They wouldn't acccept me, most likely, either since my primary OS is Linux, or because I'm not very big on optimizations, Or I'm just plain not a good enough programmer. I guess I'll ask, but I'm really new at joining projects - I usually work alone, and I wouldn't give too many actual benefiting changes to the emulator, mostly port work. In the meantime, My work on porting 1964 has risen, but parts of the code are confusing, very non-standards-compliant, and there isn't much motive to port an older version for me... Oh well. And Mupen64 - its decent... But it still has a long way to go, unlike 1964 or Project 64. It won't run properly on my 64-bit PC (Though with software video i got a nice little randomly colored vertical line in the center of the screen for a second or two after booting Kirby64, the only ROM on this PC, and I'm too lazy to transfer any other ROMs in my possession from my old computer), and I'm yet to test it on my 32-bit one. The point is, if i could even get into the PJ64 team, I'd definitely be willing to help port this thing over, and if 1964 were better written(It seriously misses the mark with standards compliance, not counting the easy-to-port windows.h references, but thats not to say its BADLY written), I'd probably already have ported it over (I've ported half GUI and stubbed the other half, ported half of the processor emulator, the plug-ins system, but it won't all compile yet, and I'm sure some of it is already badly ported because it was a quick one)

30th September 2007, 03:03 PM
As usual, i screw up and get the wrong meaning. I will try to join mupen. I just fixed my damn GTK libraries (I now despise GTK) and tested it... And after coming back, i reread your post, and OMG, You mean join the Mupen Team, not PJ64, which makes more sense than what i assumed (because i read too fast, sue me. :P)

My test results with Mupen? Holy hell. It got WAY further than i imagined... I started with GLn64, which i wasn't really comfortable with in the past, And oh my goodness the only ROM i copied to my new computer, the one that ALWAYS gave me trouble, Kirby64, actually ran pretty good. I got Rice to work, and wow, it had less bugs than it did on both 1964 and Project64 at first glance (But of course, Project64 is better, Mupen has some limitations that just can't be broken easily/practically with X11/Linux) ... Despite how I thought they were doing based on my last use of Mupen, They really are doing a fine job, and its not too far behind after all. Even if i could only do a certain level of optimization work and little CPU work, I'd be glad to make it a little cooler as the PJ64 team is doing with PJ64 1.7, Or perhaps i could port the new unofficial Rice video plugin, Or perhaps both, never know.

2nd October 2007, 11:55 AM
I think, supporting windows are like default, (2000, XP, Vista) But I really believe, make it support with Linux and Mac. will be the next step. As you say, you want some day, you can call this project done. and I believe, at that point, there will be so many people using Linux and Mac. So why not give them a sweet taste on your sweet project. I am Project64 fans for 6 years. But not I can't even use it natively because I have switch to Linux. which seem like a much better system. and I love it.
You are the greatest. because of you the dream of N64 come true.

5th October 2007, 05:15 AM
written by Delta Dreamer, May 25, 2007

"written by Smiff". "because PJ64 has always been a Windows emulator. porting to Linux would be a major task."

No disrespect, but can ya'll read the above quote? I'm sure Linux and Mac OS-X are fine operating systems, but unless someone volunteers to write the appropriate Ports, this is non-discussion, IMHO.

Besides, I believe one of the Dev team members already asked us to keep this focused on 'Windows' versions. Am I correct?

Someone, please correct me if i'm wrong, but won't Vista's lack of support for DirectSound make it difficult to support it AND all of the OSes preceeding it (ie. NT/98/98SE/ME/2000/XP)?

If so, maybe a 'Vista ONLY' sound Plug-in could solve that problem.

Oh yeah, Noobs; this smart "hobo" has Win98SE running on a AMD Athlon 1700 at lightning speed, with PJ64. I suggest you not make asumptions about what can, or can't be done, until you have tried it yourself. Of course, i'm talking to people that suggest a full re-install, when they get a fatal BSOD {sigh}.

Hey Dev team, I think ya'll should focus on the Core emulation, that's what's important. As long as the Plug-in specs remain compatible, I could still use the older Plug-ins with the new Core. Am I wrong?

because most of yall are wrong

DirectSound is not removed from Vista.
DirectSound Hardware, and 3D are removed from vista.

the Software implementation of Directsound still exists within Vista, and there are plenty of vista users using emulators that require Dsound support.

PJ64 has never by default supported Hardware Directsound until the latest audio build which can do both.

5th October 2007, 05:22 AM
and for the last time


if you want it so badly, take your GNU, stick it, and make your own emulator so others can fuck the code up.

the topic specifically, SPECIFICALLY, mentions Windows, not Linux.

Lastly, i am sick and tired of people with systems too weak to run PJ64 coming and asking for help, the majority of them are running either Win9X or early Win2k systems which just don't have the hardware support.

theres a reason microsoft doesn't support 9x anymore... and thats because its antique, and theres no point in raising the dead.

5th October 2007, 05:26 AM
now in finally, there are some features of XP that aren't supported in 2K, mainly in the virtual memory mappings kernel security.

which luckily won't effect PJ64, at all, there fore, Windows 2000 would be quite easy to maintain support, and being that NT6 is and as a compatibility mode for XP, then theres no reason it won't support PJ64 either.

28th October 2007, 05:16 AM
An xbox version of PJ64 would be nice. There are many modders out there and would be highly appreciated.

1st November 2007, 12:49 PM
what are you guys talking about

5th November 2007, 05:19 PM
1-Need support a Kaillera!! The Kaillera its a multy Player plugin!!!
2-Need input turbo buttom per buttom
3-Need trasnfer pokemon game of N64 to Game boy emulator Pokemon game,
4-Need Hack Rouble Pack support in Mario Kart, rs.................

7th November 2007, 11:12 PM
written by Danial Horton, October 05, 2007

and for the last time


if you want it so badly, take your GNU, stick it, and make your own emulator so others can f**k the code up.

the topic specifically, SPECIFICALLY, mentions Windows, not Linux.

Lastly, i am sick and tired of people with systems too weak to run PJ64 coming and asking for help, the majority of them are running either Win9X or early Win2k systems which just don't have the hardware support.

True, this topic DOES specifically mention Windows, but going open-source would solve the problem on both ends. I personally don't think the PJ64 developers should care about maintaining compatibility with Windows 9x, but if the source code was available, someone else could create a fork that works with older operating systems.
There are only a few N64 emulators for Unix-like systems, and they all seem to be unmaintained, understaffed, or pure crap. I don't think the PJ64 developers should port their software to Unix if they don't want to, but if the code is available, any programmers who want to run PJ64 on Unix have the freedom to port it themselves.

So let's recap:
* Project64 re-licenses under GPL
* Linux users excitedly port the software to Unix-like systems, and call it something clever like Lintendo64
* The PJ64 developers make more progress than ever because they don't have to waste time dealing with requests for a Linux version
* Everyone who still uses Windows 9x for whatever stupid reason realizes that Windows sucks anyways and makes the switch to Linux so they can run the special Unix port that exists in this hypothetical world that could easily exist if people were more understanding and just released their code under free software licenses.
* Project64 gets even better because they can use code from the Unix port, so the workload is somewhat divided
* Everyone celebrates and eats pizza

Project64 is already freeware, so what do the developers have to lose by going open-source, other than headaches that result from hourly requests for a Linux version?

10th November 2007, 02:39 PM
In my opinion, I think you should stay with 2000/XP/Vista and maybe some forms of Linux when you can. Cause 95/98 is discontinued except in some businesses that use it for cash registers or something minor.

As for Vista, I am running P64 and I am having no problems with any games, except for the usual engine problems. The thing is, if you install DirectX End User Runtime, you do end up getting DirectMusic (which is being deprecated) dlls you need to run Jaboo's.

However, if you do plan on developing it on Vista, you should try to make it Dx10 compatiable, for video purposes (if you did the above, sound and music aren't a problem).

18th November 2007, 10:06 AM
I'm not sure how to get a game onto PJ64! >:( Can any of u tell me what I need and what I need to do :'( :'( :'( :-( :-(?If u can,that would be great.

4th December 2007, 11:57 AM
ya please don't drop support for Windows XP MCE

5th December 2007, 05:26 PM
It would be nice to see Windows XP x64Bit support (Vista x64 too)
running 64bit natively
as most people has one AMD Athlon 64 or a Core2Duo at home

NOTE: 64Bit is the future architecture!

6th December 2007, 04:02 PM
Me want linux!!!

7th December 2007, 10:12 PM
Can it work on a window 98 with the top secirty to date?

I NEED HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

My friend has window 95 with an higher secirty than mine..

13th December 2007, 12:41 AM
written by Danial Horton, October 05, 2007

and for the last time


if you want it so badly, take your GNU, stick it, and make your own emulator so others can f**k the code up.

the topic specifically, SPECIFICALLY, mentions Windows, not Linux.

If someone f*cks the code up, thats their problem, not anyone else's. If you are dumb enough to download from non-confirmed sources that have bad code, you deserve to have something f*ck up.

I remember playing with pj64 when it first came out. The only thing keeping me from pj64 now is the fact that it may never be GNUed/GPLed, and too bad, because I cannot justify going back to or dual booting windows just to play with this particular emulator. Mupen either needs to step it up or pj64 needs to release a *nix version or opensource their code, because it is easily the best n64 emu out there.

17th December 2007, 12:48 PM
please support mac OSX, pj64 is the only reason i still have to have my crappy old computer.

19th December 2007, 10:07 AM
eu so brasileiro kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk :o

21st December 2007, 09:01 PM
The developers are asking if we want the emulator to run on Windows 98/ME, probably because they're having difficulty keeping it compatible with older systems while at the same time pushing it forward. But the answer is very simple - we can have BOTH! Why worry about whether it runs on older systems when the source code is available to anyone who cares to make it do so? Their version can focus on their goals, and forks can focus on whatever itch someone else wants to scratch (these itches might include porting the emulator to other operating systems, such as Linux). If they release under an open-source license, they can borrow each other's code, so it's almost like enlarging the development team.

They need to see that freedom to tinker and share is important, and also that there are users out there who want those freedoms. So please sign the petition to liberate PJ64 at tinyurl dot com slash yov2w3

2nd January 2008, 02:05 AM
project64 was open source a few years ago and people weren't that interested in it. but its probably becuase the license didn't adhere to the free software definition. maybe if they made it gpl, people would port it to linux ;D