Project64 Forums

Project64 Forums (http://forum.pj64-emu.com/index.php)
-   Site News (http://forum.pj64-emu.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Pj64 vs Windows (http://forum.pj64-emu.com/showthread.php?t=66)

Smiff_ 17th April 2007 10:07 AM

Pj64 vs Windows
 
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.

BlackBass 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!

Anonymous 17th April 2007 10:07 AM

written by Bjørnar
 
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 :)

shadowth 17th April 2007 10:07 AM

Yeah... I don't think it makes any sense to support any non-NT Windows based version....

Anonymous 17th April 2007 10:07 AM

written by Jay
 
A Linux Version Would Be Nice

Anonymous 17th April 2007 10:07 AM

written by Brian
 
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.

Anonymous 17th April 2007 10:07 AM

written by TzakShrike
 
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.

Anonymous 17th April 2007 10:07 AM

written by darkhawk
 
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

Nekokabu 17th April 2007 10:07 AM

Win98/ME are not necessary.
I would like to keep Win2k support! ;)

ScottJC 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.

kileak 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.

Melchior 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.

legend 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.

Anonymous 17th April 2007 10:19 AM

written by Uther_Dark
 
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

Anonymous 17th April 2007 10:50 AM

written by _Dragon_
 
Hi out there!
Quote:

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?
Summary:
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_

Anonymous 17th April 2007 11:50 AM

written by OuT
 
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.

Anonymous 17th April 2007 12:47 PM

written by Eric
 
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

squall_leonhart 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.

MikeSixer 17th April 2007 01:20 PM

Macintosh version would be cool you know how im always talking about it on the beta forums ;)

Anonymous 17th April 2007 01:39 PM

written by Serge
 
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.

oceanblue 17th April 2007 05:22 PM

I vote of Windows XP and newer only.

GaveUpTomorrow 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).

Anonymous 17th April 2007 06:47 PM

written by Joshua
 
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.

zilmar 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..

Anonymous 17th April 2007 09:47 PM

written by Sam
 
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.

Anonymous 17th April 2007 09:50 PM

written by DrLight
 
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.

Anonymous 17th April 2007 10:01 PM

written by Willy Gazina
 
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...

Anonymous 18th April 2007 02:15 AM

written by RandomMofo
 
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.

Anonymous 18th April 2007 03:40 AM

written by sean1
 
my two cents?- drop win9x support! thanks guys! keep it up!

Anonymous 18th April 2007 06:40 AM

written by RaphaelZ
 
Oh, the win98/ME/2000 suport is very important!!!!!!

Anonymous 18th April 2007 06:46 AM

written by ludivego
 
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.

Anonymous 18th April 2007 06:47 AM

written by ludivego
 
and linux would be awesome ;D

xannonite 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.

ScottJC 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.

ScottJC 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 ;)

Anonymous 18th April 2007 12:59 PM

written by Serge
 
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.

Smiff_ 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?

Questwizard88 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.

legend 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!!!

Gent 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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.