Project64 Forums

Project64 Forums (
-   Site News (
-   -   Pj64 vs Windows (

Anonymous 18th April 2007 06:59 PM

written by cjjar
i not want WINDOW 2000 SUCK PROBLEM!

Anonymous 18th April 2007 09:34 PM

written by Joshua
errrr.... well said cjjar.... ... ... >.>

squall_leonhart 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.

ScottJC 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.

Smiff_ 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

Anonymous 19th April 2007 01:44 AM

written by John
I would love to see Linux support :D

squall_leonhart 19th April 2007 03:10 AM

sorry john, thats not happening, not with this team anyway.

Gent 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

Anonymous 19th April 2007 03:15 AM

written by Rex
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 there outdated and should have been dropped a long time ago..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.

Anonymous 19th April 2007 03:16 AM

written by carl
Windows XP and Windows Vista support only.
Win98 is obsolete.
Windows 2000 is not for gaming

Jabo 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 ;-)

Anonymous 19th April 2007 06:58 AM

written by _Dragon_
@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!

axcc 19th April 2007 09:37 AM

that is not what they are saying

legend 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?

Anonymous 19th April 2007 05:18 PM

written by NightKitty
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.

Gent 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

Anonymous 19th April 2007 08:36 PM

written by Twisty
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. :)

Smiff_ 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.

Anonymous 20th April 2007 03:28 AM

written by RockmanForte
I think you guys should supports all windows because not all people wants vista you know.

Anonymous 20th April 2007 06:24 AM

written by Bob the Builder
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.

michelkenny 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.

Anonymous 20th April 2007 08:27 AM

written by AVarner
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.

Anonymous 20th April 2007 03:57 PM

written by maybe
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

Eddie 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.

Anonymous 21st April 2007 03:11 AM

written by D
Still support for Win2000, please. I use it and like it.

Optimis0r 21st April 2007 07:05 AM

damn spammers.

I would say optimise pj 64 1.7 for vista

Anonymous 21st April 2007 08:19 AM

written by Zufomec
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

xannonite 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.

xannonite 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.

Anonymous 21st April 2007 07:28 PM

written by Gamer1
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.

Anonymous 22nd April 2007 11:03 AM

written by Zufomec
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

Anonymous 22nd April 2007 01:21 PM

written by Ubuntu Man
Spread the greatness of pj64 to Linux! Linux has my vote.

Anonymous 22nd April 2007 01:22 PM

written by Tim the toolman
I really do believe pj64 should be on Linux also. Linux is being more widely used now. Hope to see a Linux version soon!

Anonymous 22nd April 2007 02:15 PM

written by Kizul Emeraldfire

Originally Posted by Gent
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

Anonymous 22nd April 2007 04:25 PM

written by 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).

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.

Anonymous 22nd April 2007 06:31 PM

written by Zufomec
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.

Anonymous 23rd April 2007 03:15 AM

written by Robert
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

Anonymous 24th April 2007 04:08 AM

written by Javin
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.

Anonymous 24th April 2007 04:44 AM

written by lewislite
XP and Vista only please. Windows 2000 and below, it's time to upgrade :P

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.