written by Anonymous
 

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...

written by Danno
 

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. :-\

Quote:
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)

p.s.
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).

written by The Wise Man
 

Oh pleaseget a linux version plz plz I have tryied every other 64 emulator for linux nowhere near as good a project64 trust me!!!

written by Rodrigo
 

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

written by Pontius Laurentius
 

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.

written by Silencer
 

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.

written by radorn
 

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???

written by SH4RK B1T3
 

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.

written by Delta Dreamer
 

"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!

written by J
 

a linux version would be AMAZING

written by fredobedo
 

indeed, macosx and linux versions would be super! Those OS are amazing !!

written by David
 

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

written by Marco
 

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.

written by Delta Dreamer
 

"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?

written by Z
 

Please keep 98 support I'm too poor/cheap to upgrade

written by HeadHunter2
 

Support only:

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

written by mmatt
 

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.

written by Brian Kyuubi no Kitsune
 

i think you should support xp, windows 2000, vista

written by Cy4n1d3Pr0j3kt
 

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!~)

written by Gamesoul Master
 

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.

written by Eli Gottlieb
 

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.

written by Jonny Rocks Hard
 

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.

written by bumbleskull
 

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).

written by Jase
 

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.

written by Jase
 

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.

written by WHOOP WHOOP
 

Put it on Vista and Xp, others can get screwed because there is plenty of older versions which work perfectly!

written by NRG753
 

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.

written by Cartmage
 

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?

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

written by Volvagia356
 

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.

written by Chester
 

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.

written by Zach
 

Hey, I can't get majoras mask to work right, is there a plugin of configuration I should be using for this game?

written by pog
 

vista mac and linux, drop the rest, you should spend your time on developing super sal 64

written by M.A. Superior
 

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.

written by Bloby
 

You should do win 2000 too for those of us using really old laptops on the go...

written by tc
 

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. ;)

written by Jolliv
 

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.

written by Lexluthermiester
 

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...

Cheers

written by uxe1
 

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!