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.

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

written by Ubuntu Man
 

Spread the greatness of pj64 to Linux! Linux has my vote.

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!

written by Kizul Emeraldfire
 

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

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.

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).

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

written by lewislite
 

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