will there be 64-bit support for zsnes 2?

monkey_man · Post by **monkey_man** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:39 am

at present, i am unable to play many games because my system is 64-bits.

will there be 64-bit support in the future? Or emulators aren't bothered with 64-bits...

snkcube · Post by **snkcube** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:44 am

ZSNES runs fine under 64 bit OSs. There really is no need for ZSNES to be 64 bit.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:36 am

In the future, probably.

However, if you're running 64-bit, it's more than enough for ZSNES.

byuu · Post by **byuu** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:32 pm

snkcube wrote:ZSNES runs fine under 64 bit OSs. There really is no need for ZSNES to be 64 bit.

Under Windows and OS X this is absolutely true, it makes no difference. But under Linux it's a bit of an issue. Distros like Ubuntu don't ship with 32-bit run-time libraries by default.

When I tried running 32-bit Firefox I had to apt-get about two dozen 32-bit libraries (just ia32-libs was not enough), and I never did get it all working well. It couldn't use my GTK+ theme info, couldn't go online, spit thousands of errors on the command line ... a real mess.

Duplicate all that and your entire compiler, headers, libraries, etc if you want to build something.

Plus I don't like the idea of having all that for one application. That said, I used to like running ZSNES in DOSBox for the nice debugger, but I may have been using a 32-bit distro at the time. If DOSBox has a 64-bit build, that would work.

Post by **grinvader** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:51 pm

Deathlike2 wrote:In the future, probably.

That's a mighty bold statement right there.

Much closer to lottery-winning-probably than my-foot-kicking-a-cat-probably.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:29 pm

grinvader wrote:
Deathlike2 wrote:In the future, probably.
That's a mighty bold statement right there.

Much closer to lottery-winning-probably than my-foot-kicking-a-cat-probably.

Find a cat lady. Then, it's a sure bet.

Cyrus · Post by **Cyrus** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:30 am

grinvader wrote:
Deathlike2 wrote:In the future, probably.
That's a mighty bold statement right there.

Much closer to lottery-winning-probably than my-foot-kicking-a-cat-probably.

Rumour has it that Windows 8 will be creeping by sometime around 2012 and may be a 128 bit OS and if not Windows 9 will be. Moving past a 32 bit version may be closer than you think.

dfreer · Post by **dfreer** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:07 am

Cyrus wrote:
grinvader wrote:
Deathlike2 wrote:In the future, probably.
That's a mighty bold statement right there.

Much closer to lottery-winning-probably than my-foot-kicking-a-cat-probably.
Rumour has it that Windows 8 will be creeping by sometime around 2012 and may be a 128 bit OS and if not Windows 9 will be. Moving past a 32 bit version may be closer than you think.

128-bit is not going to happen by 2012, from what I understand of it it won't even be practical for a long time yet. I doubt it will even happen in windows 9.

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:31 am

dfreer wrote:
Cyrus wrote:
grinvader wrote:
Deathlike2 wrote:In the future, probably.
That's a mighty bold statement right there.

Much closer to lottery-winning-probably than my-foot-kicking-a-cat-probably.
Rumour has it that Windows 8 will be creeping by sometime around 2012 and may be a 128 bit OS and if not Windows 9 will be. Moving past a 32 bit version may be closer than you think.
128-bit is not going to happen by 2012, from what I understand of it it won't even be practical for a long time yet. I doubt it will even happen in windows 9.

agreed. Hell it was hard enough transitioning from 32 bits to 64.

Also HOW long has 32 bits been out for?

Post by **grinvader** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:12 am

Cyrus wrote:
grinvader wrote:
Deathlike2 wrote:In the future, probably.
That's a mighty bold statement right there.

Much closer to lottery-winning-probably than my-foot-kicking-a-cat-probably.
Rumour has it that Windows 8 will be creeping by sometime around 2012 and may be a 128 bit OS and if not Windows 9 will be. Moving past a 32 bit version may be closer than you think.

We totally care about windows versions to recode ten-thousands of lines of code.

Oh wait, not.
Because every processor and its mother will have enough virtualisation layers to run 32bits binaries with the correct setup (@byuu: fuck Ubuntu, they don't ship with anything by default).

adventure_of_link wrote:Also HOW long has 32 bits been out for?

Only 24 years now.

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:21 am

grinvader wrote:
adventure_of_link wrote:Also HOW long has 32 bits been out for?
Only 24 years now.

yeah that's what I thought. So yeah, I don't think we're gonna be seeing 128 bits for awhile. Better enjoy 64 bits while you can cuz they're not going away anytime soon.

Nightcrawler · Post by **Nightcrawler** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:16 pm

The only thing that is really moving the 64-bit transition now is increased addressing for more memory and peripherals. If 32-bit were still sufficient for this, 64-bit still wouldn't be catching on. I imagine much of the same will occur. We will have to start utilizing all 64-bit can offer us and start exceeding it's capacity before there is any serious movement to 128 bit.

AMD64 has been out for how many years now and went nowhere fast (as far as 64-bit is concerned)?

We are seeing diminishing returns for each generation increase, much like we do for consoles. 8-bit to 16-bit was huge. 16-bit to 32-bit was big, but not quite the leap 16-bit was. Now we're going 64-bit. Less of an impact than 32-bit. I imagine when we finally hit 128-bit, it will be about the same or slightly less.

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:39 pm

Nightcrawler wrote:The only thing that is really moving the 64-bit transition now is increased addressing for more memory and peripherals.

I would think the fact it is included with all purchases of Windows 7 and is available for more editions of Windows 7 are the reason.

KingMike · Post by **KingMike** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:57 pm

grinvader wrote:
adventure_of_link wrote:Also HOW long has 32 bits been out for?
Only 24 years now.

But how long before 32-bit programming was actually commonplace?
I remember it not being pushed much until Win95.

creaothceann · Post by **creaothceann** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:30 pm

There were quite a few games using protected mode (via DOS4/G and other DOS extenders).

Post by **odditude** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:52 pm

KingMike wrote:
grinvader wrote:
adventure_of_link wrote:Also HOW long has 32 bits been out for?
Only 24 years now.
But how long before 32-bit programming was actually commonplace?
I remember it not being pushed much until Win95.

nt 3.1, the only os you'd want to use on your brand spankin' new pentium pro box!

and +1 for dos/4gw and cwsdpmi all over the place in the early early '90s

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:58 pm

Under Windows and OS X this is absolutely true, it makes no difference. But under Linux it's a bit of an issue. Distros like Ubuntu don't ship with 32-bit run-time libraries by default.

I consider that to be a problem for the sadists and masochists that run Linux, rather then for the zsnes developers to overcome.

byuu · Post by **byuu** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:03 pm

Virtualization would solve the issue of compatibility, but non-native execution (eg dynarec) would just tack on yet another layer of latency. It's actually somewhat noticeable when I ran ZSNES in DOSbox for the debugger. Or when I run Super Game Boy games.

grinvader wrote:(@byuu: fuck Ubuntu, they don't ship with anything by default).

Except PulseAudio :(

Post by **grinvader** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:04 pm

ok, "anything fine".

Post by **badinsults** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:38 am

I really see no benefit of moving to 128 bit processors, unless you are doing heavy duty math that requires ultra high precision. And even then, most scientists use FORTRAN 77 still, which only has 64 bit math as a non-standard extension by IBM. Really, going beyond 64 bit is unnecessary for all by the most niche things (video games may be one of those, but regular computer applications that most people have are not one of them).

Post by **grinvader** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:51 am

There's also the fact that it's relatively easy to implement daisy-chains operations to get pseudo-huge size variables for extra precision thing at a mild cpu time cost - which is cheaper and cheaper with each generation.

Neo Kaiser · Post by **Neo Kaiser** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:59 pm

I remember Pagefault releasing a prototype of a 64 bit version of ZSNES. I didn't download it...I regret it.

Nightcrawler · Post by **Nightcrawler** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:37 pm

franpa wrote:
Nightcrawler wrote:The only thing that is really moving the 64-bit transition now is increased addressing for more memory and peripherals.
I would think the fact it is included with all purchases of Windows 7 and is available for more editions of Windows 7 are the reason.

Windows 7 has been out for 3 weeks, unless you count the RTM and RC releases. Windows 7 has had little influence so far in my opinion because it's not even out there.

It will probably have influence as time goes along, but it has little to none so far on 64-bit adoption in the industry.

Post by **odditude** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Nightcrawler wrote:
franpa wrote:
Nightcrawler wrote:The only thing that is really moving the 64-bit transition now is increased addressing for more memory and peripherals.
I would think the fact it is included with all purchases of Windows 7 and is available for more editions of Windows 7 are the reason.
Windows 7 has been out for 3 weeks, unless you count the RTM and RC releases. Windows 7 has had little influence so far in my opinion because it's not even out there.

It will probably have influence as time goes along, but it has little to none so far on 64-bit adoption in the industry.

on the other hand, oems shipped pcs (both desktop and laptop) with vista x64 from day one. while still a fraction of total pcs shipped with vista, over almost three years it did create a statistically significant percentage of home pcs running x64.

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:59 pm

I mean that Windows 7 has the greatest potential to push 64bit as 64bit is included with every retail purchase of home premium, pro, ultimate, enterprise editions. Where as with Vista it was only Ultimate and you could have either 32 or 64bit but not both for the one price, same with XP.