|
End of 32-bit
#384077 - 10/27/19 06:21 PM
|
|
|
https://www.mamedev.org/?p=474
After Christmas there will be no more official release of 32-bit builds, although you can build your own.
Also, 0.215 will be the last where you can make a build for XP, by using GCC 5.3 .
My projects (MESS, MESSUI, MAMEUI, HBMAME) will not have 32-bit builds after 0.215 . As above, you can make them yourself.
|
|
|
|
Re: End of 32-bit
[Re: Robbbert]
#384083 - 10/27/19 10:59 PM
|
|
|
> https://www.mamedev.org/?p=474
>
> After Christmas there will be no more official release of 32-bit builds, although you
> can build your own.
>
> Also, 0.215 will be the last where you can make a build for XP, by using GCC 5.3 .
>
> My projects (MESS, MESSUI, MAMEUI, HBMAME) will not have 32-bit builds after 0.215 .
> As above, you can make them yourself.
The writing was already on the wall for 32-bit systems when 0.180 was released, when support for most Pentium 4 era (e.g. AGP) video cards was dropped. Given that 64-bit systems are a dime a dozen these days it probably won't even be noticed, aside from those running a 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware for whatever reason.
Microsoft is probably the sole reason why support for 32-bit (x86) PCs has been around for so long - making $$$$$$$$$$ on upgrading all those XP and Vista machines when Windows 7 could have easily been a 64-bit only release, given that 32-bit x86 CPUs were practically dead in the water even in 2009 when Windows 7 was first released (as in, PCs for the general public, not embedded/industrial machines where older operating systems tend to remain virtually untouched anyway e.g. ATMs and point-of-sales machines that still use Windows XP). Meanwhile, Macs have been 64-bit only since way back in 2011 when OS X Lion came out.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the last 32-bit versions are given an unofficial fork just to keep cabinet owners and other PC hardware laggards in the loop (e.g. when more ROM sets and decapped/emulated protection devices are inevitably added to the upcoming 64-bit only builds, they may be able to be back-ported to the older MAME versions if MAME's code hasn't changed significantly), much like how RetroArch etc. maintains 20-year old versions of MAME solely for compatibility with potato-powered toasters.
|
|
|
| gregf |
|
Ramtek's Trivia promoter
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 8603
|
|
Loc: southern CA, US
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: End of 32-bit
[Re: Robbbert]
#384088 - 10/28/19 05:04 AM
|
|
|
-
https://www.mamedev.org/?p=474
After Christmas there will be no more official release of 32-bit builds, although you can build your own.
Also, 0.215 will be the last where you can make a build for XP, by using GCC 5.3
-
Way past due for my own computer upgrade when going back to my post from 12/05/18 when mentioning unable to use any version of MAME newer than .17x versions.
The old 2003 XP computer now seems to scream like doing one of late Sam Kinison's screams routine when even visiting some of the news forums these days or at least as sounding as boisterous as tv voice over talent Harry Shearer. 
|
|
|
|
Re: End of 32-bit
[Re: Heihachi_73]
#384090 - 10/28/19 05:14 AM
|
|
|
> Microsoft is probably the sole reason why support for 32-bit (x86) PCs has been
> around for so long - making $$$$$$$$$$ on upgrading all those XP and Vista machines
> when Windows 7 could have easily been a 64-bit only release, given that 32-bit x86
> CPUs were practically dead in the water even in 2009 when Windows 7 was first
> released (as in, PCs for the general public, not embedded/industrial machines where
> older operating systems tend to remain virtually untouched anyway e.g. ATMs and
> point-of-sales machines that still use Windows XP).
Windows 8 and Windows 10 support 32-bit x86 hosts because of relatively recently released Intel Atom notebooks and tablets. Microsoft would have liked to ditch 32-bit host support earlier.
> That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the last 32-bit versions are given an
> unofficial fork just to keep cabinet owners and other PC hardware laggards in the
> loop (e.g. when more ROM sets and decapped/emulated protection devices are inevitably
> added to the upcoming 64-bit only builds, they may be able to be back-ported to the
> older MAME versions if MAME's code hasn't changed significantly), much like how
> RetroArch etc. maintains 20-year old versions of MAME solely for compatibility with
> potato-powered toasters.
You'll still be able to build for 32-bit targets. We're just not going to be distributing 32-bit Windows binaries ourselves. There's no reason to fork the last release that has pre-built 32-bit binaries, just like there was no reason to fork the last release that had pre-built DEBUG=1 binaries.
Dropping GCC5/GCC6 support is a year overdue. For various reasons, I've been two weeks of actual work away from actually being able to push the change for a year.
|
|
|
|
Re: End of 32-bit
[Re: Heihachi_73]
#384124 - 10/30/19 11:28 PM
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Macs have been 64-bit only since way back in 2011 when OS X Lion came out.
I don't think that is true. This recent update (Catalina) is the first time Mac has gone 64-bit only. Up until now, it did both.
But regardless, I agree with your post.
Edited by XtraSmiley (10/30/19 11:29 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: End of 32-bit
[Re: XtraSmiley]
#384127 - 10/31/19 04:23 AM
|
|
|
> Meanwhile, Macs have been 64-bit only since way back in 2011 when OS X Lion came out.
>
> I don't think that is true. This recent update (Catalina) is the first time Mac has
> gone 64-bit only. Up until now, it did both.
>
> But regardless, I agree with your post.
Catalina is the first version of macOS that won't run 32-bit applications. Assuming the poster you're replying to is correct, Lion (2011) was the first version that only shipped a 64-bit kernel. I can't remember the exact timeline, but Apple stopped providing 32-bit kernels and dropped support for 32-bit EFI years ago while still including a 32-bit userland, allowing 32-bit applications to run.
|
|
|
| smf |
|
I've been here before
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/16/15
|
|
Posts: 130
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: End of 32-bit
[Re: Heihachi_73]
#384136 - 10/31/19 06:42 PM
|
|
|
> Microsoft is probably the sole reason why support for 32-bit (x86) PCs has been
> around for so long - making $$$$$$$$$$ on upgrading all those XP and Vista machines
Are you suggesting that people should scrap an otherwise working machine?
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
End of 32-bit
Reply
[Re: 
