|
|
Re: Mame Devs..Who's Hardware Has Been The Most Consistantly 'Difficult' To Emulate?
05/30/12 10:58 PM
|
|
|
> Yes and no. While x64 has existed as long as you say, 'proper' Windows support didn't
> start to appear until maybe a year into the Vista cycle. Driver support on XP x64
> never materialized and the early Vista drivers were extremely problematic.
>
> So I'd say that "usable" Win x64 is probably about four to five years old.
>
> I do agree that pretty much everyone should be migrating up to x64 by now, though.
It sort of reminds me of the old Windows 3.1 vs. NT 3.x debate (Win32s could probably go here as well) where 32-bit hadn't quite caught on - once Windows 10 or whatever is released with only a 64-bit version in mind, everyone will have no choice but to migrate to x64 or be left in the dark ages. The sooner that program code is no longer compiled for x86/32-bit, thus cannot be run on "legacy" hardware, the better. Apple did this when they transitioned from 68K to PowerPC (also, programs designed for an '020 for example also couldn't run on a 'classic' 68000 Mac!), and later still with the Intel Macs.
|
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Mame Devs..Who's Hardware Has Been The Most Consistantly 'Difficult' To Emulate?
Reply
