Build Your Own Arcade Controls Forum
Main => Software Forum => Topic started by: MKChamp on October 22, 2015, 04:14:17 pm
-
I am upgrading my cab after 12+ years from an old p4 to a new i5 processor. Has anyone run into any issues or concerns running Daphne and MAME on Windows 10? I also have some Aimtrak guns as well.
Looking forward to playing star wars trilogy and other games where it doesn't seem like I'm trying to watch a youtube video in HD on a 56k modem.
-
I haven't had any issues. PPjoy might be a ---smurfette--- to get working, but other than that....
-
What about DirectInput and DirectDraw in Win10?
DirectInput is reported laggy in windows 7 (also 8?) and
DirectDraw is reported super slow in Win8.
-
You've been getting bad info. Compared to XP Win 7/8/10 is faster when it comes to games. Those that are reporting issues probably have old video cards.
DirectDraw isn't particularly relevant anyway because mame has been using directX9 (no directdraw) for ages.
-
So Calamity is wrong?
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,147889.msg1540257.html#msg1540257 (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,147889.msg1540257.html#msg1540257)
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142973.msg1482680.html#msg1482680 (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142973.msg1482680.html#msg1482680)
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,147886.msg1540267.html#msg1540267 (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,147886.msg1540267.html#msg1540267)
Another quote:
Please remember that MAME uses directinput for joysticks and directinput is reported to be laggy in windows 7.
-
Well I've never had any issues nor have I known of anyone to have issues. XP is an outdated OS, you shouldn't use it unless the machine is so pitiful that's all it can handle.
-
If XP is outdated then what are my DOS, Win95 and Win98 PCs with Voodoo cards ;D
There is nothing wrong with XP as long you block them in your firewall.
I wonder about your "old video cards" statement when most people say that MAME does everything with the CPU and GPU does not help.
Edit:
Just was reading that MESS is now in MAME - hm maybe that changes the GPU thing?
-
MAME has required a decent video card for several years now. It's very versatile when it comes to allowing you to run it on anything, BUT unless you are running the games at native resolutions they need scaled, which is handled by the video card. The artwork system is dependent upon it as well. HLSL is heavily dependent upon your graphics card. XP 32bit is quite efficient for the record but mame is now optimized for multiple threads, which means a 64 bit OS is required. The 64bit version of XP isn't so great. Thus the need for win 7 or beyond.
Just to give you an example I'm running this machine with an old 4600 series radeon card and it does fine and handles hlsl just fine. A similar machine with a puny 2400 series card can't even run tmnt at full speed with hlsl on.
-
Ok there is a different view between us what you and I mean by old video card.
For me a 4600 is old (2008).
And again something new: multiple threads?
If i look around here most say you don't benefit from a Quad-Core in MAME.
Also most recommend XP x64...
I wonder cause you are here so long and say the opposite from what i read most here.
-
Ok there is a different view between us what you and I mean by old video card.
For me a 4600 is old (2008).
And again something new: multiple threads?
If i look around here most say you don't benefit from a Quad-Core in MAME.
Also most recommend XP x64...
I wonder cause you are here so long and say the opposite from what i read most here.
That may be true for a Quadcore, as it have 4 cores (maybe 8 with HT) , but there are not enough different threads to benefit from it (its overkill), but you can benefit from a dual-core ;) . If we look into the future and what devs are planning soon... even a quad-core will be useful ;) .
-
mame is now optimized for multiple threads, which means a 64 bit OS is required.
What has 64bit to do with multiple threads? 64bit has the ability to address more memory and has nothing to to with how many cores your CPU has.
The 64bit version of XP isn't so great.
Why not if you have the drivers? There are enough hardcore pc freaks out there how swear on XP x64.
-
Threads are simultaneously operating calculations. If you are on a 32bit OS you can't take advantage of dual or quad cores because windows 32 bit can't handle them properly. That means each thread takes a performance hit as they are sharing the same processor. Any 64 bit windows will throw the threads into different cores and there will be less of a performance hit. I'm not saying it is a huge difference by any means, but 64 bit windows is slightly better which kind of contradicts the argument that XP is the best choice.
If you have the drivers is the key clause there. Most drivers for xp 64 bit are either the 32 bit driver superficially changed to be compatible or are severely depreciated due to the operating system's age. That is why Xp is a poor choice. It's kind of like Linux drivers... technically a lot of cards run on Linux, but they can run poorly compared to windows because the drivers are kind of crappy.
I think people get confused because 7's memory footprint is certainly larger than xp, so if you have a system that barely runs xp then of course it will perform better than 7+. If it's a "newish" pc you are going to get more benefit out of the modern operating systems though.
There were people that swore up and down that you should just run DOS on a brand new machine around the time XP was current. They weren't right either. ;)
-
I have the same opinion and know that 7 runs better even on old hardware.
8 and 10 are even better. I have 8 and 10 on all my non Gaming machines.
I guess we need to distinguish. To you want to run MAME on LCD or real 15Khz.
For 15Khz there is no alternative jet to XP - especially if you also want other emulators in 15Khz on your CRT.
-
Apart from 30 Hz modes and DirectInput lag there aren't any other problems on windows 7 and 15kHz modes. NEStopia, model, daphne works fine. In fact mame including groovymame are bit faster in comparison to XP. The only price is higher ram usage and generally slower system (noticable on older hardware - mostly slow HDDs).
-
@haynor666, i thought you are one of the biggest XP defender?
And if i look around nothing changed from the suggestions you and Calamity gave a year ago:
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=142973 (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=142973)
-
I have to stay on XP due Taito Type X problems and 30 Hz modes. Besides Intel series 8 is the last family that supports XP. On my next hardware upgrade I'll be forced switch to windows 7. Hopefully with felp folk here especially Calamity I sorted most of problems.
-
This discussion is mostly on XP vs 7. Once you're on 7, any incentive to go to 8 or 10?
-
This discussion is mostly on XP vs 7. Once you're on 7, any incentive to go to 8 or 10?
Nope. 8 is an abortion of an abomination. 10 is much better than 8, but is literally a MS spyware vehicle.
-
Nope. 8 is an abortion of an abomination. 10 is much better than 8, but is literally a MS spyware vehicle.
So much truth in this true statement.
-
Never will I understand why people like Win10 but not Win8.
Where is the big difference between 8 and 10? Especially technical?
It's the same like it was with Vista. The magazines shred something and people who never used it agree.
I use 10 but prefer 8 and use it since the first day.
With 10 Microsoft started his own Android.
I don't want convoluted Android like settings in Windows.
Also now we need XPrivacy also for Windows.
Since years i did not have to fiddle around that much in the registry and policies like i have to in 10.
The worst thing in 10 is that i can't stop it to install drivers i don't want.
I uninstall Apps i don't want and Microsoft decides to install them again.
Nobody until today was able to tell me what is better with Win10.
And please don't tell me about the startmenu that 95% of PC users never use.
-
Never will I understand why people like Win10 but not Win8.
Where is the big difference between 8 and 10? Especially technical?
It's the same like it was with Vista. The magazines shred something and people who never used it agree.
I use 10 but prefer 8 and use it since the first day.
With 10 Microsoft started his own Android.
I don't want convoluted Android like settings in Windows.
Also now we need XPrivacy also for Windows.
Since years i did not have to fiddle around that much in the registry and policies like i have to in 10.
The worst thing in 10 is that i can't stop it to install drivers i don't want.
I uninstall Apps i don't want and Microsoft decides to install them again.
Nobody until today was able to tell me what is better with Win10.
And please don't tell me about the startmenu that 95% of PC users never use.
I'm one of those 5%ers who prefer the Start Menu in 10, apparently.
-
Nope. 8 is an abortion of an abomination. 10 is much better than 8, but is literally a MS spyware vehicle.
So much truth in this true statement.
Still waiting for this MS spyware issue to become an issue, because I ain't seeing it yet...
-
Nope. 8 is an abortion of an abomination. 10 is much better than 8, but is literally a MS spyware vehicle.
So much truth in this true statement.
Still waiting for this MS spyware issue to become an issue, because I ain't seeing it yet...
Me neither.
I liked Windows 8 and like 10 for what it is worth.
-
Nope. 8 is an abortion of an abomination. 10 is much better than 8, but is literally a MS spyware vehicle.
So much truth in this true statement.
Still waiting for this MS spyware issue to become an issue, because I ain't seeing it yet...
That's exactly what MS wants you to think. ;)
-
I'm one of those 5%ers who prefer the Start Menu in 10, apparently.
But the truth is that most people have a desktop full of icons.
Everybody for who i build a PC is asking where is this and where is that - i want this and that here (desktop).
It's like that since Windows 95 :D
But when 8 came out everybody was like: i can't work, i need double the time, i can't find anything anymore.
But hey the desktop was the same like it was in Win7.
Now the same people hype Win10?
I guess if something is free people take everything. If the update from 7 to 8 were free back then, i guess 8 would be as great as 10 now is :D
-
I'm one of those 5%ers who prefer the Start Menu in 10, apparently.
But the truth is that most people have a desktop full of icons.
Everybody for who i build a PC is asking where is this and where is that - i want this and that here (desktop).
It's like that since Windows 95 :D
But when 8 came out everybody was like: i can't work, i need double the time, i can't find anything anymore.
But hey the desktop was the same like it was in Win7.
Now the same people hype Win10?
I guess if something is free people take everything. If the update from 7 to 8 were free back then, i guess 8 would be as great as 10 now is :D
I didn't mind 8, but truth be told I prefer having the start button down in the corner. Otherwise, I'd stick with it and be happy.
-
I am not a windows fan at all. I despise using it. However, Windows 8 was the first time I have been pleased with Windows since Version 3. Yet, Windows users pinched a loaf over it just because it was different. You were not forced to use metro. Don't like it? Don't use it. It's one ---smurfing--- checkbox option. Idiots.
-
I am not a windows fan at all. I despise using it. However, Windows 8 was the first time I have been pleased with Windows since Version 3. Yet, Windows users pinched a loaf over it just because it was different. You were not forced to use metro. Don't like it? Don't use it. It's one ---smurfing--- checkbox option. Idiots.
Yeah - no. Metro was embedded deeply. If you accidentally tapped the "Windows" key on your keyboard you got a full resolution changing context switch to that stupid tiles screen. I am using a desktop, not a freaking tablet. Totally different devices that need to be treated differently.
-
I don't like 8 and 10 as well but to be honest 10 right now is even worse than 8.1. Most of customization dissappears, I can't even change color of windows from this awfull white. Menu start is not a big deal for me because I use only desktop. For file operations I use Total Commander. The only plus is that You can get it for free if You have legal Windows 7.
Besides Windows 7 can be bought cheap right now (or even cracked easily) or even obtained for free with many used PC, for Windows XP VL (either 32 or 64 bit) You need only key. Starting from 8 it's hard to find used computer with license, it's still not cheap as well.
Since right now I have Windows 10 legally installed (upgrade from Windows 7 Pro) at work I'll look at it's performance regarding mame64 vs windows 7.
-
I am not a windows fan at all. I despise using it. However, Windows 8 was the first time I have been pleased with Windows since Version 3. Yet, Windows users pinched a loaf over it just because it was different. You were not forced to use metro. Don't like it? Don't use it. It's one ---smurfing--- checkbox option. Idiots.
Yeah - no. Metro was embedded deeply. If you accidentally tapped the "Windows" key on your keyboard you got a full resolution changing context switch to that stupid tiles screen. I am using a desktop, not a freaking tablet. Totally different devices that need to be treated differently.
I was testing with an old imac keyboard. No windows key. However, eliminating that Windows explorer/metro key shortcut is indeed easy, if you know where to find it. All you have to do is change one registry entry from 1 to 0.
I swear that Windows users are handicapped or some thing.
-
Hated 8, looks like it was made for touchscreen which i dont use.
I like XP, 7 and 10, very easy to navigate through.....I dont want flipping cards etc....
For me it was difficult to get where i wanted to go, I use my start button to keep my desktop from being cluttered.