Altirra 2.80 released

[phaeron]

Yes, the right-side glitch was 32-bit only. Should be fixed now:

 

http://www.virtualdub.org/beta/Altirra-2.90-test23.zip

http://www.virtualdub.org/beta/Altirra-2.90-test23-src.zip

 

Also changes the NTSC artifacting chroma filter a bit to reduce chroma bleeding and retunes the default color profile. It's close to what I see now on my HDTV, with the exception of a couple of blues that sometimes show up a slight bit purplish. Those are hard to fix without screwing up a bunch of other colors and at this point probably not addressable without warping the color space. On the other hand, there should be less errant green and orange tints now.

 

I've been using 2.70 release version successfully for quite awhile. And several times, I've tried the 2.80 versions and now the 2.90 versions. From 2.80 test 1 on, none of these that I've tried work with my XP computer. However, testing the same ones with Win7, they work fine. Both 32 and 64-bit versions work fine with my Win7-64 OS. When I launch Altirra with XP, it goes to the normal balck screen momentarily, then goes to a gray screen and freezes. Not doing anything tricky -- just trying to boot to a MyDos 4.55 disk image.

 

My Xp system is XP (32-bit) with SP3

Core2 Duo E6420

All-in-Wonder 9000 video card.

 

Unfortunately, there were a lot of changes between 2.70 and 2.80-test1 since that's when I dumped all the pending changes into the devline. I tried running on a 32-bit XP SP3 machine with a comparable video profile (vs1.1/ps1.4) and didn't see an issue. Can you try running the emulator with the /ddraw switch to force DirectDraw and see if that works around the issue? This will show if it is a graphics driver issue. If you're not familiar with the command-line, create a shortcut and add the switch to the command line field in the shortcut properties. If it works, you'll need to re-adjust the graphics settings in Options to re-enable Drect3D 9. The other thing you can try is to run it with an isolated profile (/portable) and see if running clean helps, in case it's an issue with some setting like a hidden corrupted window layout.

 

[serj]

runing 32bit version, but not see any lines.

 

I use windows 7 x64.

my computer - intel core i5 3570 - 3.40 Ghz

Nvidia geforce gtx 760.

16gb ram.

[+playsoft]

Yes, the right-side glitch was 32-bit only. Should be fixed now:

 

The glitch has gone here, thanks.

[tschak909]

...

 

http://www.virtualdub.org/beta/Altirra-2.90-test23.zip

http://www.virtualdub.org/beta/Altirra-2.90-test23-src.zip

 

Also changes the NTSC artifacting chroma filter a bit to reduce chroma bleeding and retunes the default color profile. It's close to what I see now on my HDTV, with the exception of a couple of blues that sometimes show up a slight bit purplish. Those are hard to fix without screwing up a bunch of other colors and at this point probably not addressable without warping the color space. On the other hand, there should be less errant green and orange tints now.

...

 

What? no "Make Artifacting appear like I remember it from 35 years ago on my Curtis-Mathes TV?" *ducks-and-runs*

 

I'm actually amazed at how good the YIQ modelling has gotten across emulations in recent years, it's an asymptotic goal, always a way to make it look...a little better... but that's ok. I typically alter the phasing to do CTIA (brown/blue), because a lot of the games I play from the early 1980s expected this sort of artifacting (look at Drol and Choplifter, for example...Choplifter with the mauve background and the aforementioned phase adjustment makes the American flag look correct.)

 

-Thom

[fujidude]

I wonder how long it will be before no one cares if there's a 32-bit version of Altirra (or anything else for that matter).

[tschak909]

I don't care, as I've been using the 64-bit builds for a _very_ long time (at least a decade)

 

-Thom

[fujidude]

I don't care, as I've been using the 64-bit builds for a _very_ long time (at least a decade)

 

-Thom

 

I don't care either. I always use the 64-bit version. I know at least one person though who uses Windows XP and would perhaps be disappointed. That individual knows who he is.

 

PS: Yes, I know that there is a 64-bit version of XP. But it's got a lot of problems and I doubt anyone is using it.

Edited January 7, 2017 by fujidude

[flashjazzcat]

WINE users probably care... at least I never had much luck running the 64-bit builds under WINE.

[+CharlieChaplin]

 

I don't care either. I always use the 64-bit version. I know at least one person though who uses Windows XP and would perhaps be disappointed. That individual knows who he is.

 

PS: Yes, I know that there is a 64-bit version of XP. But it's got a lot of problems and I doubt anyone is using it.

 

I know who I am - and still use Win XP 32Bit with SP3...

[emkay]

 

I know who I am - and still use Win XP 32Bit with SP3...

 

Suicidal predisposition?

Or do you use XP offline?

[darwinmac]

WINE users probably care... at least I never had much luck running the 64-bit builds under WINE.

As a WINE user of Altirra, I'm hoping Avery offers 32-bit versions for the foreseeable future. I haven't tried the 64-bit version but, as FJC said, I'm expecting it not to work well.

 

Bob C

[fujidude]

WINE users probably care... at least I never had much luck running the 64-bit builds under WINE.

 

Then there's that too. In fact, I have been contemplating making the switch to Linux as primary OS on my primary PC. So I might care after all.

Edited January 7, 2017 by fujidude

[fujidude]

 

I know who I am - and still use Win XP 32Bit with SP3...

 

I didn't actually have you in mind when I wrote that. So, now I know at least 2 XP users.

[phaeron]

The x86 build won't be going anywhere for a long time. Unlike Linux, Windows still stubbornly clings to x86 because there are new devices being shipped with the 32-bit version of Windows. This is primarily because the 32-bit version of Windows is less of a disk space hog than the 64-bit version and won't fit on storage-constrained devices. Also, there are some development benefits to maintaining x86 builds -- Dr. Memory doesn't work on x64 builds yet. I tend to switch back and forth between x86 and x64 builds randomly just to make sure everything works smoothly on both.

 

XP on the other hand... while I have no interest in being part of the "Microsoft said so" XP lynch mob, it is pretty old at this point and getting harder to support. The only remaining XP device I have for testing is a sad little ultrabook sitting in the corner that gets turned on about once a season. I'm considering dropping XP support for the next major version and jumping to Windows 7 + SSE2 as the minimum requirement.

[AtariGeezer]

 

I know who I am - and still use Win XP 32Bit with SP3...

I still use Win XP 32Bit with SP2, can't afford to buy anything newer

I'd rather spend what little extra $$$ I get on my beloved Atari's

Edited January 8, 2017 by AtariGeezer

[+bf2k+]

My BBS runs on Altirra 2.90-test15 under Win XP x86 on an old Pentium 4 machine. It is an Express PRO BBS.

 

My test BBS runs on Altirra 2.90-test20 under Win 7 64 on my DevBox (Core i5). It is a Carina BBS.

 

So I need both.

[tschak909]

At first I read that, and thought, "Gee, he's weird."

Then I saw your profile picture and realized that's par for the course.

 

-Thom

[+Larry]

Yes, XP is "long in the tooth." My only reason for not replacing it with Win7 is that I have some legacy hardware that has no Win7 or later drivers.

 

As for "XP Armageddon" -- it turned out to be a big "ho-hum," a far cry from the doom and gloom promoted by many "experts." And being suspicious, I suspect that Microsoft did its part to promote the fear, smelling additional sales if it could convince XP users that the world was about to end. Yes, I use it online every day, but of course with a good up-to-date anti-virus/anti-malware. So if I'm going to use a legacy OS, guess I will probably use a legacy Altirra, also -- at least on my (legacy) Atari "hobby computer." But I certainly understand dropping support for XP.

 

-Larry

[Mclaneinc]

I presume there's no actual emulation usage differences between 32 and 64bit?

 

Any pluses for the 64bit?

 

Speed increase or is it negligible?

 

just wondering, I've always used the 32bit version even though I'm on Win 7 X64, I got used to emulator authors saying 64bit versions were 'experimental' so best to use the 32bit one, obviously I doubt that would be the case now with Altirra.

[Shannon]

My main machine is XP as well. I have many programs that will only run on XP. But the biggest ones are the compiler and stuff I use for compiling, managing and sending stuff to the original xbox.

[ijor]

XP on the other hand... while I have no interest in being part of the "Microsoft said so" XP lynch mob, it is pretty old at this point and getting harder to support. The only remaining XP device I have for testing is a sad little ultrabook sitting in the corner that gets turned on about once a season.

 

Don't you have some virtualization software? I admit I can't live without VMware Workstation.

 

[pseudografx]

Hi, first I wanted to thank you for the time you spend on Altirra development, which gets so much better with every release. Second, I'd like to ask if there is any chance that Altirra could support adaptive synchronization technology such as Freesync or G-Sync. Running the emulator in PAL mode on a 60Hz display is such a pain...

[avanze]

Altirra, Patreon? I, for one, would support.

[fujidude]

I presume there's no actual emulation usage differences between 32 and 64bit?

 

Any pluses for the 64bit?

 

Speed increase or is it negligible?

 

just wondering, I've always used the 32bit version even though I'm on Win 7 X64, I got used to emulator authors saying 64bit versions were 'experimental' so best to use the 32bit one, obviously I doubt that would be the case now with Altirra.

 

I don't think the speed difference would be noticeable per se, but on a 64-bit OS the fewer things you have running under the 32-bit subsystem the better for the over-all performance of the system. In truth, I don't have any empirical evidence to support that notion, but I think I have read that somewhere. But I can't cite any particular source.

[phaeron]

I presume there's no actual emulation usage differences between 32 and 64bit?

 

Any pluses for the 64bit?

 

Speed increase or is it negligible?

 

just wondering, I've always used the 32bit version even though I'm on Win 7 X64, I got used to emulator authors saying 64bit versions were 'experimental' so best to use the 32bit one, obviously I doubt that would be the case now with Altirra.

 

x64 build should be solid at this point, as I test on it regularly. Used to be the case that x64 was sometimes a bit slower than x86 due to missing optimizations, but the gap should be closed at this point. There is no difference in functionality.

 

Hi, first I wanted to thank you for the time you spend on Altirra development, which gets so much better with every release. Second, I'd like to ask if there is any chance that Altirra could support adaptive synchronization technology such as Freesync or G-Sync. Running the emulator in PAL mode on a 60Hz display is such a pain...

 

Probably, but it'd have to wait until I got an adaptive sync capable monitor. I don't have one to test on and my experience has been that it is impossible to debug this kind of functionality without having a local device to test with.

 

Altirra, Patreon? I, for one, would support.

 

No, I appreciate the support but involving money complicates things.

 

 

I don't think the speed difference would be noticeable per se, but on a 64-bit OS the fewer things you have running under the 32-bit subsystem the better for the over-all performance of the system. In truth, I don't have any empirical evidence to support that notion, but I think I have read that somewhere. But I can't cite any particular source.

 

On x64 Windows, 32-bit programs have to run under a translation layer called WOW64 that adds a little bit of overhead. It's just a CPU mode switch and some argument translation, though, so it's far thinner than WINE or a CPU translation layer. It's also possible for the x64 kernel to run faster since 64-bit code has some advantages. In practice the difference is so minor that you'd be hard pressed to notice it; any performance difference you notice between x86 and x64 versions of a program is going to be far more from difference in x86 vs. x64 code in the program itself than whether it has to go through a translation layer to make system calls. Also, unlike some other 64-bit OSes, running x86 programs on x64 Windows is common enough that WOW64 is basically always loaded. I believe Microsoft only just made it possible to uninstall WOW64 with the latest version of Windows Server.