Stella usage by OS and hardware type

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I can do some testing on Win32. If that makes you feel better.

[+stephena]

I can do some testing on Win32. If that makes you feel better.

 

If you like, that would be great. But there's also the issue of our ongoing optimization/threading/etc only being done on 64-bit systems. It may be that we'll optimize for 64-bit and hurt 32-bit in some way. Not that I mind too much, since I believe 64-bit is the future. It's just that when we don't actively use/test on a certain system/OS/etc, there will inevitably be bit-rot, and if not many people are using it, not many will see/report it. I try to write code that doesn't assume 32 or 64-bit, but that only goes so far.

[mr_me]

You can run/test Stella 32-bit on Windows 64-bit. I don't think there's any advantage to a 64-bit Stella version unless you plan on Stella using more than 4GB of ram. If people ran Stella 32-bit on Windows 64-bit I doubt they would notice any difference. Linux is a little different as you have to add 32-bit support to Linux 64-bit to run 32-bit programs.

[Keatah]

I feel the sweet time-frame for dropping 32-bit support is about 2 years out. I make that assumption based around anecdotal information and casual conversation. I know folks that are using PCs and OS'es from the mid-2000's.

 

---

 

These old PC's are kept in service as music players, photo archiving systems, email and old MS Office rigs, ebay'ing, buying concert tickets and other utilitarian functions. The owners of these old rigs, however, have moved on to smartphones for social media and that sort of thing. In essence they're using 2 classes of devices.

 

I've seen them put their phone down beside the computer and boot up classic emulators on XP and 7. They like the bigger screen.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Keatah

[+stephena]

You can run 32-bit Stella in 64-bit Windows, but I don't, since I tend to dogfood my software and I run only 64-bit where possible. And if I don't test it, then I'm not sure if anyone else does either.

 

The advantages of 32/64-bit, and whether everyone should move to 64-bit is actually an ongoing discussion beyond Stella. I personally think we should be moving to 64-bit entirely, and retiring 32-bit completely, even if the app doesn't need more than 4GB RAM (there are other advantages, namely many more registers that allow the program to run faster, etc). OSX has pretty much done it, Linux is well on its way, but Windows is the holdout. But it is changing, in that many games are now being released that are 64-bit only.

 

In the long run, we will have 64-bit everywhere, even where it technically isn't really needed (same as we don't use 16-bit software anymore, even though some apps technically could be). I don't plan to discontinue it in Stella as long as the build environments allow it. But I personally don't use or test 32-bit software at all.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

If you like, that would be great. But there's also the issue of our ongoing optimization/threading/etc only being done on 64-bit systems. It may be that we'll optimize for 64-bit and hurt 32-bit in some way. Not that I mind too much, since I believe 64-bit is the future. It's just that when we don't actively use/test on a certain system/OS/etc, there will inevitably be bit-rot, and if not many people are using it, not many will see/report it. I try to write code that doesn't assume 32 or 64-bit, but that only goes so far.

Whenever I changed a header file, I regularly switch the build target anyway. Makes no difference, since VS compiles everything from scratch anyway.

 

Wait: Why would threading not work with 32 bit?

Edited September 6, 2017 by Thomas Jentzsch

[+stephena]

It's not that threading wouldn't work, but that certain assumptions made for 64-bit systems may not hold true for 32-bit. For example, with threading, you typically have a function call for every thread. Function call overhead is higher for 32-bit vs. 64-bit, since with the former parameters are passed on the stack, and with the latter they are typically passed in registers (since there are more registers to handle these things). So something that seems cheap/free on one architecture is not so free on another. And this is the real issue; we're dealing with 2 separate architectures. While 32-bit software can run on 64-bit hardware, because of certain assumptions it may not run optimally.

 

Theoretically, the more we take advantage of 64-bit, the more that it will diverge from 32-bit and treat that platform as a second-class citizen. And that's fine by me, since I think we should be moving to 64-bit anyway. I just wanted to point out that the 32-bit builds may eventually degrade as we diverge from 'their way of doing things'.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

As long as we do not intentionally cripple 32-bit, that's fine by me.

[DirtyHairy]

I must admit that I don't see any real-world performance benefit of switching to 64bits entirely. Any performance gains from improved register allocation and funcition dispatch are likely to be completely negligible for Stella. Besides, there is nothing we have to do to enable this: if we build a 64bit binary, we get those things for free.

 

Stopping to test on 32bit systems and stopping to worry about the speed penality of 64bit arithmetics is a whole different game, though, and I am all for it In particular, using 64bit integers would open up the road for future code simplifications: we could just count clocks and wouldn't have to care about possible overflows.

[Keatah]

My wife, having gotten into classic gaming via emulation, considers Stella in its current state a rather complete and polished emulator except for a few remaining loose ends. Most are already noted on the issues page @ github.

 

What that has to do with the current 32bit vs 64 bit discussion I have no idea, but she told me to post it, so I did.

[+stephena]

It's not surprising that some people are satisfied with Stella as-is while others consider it incomplete. It really depends on what you use it for. For the end user just wanting to play a game from their youth, then yes, it probably is mostly complete (especially after the new TIA core in 5.0). But for developers and OCD people (like me), it's not yet done, and in fact may never be fully done. And 32 vs. 64-bit falls into that category.

[+stephena]

Stopping to test on 32bit systems and stopping to worry about the speed penality of 64bit arithmetics is a whole different game, though, and I am all for it In particular, using 64bit integers would open up the road for future code simplifications: we could just count clocks and wouldn't have to care about possible overflows.

 

If that's the case, I say we just move to uInt64 in the code for counters and be done with it. It will not hurt 64-bit (where the int is 64-bit anyway), and while it may slow down on 32-bit, it still satisfy Thomas' requirement that we're not intentionally crippling 32-bit.

 

EDIT: Or to put it another way; if we find a way to simplify code or make it faster by moving to 64-bit at the slight expense of 32-bit, I have no problem doing it. One is going to be around for probably the rest of my professional working life, and the other is probably going to disappear in a year or two. So it makes sense what we should optimize for.

[+SpiceWare]

But for developers and OCD people (like me), it's not yet done, and in fact may never be fully done. And 32 vs. 64-bit falls into that category.

 

I think Kid Vid support falls in the not done yet category.

[+stephena]

 

I think Kid Vid support falls in the not done yet category.

 

Oh, there are many things that fall in that category (the issue list contains over 60 items). It's just that many people don't realize that it's missing, since they may never have used it on a real system. Kidvid support is actually already there: https://github.com/stella-emu/stella/issues/77

[+SpiceWare]

Aha - I'd searched for Kid which turned up issue 186, but not 77. Looks like GitHub's search partially matches within the comments (kidding for 186) but not the titles (kidvid for 77).

[JL]

My usage of Stella on Linux 64-bit and Win7 64 usage are about equal. I chose Linux since it has a few less votes.

Edited September 7, 2017 by JL

[Keatah]

So win 7 64-bit Is your real choice..

[Thomas Jentzsch]

For the end user just wanting to play a game from their youth, then yes, it probably is mostly complete (especially after the new TIA core in 5.0).

Well, even there we still have things to do, e.g. better Cosmic Ark start effect or AtariVox support without needing the hardware. And quite some smaller fixes

 

Also we have a better sound core in the pipe.

[+stephena]

That's the 'mostly' part I was referring to. But TBH, there is always something left to do. Someone once said "Art is never finished, only abandoned". I think Stella will be the same way.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I think Stella will be the same way.

And I'll make sure.

[RamrodHare]

I chose 32 bit windows, because all the computers I have are 32 bit. I use Stella every now and then, but most of the time, I use my consoles and the Harmony Cart.

[iesposta]

I'm clinging on to the iOS (jailbreak) DPC+ capable build that is Ver 3.9.3.

That creator did get to the 4.+ builds on Android, but disappeared Summer 2015.

If I knew how to build the iOS ARM version with his front end, I would compile it myself for my personal use.

 

Blutooth broke on iOS with the Jailbreak with BTstack 1.0-1 with Wii Remotes. I still use the 0.8 build.

And Android broke Wii Remote use with their Bluetooth change in Android 4.1 and higher!

 

Don't cry for me Portland Retrogaming, but

I have to use the last 2016 build of Super Cobra Arcade because Stella 3.9.3 doesn't do CDF Super Cobra or CDF Draconian.

I spent a lot for 2 Wii Remotes and 2 Wii Controller Gamepad attachments!