[Dev] PS2 and the new expansion

[Aldersyde]

Only today's SE could take such a momentous occasion in the history of the game and turn it into such a controversy. They must be looping Benny Hill through their offices 24/7 to produce this level of derp.

[Mirage]

Windows 7 64 does not natively support 16 bit programs. Most new PCs come with the 64 bit version to make use of 4gb+ RAM If you want to run Win 3.1, or DOS programs, on a 64 bit machine, then you need an emulator to do so. Even getting older 32 bit programs running properly can be tricky.

32bit programs run natively on x64-windows though, so older 32-bit programs are incompatible with win7 because it's win7, not because of 32/64 bit differences. As a side note, however: Some 32bit games use 16bit installers, such as need for speed 2 and 3 (i wanted to play you and I hate you :((((( )

Anyway, talking about hardware, all x64 CPUs actually have the sufficient instructions and modes needed to natively run 16 bit programs. That's why running a 16-bit program inside a 32bit Windows Virtual machine on a x64bit windows isn't *really* emulation, but virtualization.

The difference might not be obvious, but there is a distinction between the two. Emulation generally involves "translating" instructions from one system to instructions that the current system's CPU understands. In the case of 16-bit on 64bit via virtualization, I am pretty sure the CPU executes the 16 bit program's instructions without them being translated to other instructions.

Likewise, WINE on Linux in order to run Windows applications isn't emulation in the same sense as (for example) zsnes, because these Linux systems run hardware that is more or less 100% compatible with the hardware Windows systems run on. That's why WINE usually sees far less performance loss compared to emulations of entire hardware systems.

Although, if someone who is actually really hardcore at virtualization comes in here and tells me I'm wrong now, I won't feel insulted.

[Daniel_Hatcher]

I'm not a PC player? You're an idiot if you think PS2 holds the game back.

No PS2 doesn't hold it back, but Yes, PS2 can't handle much, to anything new. Heck it couldn't even handle small UI changes, let alone the big ones coming.

It also is Outdated junk, just an FYI.

[Zerich]

I don't play on PS2. I don't support ignorance, nor will I ever support ignorance. If I have to defend PS2 to combat ignorance, I will do just that.

Ignorance of what? What am I void of understanding and knowledge from that you are well versed in?

[RAIST]

@ Mirage: Clarification noted. Kinda the same thing with FFXI--not really emulation, but run in a wrapper. Kinda the same thing with the XP environment in Win7. The real point though is that the older software doesn't run natively within the scope of Win7--you have to inject that extra layer of code in there to make it run in the newer environment, and for most people that got win7 Home on the more affordable systems, they don't get the virtualization piece (has to be Pro or Ultimate). FFXI has to go through more or less the same thing--without the wrapper, it won't run in Windows.

It all boils down to the PS2 is legacy hardware/software that eventually will no longer be supported by it's designers, and will eventually be dropped, whereas even though Windows/*nix/Apple will continue to provide a means to "upconvert" existing software to the newer OS environments with far less impact than what you deal with when converting a to a newer console (in the case of the PS series, as they are always vastly different components in play). Oftentimes, the only way to justify porting to the newer console is if you plan to do a relaunch of the title---ie: Shadow of the Colossus/IQO HD re-release.