Project

General

Profile

Emulator Issues #4323

Dolphin builds won't run in Windows XP x64

Added by rhyviolin about 9 years ago.

Status:
Won't fix
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
% Done:

0%

Operating system:
Windows
Issue type:
Bug
Milestone:
Regression:
No
Relates to usability:
No
Relates to performance:
No
Easy:
No
Relates to maintainability:
No
Regression start:
Fixed in:

Description

What's the problem?
The last 100 or so revisions don't run in XP x64.

Dolphin version with the problem (as it appears in the title bar, Ex.: "R
4779" or "R 6403M"):
r7411

(optional) Dolphin version that does not have the problem:
r7035

Operating system and version:
32-bit or 64-bit:
Windows XP x64

Game ID (as it appears in game properties, Ex.: "GZ2P01" or "RSBE01"):
Any game. The emulator will not even start.

Build command-line (not on Windows):

Was the ISO a plain dump from disc, compressed and/or scrubbed?
Irrelevant.

Please provide any additional information below.
I have attached a screenshot of the error.


Related issues

Has duplicate Emulator - Emulator Issues #4344: ReleaseSRWLockExclusive error on program start-up (XP 64-bit)Duplicate

History

#1 Updated by Billiard26 about 9 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Won't fix
  • Operating system Windows added

Dolphin x64 builds will no longer work on Windows XP x64 unless you compile Dolphin with the "USE_SRWLOCKS" and "USE_CONDITION_VARIABLES" defines disabled.

#2 Updated by rhyviolin about 9 years ago

The builds on the website need to be fixed then. People still use Windows XP x64. It's better than Windows 7 in a lot of ways.

#3 Updated by Billiard26 about 9 years ago

"WontFix"

XP x64 is a specialty operating system. I would expect XP x64 users to be able to compile Dolphin themselves.

You could alternatively use the x86 builds.

#4 Updated by rhyviolin about 9 years ago

It is hardly a specialty operating system! It is faster and lighter than Windows 7, and on older hardware (all many people can afford in this tough economy) it's the only way to run Wii full speed. Compiling the OS is beyond many people, myself included. In addition I've heard compilation is a nightmare on Windows without expensive Microsoft software.

#5 Updated by Billiard26 about 9 years ago

You don't need to compile the OS..
Compiling Dolphin can be done with "Visual Studio 2010 Express". (free software)
There is a guide on this site's wiki.
Use the x86 builds if you don't wish to compile.

#6 Updated by Xtreme2damax about 9 years ago

You're full of shit, sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. You are just repeating the same tired bull that the usual XP trolls spread around like wildfire and it simply isn't true.

Server 2003 (XP x64) is a nightmare, it has compatibility, driver, and memory issues, was never really supported by Microsoft nor driver vendors and is actually slower than Windows 7 x64. Windows 7 is just as fast if not faster than XP especially if you have a system made within the last 3-4 years. If you're system can handle Dolphin and Windows XP x64, it can handle Windows 7 just fine, the OS used makes zero difference to emulator performance. I went from XP x64 to Vista/7 x64 on an older system and it didn't even make one bit of difference to performance, not even one measly fps.

The misconception that XP, specifically XP x64 is lighter and faster than Windows 7 is simply not true. It's just fud spread by XP luddites/trolls that can't let go of a dying os that is 10 years old now. XP is limited by it's slow cpu-bound gdi interface and doesn't properly support multi-core or the latest technologies on newer hardware. Simply put if you are using XP on a machine made in the last 3 - 4 years, you are crippling your machine and it won't work to it's full potential. You should only be using XP/XP x64 now if you have legacy hardware or software you depend on that won't work in Windows Vista or Windows 7, but if that's the case just dual boot.

Or do as Billiard mentioned and make the changes he listed and re-compile the emulator. I'm all for stamping out support for a terrible operating system that very few use (It isn't XP, it's Server 2003 with a god damn XP interface, nothing more) if it means improving performance overall on the other operating systems that are better supported.

#7 Updated by Xtreme2damax about 9 years ago

Hell people can run Windows 7 just fine on 1 Ghz processors and 1 GB of ram. I know someone that ran it decently on a Pentium III 1.4 Ghz with 672 MB of ram. In fact here is that thread:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22364528

The op of that thread was a former moderator at Ngemu btw.

#8 Updated by rhyviolin about 9 years ago

I've heard all this from the Microsoft apologists before. I'm not going to become emotional to this comment: "You're full of shit, sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. You are just repeating the same tired bull that the usual XP trolls spread around like wildfire and it simply isn't true."

But I will assure you that nothing could be farther from the truth.

xp x64 is far from a perfect OS. It is merely the only Microsoft OS that I currently use that delivers both performance and stability required to run most tasks. As to it being somehow slower than windows 7, this is plainly wrong. I get nearly 10fps more in xp x64 than I do in any version of windows 7, with aero off, making every effort to level the playing field. The fps difference is not as pronounced in other games/apps, but in Dolphin, 50-60 fps is totally playable which is what I get in xp x64, and 40-50 fps is totally miserable, which is what I get in windows 7 x64 ultimate, with everything stripped down to nothing.

Honestly, I use Linux more often than I use Windows of any flavor, but the OpenGL plugin is far behind the dx9 plugin for speed on my hardware, and I lose at least 20 fps in every distro, even lightning fast ones like Linux Mint Debian Edition (Which also fails to be able to connect to wiimotes). Dolphin DOES work (and the wiimotes too!) in stock Linux Mint 10 x64 DVD edition, but 20 fps slower than dx9 in windows xp x64.

Windows 7 is a big step up from Vista, and for that MS should be commended. But it simply lags a crucial amount versus XP x64 on my hardware at least, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

For the record (in case anybody wants to check my benchmarks) My rig is:

AMD phenom II x4 (One core disabled to x3) B55
3.5 ghz
2.0 gb ram
Geforce 9600 GT

And as of right now Dolphin r7035 x64 plays nearly all games at full speed in single player, and playable enough in 3 player mode. None of the new builds will work. Which is why I posted this issue in the first place. Not to start a stupid flame war about which MS OS is better, given that they are ALL inferior to Linux Mint 8, let alone versions 9 and 10.

As to recompiling the emulator, I'd love to, but I haven't had the time to research the process completely yet, and further, I don't think I'll use "Visual Studio 2010 Express" as it may be FREE as in beer, but it is not FREE as in freedom, so I won't be installing it on my machine.

In an age where Julian Assange is a "criminal" and Mark Zuckerberg is "Man of the Year", I'll be damned if any corporations gets any access to my machine at all. You would be wise to follow suit.

#10 Updated by MofoMan2000 about 9 years ago

Just have to throw this out there:

I don't know why everyone is blaming the OpenGL backend for Linux being slower than Windows at Dolphin. In my Windows rig (XP x86, I'm worse off than most) OpenGL is actually 1 or 2 FPS FASTER than DX9. Maybe there are some Windows-only optimizations at work, maybe it's a result of my aging 8800GT.

Now I'm no expert on Linux distributions but on Kubuntu, on the same system, I get about half the framerate. There's gotta be something else going on.

#11 Updated by hatarumoroboshi about 9 years ago

I confirm that OpenGL in Windows XP 32-bit is slightly faster than Dx9 (Ati Hd4850)

#12 Updated by fakedarz about 9 years ago

"Now I'm no expert on Linux distributions but on Kubuntu, on the same system, I get about half the framerate. There's gotta be something else going on."

Do you mean that you get half the framerate of XP ? O_o Are your drivers up to date ?

#13 Updated by rhyviolin about 9 years ago

I can also confirm that on Linux I'm getting consistently 20 fps lower than Windows, no matter how many reconfigurations I do of the emulator and the gfx plugin. This should probably be a new issue though.

#14 Updated by rhyviolin about 9 years ago

I just installed Windows 7 x64 Ultimate specifically to reconfirm previous claims. Curiously Dx11 actually runs faster on win7 than any other plugin on any other OS. OpenGL performance was GOD AWFUL though, coming in around 20fps vs 45fps in linux and 40fps in xp x64. Win 7 eventually overheats my gfx card no matter what I do though, which never happens in xp x64.

#15 Updated by Xtreme2damax about 9 years ago

Yeah I get terrible OGL performance even with my GTX 460's but DX9 and DX11 are silky smooth on my Windows 7 x64 install. The only performance issues I have are due to the recent fifo commits and a couple other commits.

#16 Updated by Billiard26 about 9 years ago

issue 4344 has been merged into this issue.

#17 Updated by rhyviolin about 9 years ago

Windows 7 frequently will not connect with my wiimotes. I also am getting spotty fps, and random OS crashes. Windows 7 is not nearly as fast or stable as XP x64. I had done this testing already, but since the recent change to not supporting xp x64 I tried again. I cannot believe you guys are happy with Windows 7. I get much worse performance out of it, even with aero disabled and running optimized software. Any ideas on why OGL is so much slower these days? Looks like the only hope for me keeping up with Dolphin development is to hope the Linux builds speed up significantly.

#18 Updated by Xtreme2damax about 9 years ago

Not as fast or stable as XP x64?

I'm sorry but I just have to lol at that. Windows 7 x86/x64 is a far more stable, compatible, and secure operating system than XP x64 will ever be. Windows 7 x86/x64 just as fast as XP if not faster in most cases, there's even benchmarks to prove it. Clearly you aren't doing something right, Windows 7 can run just fine on 3 - 5 year old hardware and low spec'd netbooks. Someone had Windows 7 running fine on a Pentium 3 1 Ghz with 768 MB of ram and a Radeon 9500 I believe, it's in the last link I posted.

This is not an issue with the OS, it's user error or an issue with your system configuration, drivers, third party software etc.. Also going from XP x64 to Windows 7 x64 would not affect emulator performance, there is very little overhead by the operating system. I went from XP x64 to Vista x64 on an old HP system with an Athlon64 x 2 3800+ @ 2.1 Ghz, Geforce 6100 LE, 1 GB Ram without any change to performance with the emulator. Sure the emulator ran like crap regardless due to the specifications of the system, but switching to Vista x64 did not make emulator performance any worse or better.

You really should just give up using Dolphin if your system is so bad it can't handle Windows 7, the emulator is going to be much more strain on resources than the operating system. Reminds me of the tools that suggested creating a lightweight emu-os and it being shot down by emu-developers. It was established that the OS has little overhead especially when it comes to CPU intensive emulators such as Dolphin and PCSX2 and creating a lightweight OS or running the emulator in a lightweight OS would have little to no effect on performance.

#19 Updated by rhyviolin about 9 years ago

I've provided my benchmarks up above. My machine does in fact run Dolphin pretty well, but only under XP x64, as I've stated. Linux and Windows 7 x64 ultimate performance are both sub par, and in addition it is very difficult to hook up the wiimotes in windows 7. You can LOL all you want, but real world performance and data aren't really subject to anybody's opinion. They are facts that stand on their own. And I'd challenge you to find the error in this machine setup. In any of the OSes I have installed. I've been installing OSes on machines professionally for over 15 years. TRS-DOS right on up to Linux Mint 10 x64, and all the crap in between.

#20 Updated by Xtreme2damax about 9 years ago

You aren't configuring something correctly as I've said, or it's an issue with your drivers. Windows 7 can run well on machines 3 - 7 years old on hardware nearly as old as XP can and low spec'd netbooks. The OS isn't going to cause such overhead that it would degrade performance. Performance will be no worse or better going from one OS to the next. I made the transition from XP x64 to Vista x64 on an old AMD x64 3800+ @ 2.0 Ghz, Geforce 6100LE, 1 GB Ram PC and emulator performance wasn't affected in the slightest. My only performance issues was due to the fact my system at the time was inadequate for running Dolphin. In fact Dolphin should run slightly faster since there is less load on the CPU as Aero is rendered by the GPU, whereas XP's GUI is rendered with slow ass GDI+ via the CPU. Windows 7 requirements may be a bit higher than XP or about the same, even XP requires 512+ MB of ram to run well, I know this after trying to fix issues on my younger sisters computer that only has 512 MB of ram.

"You can LOL all you want, but real world performance and data aren't really subject to anybody's opinion. They are facts that stand on their own."

Well the facts are is that Windows 7 x64 is more stable, compatible and secure than XP x64 will ever be, that is not an opinion up for debate. In most benchmarks Windows 7 is either on par with XP or comes out on top so that isn't really an opinion either. Windows XP is getting old itself, Windows XP does not properly support multi-core so you would be hindering performance by running XP on newer hardware. Windows XP does not support newer features/technologies that Windows Vista/7 support, certain Firefox 4 features won't work on XP since XP doesn't support those features. Also if you are a gamer, Windows XP doesn't have support for DX10/DX11. If you buy a Blu-Ray drive you won't be able to watch Blu-Ray movies as Windows Vista/7 are required for playback. Windows XP is not going to be supported forever, and for development to move forward there needs to be a line drawn somewhere or a cutoff to drop support. In this case XP x64 support was dropped in order to improve the emulator instead of holding back development because a few diehards continue to cling onto it and won't let go. This is what happens with any EOL OS, I'm sure most modern software won't run or run correctly on Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows 95 etc.. so why is XP/XP x64 any different? XP x64 has already had 10 years, 13 years by the time it's officially EOL, that's longer than any Microsoft OS in existence. Anyone clinging to XP can eventually expect to be left behind and left out of newer versions of software, only will upgrading their OS allow them to reap the benefits that newer versions of software offers.

#21 Updated by odokee2 about 9 years ago

I like how Xtreme2daMax over there likes to repeat those lies and misconceptions, as if eventually they would turn into facts.

LOL @ "You aren't configuring something correctly". Yet he blames XP-x64 for invalid shit, but with Windows 7 it must always be the configuration.

LOL @ multi-core support. What a stupid blunder to make. XP works fine with it. Simple as that.

LOL @ XP-x64 being around for 10 years. I hope that was just a mistake.

LOL @ the Windows interface robbing CPU cycles from Dolphin somehow. Then why isn't there an automatic FPS gain when going to 7? Wait, didn't he even say the OS has negligible overhead? What the fuck is wrong with him...

LOL @ blu-ray not working with XP. Complete buffoonery.

Throw enough darts and eventually some will stick. Sure, Windows 7 might be more secure than XP, but that is still mostly up to the users anyway. And what does it have to do with Dolphin?

#22 Updated by rhyviolin about 9 years ago

It's very clear that Xtreme2daMax doesn't know what he's talking about. I gave up arguing with him though, and also gave up on getting Dolphin to work in XP x64, even though it is more secure, more stable, faster, faster to boot, the screensaver actually works, faster to return from screensaver, more compatible with 90% of my software, I know it better, takes less hard drive space......

But here I am on win7 x64, crawling along. LOL

#23 Updated by wespipes69 about 9 years ago

"even though it is more secure, more stable, faster, faster to boot, the screensaver actually works, faster to return from screensaver, more compatible with 90% of my software, I know it better, takes less hard drive space......"

That's a LOL for sure. Just stick with your perfect OS then, nothing will ever convince you otherwise. And if your OS is crawling then either 1) you don't know what you're doing or 2) your computer hardware is as old as your stubborn OS perceptions (that XP will never be outdone - even though it has been). It's like convincing a Christian there's no God - no facts/evidence can disprove their "faith".

For the rest of us who converted we are very happy and enjoying smooth performance, much more stability (zero crashes/blue screens) for the past 1 1/2 which is a sharp contrast to XP's error handling and occasional hanging. 7 ALWAYS is responsive and gives you task manager on demand allowing you to kill whatever is being problematic at all times. You obviously get more security (you really threw that in?), consistent short boot times that don't increase with age (that's what I saw XP do 100% of the time on tens of PCs over the years), and a OS compatable with all of my old software dating back 10 yrs. in some cases.

Like it or not, there's more evidence out there supporting Xtreme's case than yours. You are just fanboys unwilling to give 7 a fair shot. Vista was crap, I've always known that and chose to skip that OS. 7 is different. 7 is the new XP and this is coming from a die hard XP fan, trust me! I was so relieved after giving 7 a chance and it's strengths greatly outweighed any weaknesses it possessed. You alwasy have to make some small sacrifices when you upgrade your software. Should we still support everything that ran on '95. No, why would we. That's life, accept change or don't try to use software that's being developed 8 yrs. after your precise OS released.

And don't bash Xtreme, he's done more for this community than you two combined ever will. Disagree all you want, I don't think either party will change their minds here about anything so this is all moot and I'm stupid for even bothering to write this knowing it won't accomplish anything with you guys. Whatever, hopefully the more you hear the truth, the sooner you'll accept it. :)

#24 Updated by rhyviolin about 9 years ago

I'm not an unrepentant fanboi, and I'm also not a n00b. And I also COMPLETELY appreciate what Xtreme has done helping out with Dolphin.

But that doesn't change the facts:

Windows 7 is slower, more bloated, less secure (there are several articles backing this claim up, particularly recently, as malware is now aiming for the majority share of the market), and less stable. I know this FROM EXPERIENCE. On hundreds of different machines. My job is installing Windows on machines day in and day out. HUNDREDS of machines.

Granted: 7 is better than Vista. Granted, 7 is prettier than XP. Granted, the driver situation is improved. Other than that 7 is a downgrade and if you don't think so, you've drunk the Microsoft snake oil. Dare I use the word fanboi? Maybe you should go get a mac!

#25 Updated by Sonicadvance1 over 7 years ago

issue 4344 has been merged into this issue.

Also available in: Atom PDF