Post by Scott HPost by Kendrick Kerwin ChuaPost by Scott HI would welcome some PC ports to Dreamcast provided they don't use WinCE.
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with Windows CE? Not trying to be an
advocate or anything, but my experience with 3.0 was that it was the
cleanest Win32 environment.
<snip>>
Post by Scott HPost by Kendrick Kerwin ChuaWinCE had good and bad results on the Dreamcast. Armada was excellent.
Tomb Raider, maybe not so much.
Wow a response on RGVS in the same day, I'm sorry I took so long! My
problem is that all of the PC ports that use WinCE have terrible
framerates, texture mapping and polygon counts compared to games
actually ported to the DC.
I can't excuse that, but I think I know the explanation. The Dreamcast was
on the market at the same time as the first iteration of the Pocket PC,
which was the beginning of Intel's monopoly. By adding instructions to the
ARM chipset and making it incompatible with chips from other companies,
Intel was able to bully Microsoft into optimizing Windows CE for Compaq's
iPaq device. Casio put up a good fight for their favored MIPS chip, but
eventually they gave in and withdrew from the market. And once HP was
bought out, the SH series processors had no advocate.
What's this have to do with the Dreamcast? The support for the Dreamcast's
SH-3 processor suffered as a result of all this inside baseball. On paper
Windows CE was supposed to let you write once and then compile equally for
any compatible processor, but in practice you ended up with a performance
hit for anything that wasn't x86 or ARM. Sega's own API shouldn't have run
circles around Windows CE from a strictly mathematical perspective.
Anyway. All water under the bridge at this point.
-KKC, who woners if he should shill for the $5 Dreamcast hardware being
sold out of New York. :)
--
--"I think I'm kind of like pennies. You | kendrick
have 'em in your pocket but you don't | @ io.com
remember they're there." - Bill Withers | http://www.io.com/~kkc