What's wrong with openMSX?

Página 3/6
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5 | 6

Por mars2000you

Enlighted (6097)

imagem de mars2000you

13-12-2003, 18:05

BUt, we are getting offtopic here. The openMSX team aims for perfect emulation of the MSX, all MSX machines ever released and even all MSX hardware ever released. It's very hard (if not impossible) to get a versatile, flexible, always in development emulator like openMSX in a small, simple and user-friendly GUI without degrading its capabilities.

It confirms my conclusion about openMSX : this emulator will remain reserved for experts and some advanced users that don't find in NLMSX, RedMSX, RuMSX and other emulators all the features that are interesting for them. But, as it was already said, if someone is happy to launch his preferred games on a user-friendly emulator, he will never be interested by openMSX, even if openMSX comes in the future with an good interface ...

Por mars2000you

Enlighted (6097)

imagem de mars2000you

13-12-2003, 18:14

Reacting to mars2000you:

As you'll undestand by now I hope, we simply cannot add the ROMs to openMSX distributions. So, steps 7 and 8 are something we can do nothing about.

Of course, I understand that but apparently, Marat (that has contact with the MSX-Association) has a different approach of the problem.

In the case of the new emulators, blueMSX and RedMSX, the system roms are embedded in the emulator's code ! It's not really new as technic. It is also used by No$MSX, and I can read this text in the help file of this emulator :

"The MSX operating system ROMs (BIOS and BASIC interpreter) are not my own, and thus it isn't exactly fully legal to use them and that I have included them (in form of a built-in overlay in the no$msx.exe file). Judging from the startup message they are still copyrighted by Microsoft.

Now it'd be a lame excuse to say that "I tought that they wouldn't be interested in their copyright anymore", so I have honestly reported my copyright violation about the ROM-images to the Microsoft Piracy department, and... well, they replied that they'd be pleased about my letter - and directed me to read their copyright and trademark statement about images (photographs) of Bill Gates, and about screensavers for MS windows. And at least I am now as confused about it as them."

Well, that's confusing ! Copyright still exists, but it doesn't seem to have such a great importance to respect it, protect it, defend it ....

This situation is not clear and I understand the position of prudence that is choosen by the openMSX team.

Por snout

Ascended (15184)

imagem de snout

13-12-2003, 19:01

When drive too fast you often don't get a fine. Many people drive too fast. That doesn't make driving too fast legal, does it? There is only one way to make sure you don't get a fine: Don't drive too fast. And that's the choice of the openMSX team.

About the link between Marat and MSX Association: Marat doesn't work for the MSX Association. MSXPLAYer is currently based on fMSX and MSX Association have aquired a license for that. At least they are playing things by the book Wink. That doesn't mean they condone everything else Marat does.

Some people say MSX Association are only in it for the money. Here's some food for thought: a license for the Windows version of fMSX, an unofficial MSX emulator with illegal System ROMs included costs more than a complete, cool MSX Magazine including an official MSX Emulator (albeit not the best emulator around, it is a good emulator and certainly a hell of a lot better than fMSX) and legal System ROMs...

The more attention the MSX system (the MSX Revival) is going to get, the more likely it is that Microsoft (Japan) will take measures against illegal distribution of System ROMS, and the more likely it is other software companies will take measures against warezing of software titles they are trying to sell again (like titles on sale at Project EGG).

If you want to discuss warezing or distribution of System ROMs further I suggest we do that in a separate forum thread.

What I wanted to address is... is there demand for a 'lite, user friendly'-version of openMSX? I doubt that. I seriously doubt that. openMSX is there for those who want pixel accuracy, Moonsound emulation, GFX9000 emulation (please? Tongue) etc. etc. etc.

99% of all emulator users do not need that. Therefor they choose for other emulators. But that's not a bad thing, is it?

Por mars2000you

Enlighted (6097)

imagem de mars2000you

13-12-2003, 19:36

I don't want to debate here further about system roms and distribution of warez. This was already debated in other threads and the today situation is probably a temporary situation.

To get back to openMSX : it is intesting to have a such ambitious emulator, the team has made a great work, and some challenges are still waiting for this team. The fact that openMSX will be never very populair doesn't mean that all these efforts were in vain. For real lovers of the MSX system, the goal of perfect accuracy with hardware and software is like the quest of the Holy Grail, and only experts can really appreciate this quest for total perfection.

Finally, it's not important if the most perfect emulator has no a great popularity. You can't change the preferences of the gamers .... or, at another level, my personal preferences for NLMSX. Sorry to say that, but if we must admire the work of a team, I think that we must also admire the work of Frits Hilderink, the only programmer of NLMSX. Big smile

Por Manuel

Ascended (18387)

imagem de Manuel

13-12-2003, 20:02


What I wanted to address is... is there demand for a 'lite, user friendly'-version of openMSX? I doubt that. I seriously doubt that. openMSX is there for those who want pixel accuracy, Moonsound emulation, GFX9000 emulation (please? Tongue) etc. etc. etc.

99% of all emulator users do not need that. Therefor they choose for other emulators. But that's not a bad thing, is it?

The idea is that openMSX is so versatile that it can also be used for 'lite' applications.
To be honest, I still don't see the difference, on emulation level. Does lite also include very low system demands? It's still the case that if you don't use Moonsound in openMSX, although it is connected, it doesn't affect the emulation at all. pixel accuracy only has some performance impact.

So, I hope that also the plain normal users will in the end (when there's a GUI, boosted simple configs, etc.) be able to use openMSX.

There' s no reason why openMSX shouldn't be an all-purpose MSX emulator, in my opinion! Am I wrong?

Por snout

Ascended (15184)

imagem de snout

13-12-2003, 20:08

There' s no reason why openMSX shouldn't be an all-purpose MSX emulator, in my opinion! Am I wrong?

Yes and no. People generally don't like changes. So changing from Emulator A to Emulator B will only be done by 'most people' if Emulator B adds an awful lot of advantages. As I tried to explain before, most advantages openMSX currently has are of little use to the 'ordinary user'. However, I do think that more and more people will give openMSX a try (especially when there's a GUI). Some will stick to it, others won't.

Por Manuel

Ascended (18387)

imagem de Manuel

13-12-2003, 20:18

People generally don't like changes. So changing from Emulator A to Emulator B will only be done by 'most people' if Emulator B adds an awful lot of advantages. As I tried to explain before, most advantages openMSX currently has are of little use to the 'ordinary user'.

So, back to the original question: what features do we have to add to make that list of advantages bigger? What do we need to change?

Note that there will be some new cool features in next release that may be attractive (new scalers e.g.). But I guess you people can tell me about a lot more features that would do that. Smile

Por anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

imagem de anonymous

14-12-2003, 00:39

If I understand correctly, mars2000you wants to HIDE features from the user, because apparently it confuses them. ^^;
A windows version could come with an installer that does 'lite' or 'full' install. Apparently that's a good feature?! :O

Por mars2000you

Enlighted (6097)

imagem de mars2000you

14-12-2003, 01:09

If I understand correctly, mars2000you wants to HIDE features from the user, because apparently it confuses them. ^^;
A windows version could come with an installer that does 'lite' or 'full' install. Apparently that's a good feature?! :O

That's exactly my point. As all features are installed by openMSX (no need to make 2 different programs !), the problem for the common user is to have easily access to the features that are interesting for him : type of MSX (and I speak here about general boosted configurations and not about specific machines), possibility of inserting an empty SCC(+) cartridge or a MSXDOS22 cartridge, choice of a rom, dsk, cas image.

You can indeed imagine an interface with a first page that is conceived for the common user and with other pages with more options like specific machines, validation or invalidation of MSX-MUSIC, MSX-AUDIO, Moonsound, and that's only examples of course !

That's really more than Catapult MSX, that has indeed the advantage to exist, but can't satisfy the common user ...

Por Manuel

Ascended (18387)

imagem de Manuel

14-12-2003, 15:03

That's exactly my point. As all features are installed by openMSX (no need to make 2 different programs !), the problem for the common user is to have easily access to the features that are interesting for him : type of MSX (and I speak here about general boosted configurations and not about specific machines), possibility of inserting an emty SCC(+) cartridge or a MSXDOS22 cartridge, choice of a rom, dsk, cas image.

OK, I can understand that.


You can indeed imagine an interface with a first page that is conceived for the common user and with other pages with more options like specific machines, validation or invalidation of MSX-MUSIC, MSX-AUDIO, Moonsound, and that's only examples of course !

That's really more than Catapult MSX, that has indeed the advantage to exist, but can't satisfy the common user ...

Isn't this almost what Catapult has, except that it shows all possible machines? If it would only show machines that you're interested in (e.g., the boosted ones) and posssibly also only the extensions you're interested in (the ones you mention here), it's exactly as you describe it. The most common things (inserting disk or ROM or the mentioned extensions) can be done on the 'front page' of the launcher. The more advanced stuff are in other pages (or will be in other pages, since the other pages don't have much functionality at all at the moment...)

With the current openMSX architecture, it is quite impossible to have machine configs with built in MSX-Music and 'invalidate' (turn off) that MSX-Music later on. This is why we have those separate extensions. We may have to define something like a set of extensions that users could use.

Of course you can also post a list of things you'd like to see in the Catapult launcher here...

Página 3/6
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5 | 6