N64 Emmu

Discussion in 'Games' started by mrgreen4242, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. Sdashiki macrumors 68040


    Aug 11, 2005
    Behind the lens
    emulation.net has been around for like a decade. (seems they moved, check the url when you clik the link)

    always has and always will be THE place to DL mac emulators.

    i mean the day OSX came out (10.0) they changed the look of the site to what you see, before it was like an OS9 window. now thats dedication.
  2. Eric5h5 macrumors 68020

    Dec 9, 2004
    Logic? ;) That's exactly what you just said. In reality, nobody else has even commented on the matter--I sincerely doubt that anyone else even cares what I'm writing or what you're writing here--but if it pleases you to think so, fine by me.

    I'm not sure I can seriously respond to comments like "That's funny how you're still claiming that's false without any evidence but the implication that PPC Linux is a different OS from x86 Linux." That bears no relation to any logic I've ever heard of, and hey, you made the claim, you back it up...I'm not doing your work for you. The fact remains that, as one example among many, Generator doesn't have some of those "basic" features you complain about, and that Linux is an OS that's not OS X. ("LinuxPPC" simply because I've only ever used Linux on PPC; merely a habit, sorry...I'll just say "Linux" if it makes you happier. AmigaOS ports typically lack most of those "basic" features as well.) If you're going to engage in hyperbole, I'm going to call you on it; simple.

    I'm not about to engage in a "quote and respond to every line" war, so sorry for not individually responding to every comment you made, but what it comes down to is that I believe it's entirely ethical to charge money for a non-OS project, even if that project is related to OS emulators.

    Something like the CherryOS situation, on the other hand, where some people took other people's work (on PearPC in this case) and tried to sell it as their own, is pretty blatantly unethical and I personally find it offensive. Playing by the rules, however, I don't find offensive. You still haven't explained what the problem is exactly, other than to say you "don't care too much for" Bannister. I guess that's your personal issue. I don't know the guy at all, but I'll engage in "knee-jerk" defenses of anyone who's being unfairly bashed.

    Well, OK, just one quote-and-reply, because it's indicative of the kind of disingenuous "logic" that I'm objecting to here:

    I've never claimed to define the purpose of emulation; I think that's more your department. Kindly point out where I even mention SNES9x. I definitely am a fan; in fact SNES9x might be my favorite emulator, although possibly that's because of what it emulates. It serves its purpose admirably, and while bSNES is more of a work-in-progress by comparison, it's interesting for different reasons. Why should all emulators try to be the same thing? There are cycle-exact NES emulators as well; and yep, people whined about those too, until they got their multi-GHz machines (again, missing the point).

    It's just amusing when someone who apparently prides himself on logic can respond to "Neither Bannister nor anyone else has a lock on the market" with "The list of available emulators for OSX says otherwise." You know, that's the cool thing about OS software...you can do what you want with it, as long as you play by the rules. To repeat, nobody has a lock on the OS X emulator market. You may dismiss it as a "chestnut," but it's still very much true that anyone can change the situation if he or she thinks it's worthwhile to do so. All the non-sequiturs in the world won't change that.

  3. Mr. Mister macrumors 6502

    Feb 15, 2006
    On a related note, did anybody ever get that Gamecube emulator working? Supposedly somebody had a decent-running one (it's easier on a PPC Mac, same as the Gamecube proc) but the setup was really confusing.
  4. Thad Boyd macrumors newbie

    Feb 14, 2006
    I can't even parse that paragraph.

    You heard it here first, folks: Eric5h5 has never even HEARD of Aristotelean logic.

    Which ones?

    By "every single other OS" I meant Windows, Linux, and the non-OSX BSD's. I suppose that qualifies as hyperbole as I'm leaving out, say, Amiga, OS/2, BeOS, and any number of other seldom-used OS's, as well as portable device OS's such as the iPod and most cell phones, but I think a reasonable person would've assumed I meant desktop OS's with at least a half-percent of the market each.

    Oh for God's sake, is this what we're reduced to now? The old "I'm going to pick and choose the arguments that I respond to, but it's not because I can't dispute the others, because I TOTALLY COULD if I WANTED to, it's just that I don't want to. In fact, there's something wrong with YOU for debating every point!" bit? Good God, man, it's not like I'm your biggest fan but I thought you were at least above THAT.

    That's just absurd. It insults you, it insults me, it insults the fine people reading this thread, and frankly it insults Richard Bannister that the only person in this thread who's supported him says things like that.

    If you can't argue a point, act like an adult and concede it. Don't play this "I'm right but I don't have to explain myself and you're a chump for doing so" game.

    That's right, Eric! You show that straw man who's boss!

    My problem, as I thought I'd made clear, isn't that he's charging for the emulators themselves (as you keep flogging, he doesn't), it's that he's charging for features other people give away for free.

    I devoted 933 words to explaining it.

    You seem to be implying that I have a problem with him personally. I don't know him either, I'm just saying I don't care for his work or how he defends the choices he's made.

    And now we've descended to "I know you are but what am I?"

    Huh, you're right, you don't actually mention SNES9X, you just DIRECTLY QUOTE a reference to it and suggest that my desire to run an emulator that actually works on my computer means I don't care about emulation. So sorry for the misunderstanding.

    And I'm sorry, but what part of that doesn't make assumptions about the purpose of emulation?

    Why Eric, you're not playing g4m3 r0mz, are you?

    Let me clarify a bit here; I don't think I've done a very good job of articulating my opinion on bSNES so far and I take responsibility for that.

    I think it IS an interesting project, albeit mainly from an academic standpoint right now, as it won't work on most people's hardware. (Although, in response to your original rhetorical question, it sure appears to me that Byuu's original Windows version has a lower set of sysreqs than Bannister's port -- I'm running an Athlon XP 1900+ on my x86 box and if memory serves I picked it up about three years ago.)

    The trouble is in the difference between Byuu's and Bannister's respective approaches. Byuu makes the source available, in keeping with the idea that this project has value just from a pure "see how it works" angle -- and of course his source is bound to be much more enlightening and easy-to-read than SNES9X or zSNES, especially to a fledgling emu coder, for the obvious reason of OO C++ versus assembler.

    Bannister, by contrast, does NOT make his source available. He's NOT publishing his port as something to pore over out of academic curiosity. He publishes it as a game console emulator, and wants money for basic features -- basic features which SNES9X already has.

    What point? What's wrong with not wanting to pay money for a program that won't run on your computer?

    Of course computers get faster. Of course today's big hardware footprint is tomorrow's average. And of course one day bSNES's reqs will seem modest (in fact, it might be fair to say the Windows version's already are). But are you seriously arguing that objecting now is invalid because the computer industry will be different in a few years?

    I'm sorry, I must've made the mistake of assuming you knew what "lock on the market" meant.

    I think that one's my favorite.

    I look forward to your next set of responses to whichever cherry-picked set of points is most convenient for you.
  5. Haoshiro macrumors 68000


    Feb 9, 2006
    USA, OR
    Bannister doesn't release the source code...

    Why would he need to? He is porting Open Source emulators... that means you can get the same source he ported!

    Other emulators offer the features for free...

    I'm not sure why this is a problem. SNES9x for example, it's not his port... works fine and has those features (iirc). He even points out SNES9x on his bSNES page.

    Just because someone does something for free doesn't mean that it's worthless. It doesn't mean it should be free and anyone doing something similar is being a greedy punk because they charge for it.

    This attitude especially bothers me and thanks to the Internet just keeps spreading. Frankly, it's stupid. Some people hate Microsoft because they charge for Windows, but you can get Linux for free. That's stupid, if you want free then use Linux. What you are really upset about is that you have to pay for something you want!

    ANY developer that puts time and effort into something deserves to be compensated for that effort if someone else wants a copy of that work. It doesn't matter if it's a port or if it's a new product.

    If you don't want to pay for it then don't. But just because you want software but would have to pay money to get it doesn't mean it's wrong to charge money for it.

    ~ Hao

Share This Page