> Something like an Atari 2600 (I have two, including a heavy sixer) is different from
> an XP box, imo. I'd not expect a 2600 to play Mame games. It's old, and collectible,
> but it's also very much out of date. No-one is trying to make a 2600 run 32-bit code.
>
Never said that a Atari should run MAME, you just didnt get the point of what i have tried to say.
> You just might not be able to use it in
> a new release of Mame.
Its exactly that, that is stupid and unnecessary.
> A Mame compatible controller is very cheap, after all.
If "mame compatible" is your only problem, then you are not a serious gamer after all and again you didnt get the point.
> I'm aware that Mame now includes MESS. A confession: I've never been able to get MESS
> to work. Seriously. I still use Stella, and another Atari 400/800 emulator. I have
> also downloaded .171 of Mame, but for gaming purposes use .160, since it does
> everything I need.
And what you do and think, is the law or what? So you are upgrading once in a year, maybe more? Its your problem, if you cant operate with MESS, maybe other people are pretty good at it.
> The trouble with old code is regression testing, I think. Even if the code is old and
> unchanged, doesn't mean it'll still work in a new build. Dev's can talk about this in
> more detail, but I don't believe it's true to suggest that just because a piece of
> code has not been changed, and was working in the last version, that it will
> necessarily work in the new.
Everything just assumption. I dont believe that any regression testing was needed. The devs clearly did some steps, without thinking of consequences.
I can live with it and 017x will be probably final destination, for a xp-machine and to just end the discussion here (from my POV).
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: No more support for DIRECTINPUT 7?
Reply
No more support for DIRECTINPUT 7?
