Quote:

End-users don't want to download more then 1 zip/rar/tar/tgz/etc. to get what they want. So offering a 2nd party GUI to openMSX is just not enough for Windows users(allright, I'll admit, the whole GUI thing is only important to the users of the win port).

In general this is probably true. Windows users seem to fear the command line. But it's not OS specific. Some Linux users do love clicking 'n stuff. (And I totally disagree that Linux programs are always user unfriendly (seems you have little experience with LInux), but that's an other discussion...)

Quote:

Example; if one would like to use openMSX, they'll have to download openMSX win port, rom package and catapult. that 3 things from 3 different websites. On the openMSX website (http://openmsx.sourceforge.net/) I cannot even find any links to Catapult (just a 5 minute search). And I know it exists. How should anyone who doesn't visit MRC (or any other MSX news site for that matter) be able to find Catapult?

You are right. This is because Catapult is still in an unofficial status: it's not supported by the openMSX team. However, we are working on a completely new portable Catapult that will be officially released on our web site (and maintained in CVS). Just be patient. I'll think about adding links to the currently unofficial Catapults.
It will remain a seperate release though for now, since the GUI is completely optional.

Again, the ROMs: we can't do anything about that, I hope you understand.

Quote:

Make sure the end-user will find what he came for. The whole package. Not just some obscure tarballs.

Obscure tarballs? Those are only for the *nix people... And some won't even need those anymore. E.g. Gentoo Linux already has an openMSX package in their distribution. We're trying to get more of those for the other distros.

Quote:

I'm speaking from a Windows end-user point of view, because I think that's an audience openMSX should give more attention to. As long as the team doesn't see this, openMSX will never reach the popularity of, a technically weaker, emulator like ruMSX.

It's hard to work for Windows people if you don't run Windows yourself. Reikan is our only WIn32 developer. Having more people who know about Win32 development would help. (Yep: this is an invitation to help us...)

About liteMSX as mars2000you talks about:
The configs are not really a part of the emulator. So, I don't understand why you're talking about 2 versions of an emulator. What's wrong with just adding these boosted configs? I mean, there may be more configs there you won't use then, but what's wrong with that? Anyone could delete them. Heck, anyone out there could create his own set of configs and make them available on the web, to replace the default configs of openMSX....

There's nothing wrong to add boosted general configurations to the existing specific machines, but for the common user (I'm not speaking about me, but about the users that prefer fMSX clones or RuMSX) that wants to access to a more "basic" emulator, it's really a NEMESIS 4 walthrough :

1 - Download on openMSX site the emulator with all his specific machines

2 - Install openMSX

3 - Delete all the specific machines (with exception maybe for cbios and cbios2)

4 - Delete almost all extensions (with exception for some indicated in my previous message)

5 - Go to my site to download general configurations and alternative settings

6 - Install these general configurations and alternative settings

7 - Go on FUNET and/or download NLMSX to get access to the system roms

8 - Install the system roms in the good directories with the general configurations

9 - Go to the Catapult site to download the frontend

10 - Link the frontend with openMSX (or liteMSX)

Do you think really that most of the common users will make all these actions ? NO, THEY WON'T !!!

It explains why fMSX clones and RuMSX are so populair.

It explains also why I prefer NLMSX that comes with system roms, general configurations and an extended config editor. Yes, NLMSX is indeed a more advanced emulator (by comparison with fMSX clones), it's not for a newbee, it's not for an expert, but for an advanced user (although the last version includes a more simple way to lauch ROM games)

If you use NLMSX and want to emulate a specific machine, you must only download the plugin that interests you and install it ! Alas, the developers of openMSX prefer the other way ... Don't complain if openMSX is not populair ....

When I see the evolution of this discussion, I think that openMSX will remain reserved for the experts and some advanced users (I use openMSX only when NLMSX doesn't work correctly : for example, some demos with special VDP tricks or when I need a feature that I can't find in NLMSX, like Midi emulation)

I can only praise the fact that openMSX doesn't come with System ROMs. Every emulator-developer should have made that choice long time ago, as distributing the System ROMs is simply illegal.

For the rest I do agree with mars2000you. Most people do not want to take that much efforts to get an emulator running.

The question is... should the openMSX developers care about that? There are plenty of alternatives for the "click and run" people out there, who on their turn don't care if they can watch the entire Unknown Reality demo or not. They can run their favorite MSX1 (and MSX2) games on their fMSX-derivatives and are happy with that. Why on earth would they switch to different emulators?

Just a remark about the system roms : the official fMSX-Windows emulator of Marat comes with system roms, you can also download these roms on Marat's site ... and we know also that Marat has an agreement with MSX-Association (as the MSX-PLAYer uses great part of the Marat's code). Apparently, there's no problem between Marat and MSX-Association about the system roms !

fMSX/Windows is not "an official" emulator like MSXPLAYer is. Furthermore it's not MSX-Association, but Microsoft (Japan?) who are the cause of the systemROMs not being free. Last but not least, just because no organization has taken action against spreading system ROMs yet doesn't make it more or less (il)legal. I think it is a good thing that developers like the openMSX team and JR of fMSX/S60 choose the safe side and don't spread system ROMs (or use C-BIOS).

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.

A lite version would of course be an option, but like I was trying to state... I do not really see the purpose for that either...

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.

I still don't see why someone would do steps 3 and 4. Of course you can do that if you don't use these configs, but why bother?

Steps 5 and 6: this will be fixed in the next release I hope, as I said earilier. We will add boosted configs.

Regarding step 8: yes. But this will be fixed in the future, as I also explained already. You'll be able to download it from the same location as openMSX itself then.

So, step 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10 remain. Of course some one could write a small installer script that does this for the user. Feel free to do so, on your own responsibility, but since it involves downloading system ROMs, we certainly won't do that.

Quote:

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 ...

Quote:

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.

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 . 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? ) 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?

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.

Quote:

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? ) 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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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?!

Quote:

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?!

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 ...