Where is the old version of CJMSX?
The version that could use files even if you are running Windows 95 or Windows 98.

Due to the forum policy we can't provide any url to the MSX2 version... Let's see if it's possible to point to the MSX1 version on ftp://ftp.bifi.msxnet.org/waterland/DIV/MSX099B1.ARJ

(when will it be able to hyperlink to an ftp using [url]?)

It's not the forum policy, but my crappy url parser that prevents you from doing so right now ^_^

(Almost completely out of spare time these days, I'll try to do some top-priority updates soon)

The MSX2 version I know has the system roms packed with it as well... Which is against the forum policy.

As we also report on other emulators which inculde MSX System ROMs in their distribution archives, I see no reason to forbid that on the MRC forums. Please BiFi, stop assuming things and let the MRC moderators point out what can and what can't be done on these forums.

ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/msx/emulator/msx210b.arj is, to my knowledge, the most recent (and last) version of CJSMSX. Please keep in mind that you're only allowed to use 'em if you have an MSX computer yourself.

Also if you don't exactly have the same ROMs as packaged in that arj?

*sigh*

Hahaha .

snout, it's what YOUR forum policy states, and now I'm attacked because I obey the forum policy? Besides, you reporting about MSX emulators which have system roms packaged is hardly a direct link to the package itself.

Am I the only one noticing double standards here?

Quote:

Also if you don't exactly have the same ROMs as packaged in that arj?

nice one... this might be the break the openMSX team was waiting for

I aint waiting... I only think it's strange that the reviewer of the emulators is giving plus point for the ease of use.... while the ease of use comes from the ILLEGAL included SYSTEM ROMS. But I aint gonna stab anyone in the back on this matter since I think 'live and let die'

Quote:

nice one... this might be the break the openMSX team was waiting for

For me, it certainly is not. Shipping only C-BIOS with openMSX is a practical decision, not a moral one. For example openMSX is now entering Debian Linux, that would not have been possible if we had shipped with illegal ROMs.

I think double standards are unavoidable because on one side there is today's copyright law and on the other side there is common sense. Strictly speaking, if I want to play SD Snatcher I'd have to overbid the collectors on eBay to get one. Practically speaking, I just copy old MSX games and buy original Konami PS2 games, which benefits Konami more than me trying to hunt down second hand MSX games.

I agree 100% with you, mth!

Quote:

snout, it's what YOUR forum policy states, and now I'm attacked because I obey the forum policy? Besides, you reporting about MSX emulators which have system roms packaged is hardly a direct link to the package itself. Am I the only one noticing double standards here?

Wow, this writing style brings back some memories...

Perhaps the fact that we are not that tight on our forum policies might indicate that things are not as bad as some people want to make others believe.

We, the MRC, have defended our policies concerning posting about 'grey area' stuff towards the ACCS and MSX Association. I think you agree there's a difference between posting about an emulator which includes some System ROMs, or posting about a new website (or new software on a website), on which a few illegal titles can be found as well and posting about things that are all about warez. (Sysroms, games, etc.). As the MRC runs the risk of legal actions, or at least angry emails, I think it's no less than fair that the MRC team decide what can and can't be done, in case of doubt. If legal actions follow, it'll be our responsibility, not yours.

It seems like you still didn't get the intention of our April fools post. Your homework for today: read it again and again until you do. In other words: lighten up!

Quote:

Wow, this writing style brings back some memories...

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean...

Quote:

As the MRC runs the risk of legal actions, or at least angry emails, I think it's no less than fair that the MRC team decide what can and can't be done, in case of doubt. If legal actions follow, it'll be our responsibility, not yours.

Meaning? Bazix sueing MRC?

Quote:

It seems like you still didn't get the intention of our April fools post.

Was there an intention to that april fools joke then? You might want to explain it better then, as I think it completely missed its goal.