The over-asked question

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

I see that folks use everything from DOS to Linux to Windoze for their
Mame cabinets. Although I was finally able to get it running on DOS
6.22 in a VMWare virtual machine, I was struck by the fact that Mame
is likely a 32-bit app. I know I'm gonna need some pretty beefy
hardware, but what OS tends to get "out of the way" for Mame to run
and run as efficiently as possible?

Also, I found a list of probably 25-30 frontends. Do you all have any
recommendations where the deciding factor is functionality over speed
for the frontend UI?

Thanks for answering these questions a thousand times. URL's are
sufficient answers if you have them.

-In2ishun

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

In2ishun wrote:
> I see that folks use everything from DOS to Linux to Windoze for their
> Mame cabinets. Although I was finally able to get it running on DOS
> 6.22 in a VMWare virtual machine, I was struck by the fact that Mame
> is likely a 32-bit app. I know I'm gonna need some pretty beefy
> hardware, but what OS tends to get "out of the way" for Mame to run
> and run as efficiently as possible?
>

No doubt the OS that "gets out of the way" and lets you use the
hardware to its maximum potential is Linux.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:53:30 -0700, In2ishun <in2ishun@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I see that folks use everything from DOS to Linux to Windoze for their
>Mame cabinets. Although I was finally able to get it running on DOS
>6.22 in a VMWare virtual machine, I was struck by the fact that Mame
>is likely a 32-bit app. I know I'm gonna need some pretty beefy
>hardware, but what OS tends to get "out of the way" for Mame to run
>and run as efficiently as possible?
>
>Also, I found a list of probably 25-30 frontends. Do you all have any
>recommendations where the deciding factor is functionality over speed
>for the frontend UI?
>
>Thanks for answering these questions a thousand times. URL's are
>sufficient answers if you have them.
>
>-In2ishun

Hi

For the front-end...i recommend "EmuLoader".I use it for years
already...
Get it at: www.mameworld.net/emuloader

Greetz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

I've always been partial to Mamewah for a front end.

In2ishun wrote:
> I see that folks use everything from DOS to Linux to Windoze for their
> Mame cabinets. Although I was finally able to get it running on DOS
> 6.22 in a VMWare virtual machine, I was struck by the fact that Mame
> is likely a 32-bit app. I know I'm gonna need some pretty beefy
> hardware, but what OS tends to get "out of the way" for Mame to run
> and run as efficiently as possible?
>
> Also, I found a list of probably 25-30 frontends. Do you all have any
> recommendations where the deciding factor is functionality over speed
> for the frontend UI?
>
> Thanks for answering these questions a thousand times. URL's are
> sufficient answers if you have them.
>
> -In2ishun

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

In2ishun <in2ishun@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mjwtQgbQa7JEbbVv8jCImpeOb1DS@
4ax.com:

> Although I was finally able to get it running on DOS
> 6.22 in a VMWare virtual machine

Any reason why you're running DOS in VMware?

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:56:09 GMT, Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com>
wrote:

>> Although I was finally able to get it running on DOS
>> 6.22 in a VMWare virtual machine
>
>Any reason why you're running DOS in VMware?

Sounds kinda dumb, doesn't it? Actually, I use the DOS install to
support several clients that I have who still run wicked-old
applications.

I guess the crux of my original post was more a question about what OS
people use that takes the least amount of resources to run so that
those resources would be available to MAME for those roms that need
more power. Windows 2000 seems like an obvious choice to me merely
because I don't know Linux. However, I can learn what I need to know
about Linux if I will get the biggest bang for the buck with MAME.

Does this make sense?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

your_worst_nightmare wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:53:30 -0700, In2ishun <in2ishun@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I see that folks use everything from DOS to Linux to Windoze for their
>>Mame cabinets. Although I was finally able to get it running on DOS
>>6.22 in a VMWare virtual machine, I was struck by the fact that Mame
>>is likely a 32-bit app. I know I'm gonna need some pretty beefy
>>hardware, but what OS tends to get "out of the way" for Mame to run
>>and run as efficiently as possible?
>>
>>Also, I found a list of probably 25-30 frontends. Do you all have any
>>recommendations where the deciding factor is functionality over speed
>>for the frontend UI?
>>
>>Thanks for answering these questions a thousand times. URL's are
>>sufficient answers if you have them.
>>
>>-In2ishun
>
>
> Hi
>
> For the front-end...i recommend "EmuLoader".I use it for years
> already...
> Get it at: www.mameworld.net/emuloader
>
> Greetz

....and if you are going to use Windoze, FastMAME is the version to use
(IMHO).

--
Thnik about it!
Dead_Dad

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

In2ishun <in2ishun@yahoo.com> wrote in news:4jQuQhWr9AvD1kWDf3SeNnhNlida@
4ax.com:

> I guess the crux of my original post was more a question about what OS
> people use that takes the least amount of resources to run so that
> those resources would be available to MAME for those roms that need
> more power. Windows 2000 seems like an obvious choice to me merely
> because I don't know Linux. However, I can learn what I need to know
> about Linux if I will get the biggest bang for the buck with MAME.

Yes, I'm sure Linux will run slightly more efficent, but I overall, I don't
think it will account for more than a couple FPS : ) Overall it may not be
worth the effort - especially if you're not a Linux Guru.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 01:51:53 GMT, Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com>
wrote:

>Yes, I'm sure Linux will run slightly more efficent, but I overall, I don't
>think it will account for more than a couple FPS : ) Overall it may not be
>worth the effort - especially if you're not a Linux Guru.

That was my scenario exactly, but with the faster processor in my cab
(3ghz P4), Linux was no faster than XP with unnecessary Services
disabled (unnecessary = nearly all). LOL.

Tim