Mame32 0.99 and Mame 0.99 Source is out

[Guest]

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

0.99
----

Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
that
depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
better fix
it before then!


Source Changes
--------------
Fixed 1-bit errors in decryption keys for Crackdown and one of the
D.D. Crew
sets. [Nicola Salmoria, Chris Hardy]

Hooked up NVRAM for World Class Bowling 1.40. [Brian Troha]

Backed out some of the Arm core changes which broke several games.

Fixed the f1superb sound rom loading in ms32.c so that it doesn't
crash.
[David Haywood]

Fixed a graphics glitch in Osman. [David Haywood]

Updated the Taito Z driver: [Nicola Salmoria]
- fixed road/sprite priority (cars no longer disappear when they go
over a
hill in Continental Circus)
- removed bogus contcirc ROM containing 1989 copyright year
- added PROMs
- other minor changes

dare2001

 

[Guest]

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

dare2001 wrote:
> 0.99
> ----
>
> Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
> that
> depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
> better fix
> it before then!
-----8<-----

Isn't it a little unfair to only give them, what, three days notice? <EG>

--
Thnik about it!
Deadly_Dad

protococcal@xylosidex.com
Pilar@Aechmophorusy.mil
undenominationalism@longingy.bz
wheelwork@inequableh.mh
anticlassical@cadencyh.net

 

[Guest]

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

Dead_Dad wrote:
> dare2001 wrote:
>
>> 0.99
>> ----
>>
>> Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
>> that
>> depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
>> better fix
>> it before then!
>
> -----8<-----
>
> Isn't it a little unfair to only give them, what, three days notice? <EG>
>

Actually, given how often updates are put out, shouldn't the next
version be v0.0100? That way we won't have the same problem when we get
to v0.999. <GBEG>

--
Thnik about it!
Deadly_Dad

Erastianism@wasplikeu.net
diphenylamine@masterworkn.sk
irreclaimably@scarnp.net
footingly@dogfishw.to
pinnotherian@supermoistenc.edu

 

[Troy]

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

So... is this the Mame equivalent of the year 2000 bug?
i.e.:
Everyone knew it was coming but still coded for 2 digits.
All retrospective coding is completed on the last day.
All kinds of havoc is predicted, but nothing much happens.
....but most of all...it'll be an excuse for a big celebration,
let's hope the mame dev's have saved up something good and big for the
..100 release.

Troy.


On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:11:04 GMT, Dead_Dad
<XXXspamtrap007@gmail.comXXX> wrote:

>dare2001 wrote:
>> 0.99
>> ----
>>
>> Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
>> that
>> depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
>> better fix
>> it before then!
>-----8<-----
>
>Isn't it a little unfair to only give them, what, three days notice? <EG>

 

[Guest]

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

Dead_Dad's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
were:
> Actually, given how often updates are put out, shouldn't the next
> version be v0.0100? That way we won't have the same problem when we get
> to v0.999. <GBEG>

Most likely, would be 0.100. Your method only delays the problem

 

[Guest]

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

Troy wrote:
> So... is this the Mame equivalent of the year 2000 bug?
> i.e.:
> Everyone knew it was coming but still coded for 2 digits.
> All retrospective coding is completed on the last day.
> All kinds of havoc is predicted, but nothing much happens.
> ....but most of all...it'll be an excuse for a big celebration,
> let's hope the mame dev's have saved up something good and big for the
> .100 release.
>

Like pong? <g>

--
Super Mike
"Mi asno querría un enano y un yate, por favor."
[My donkey would like a midget and a yacht, please.]

 

[Guest]

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

I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
assigned to a much older version of MAME.



dare2001 wrote:
> 0.99
> ----
>
> Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
> that
> depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
> better fix
> it before then!
>
>
> Source Changes
> --------------
> Fixed 1-bit errors in decryption keys for Crackdown and one of the
> D.D. Crew
> sets. [Nicola Salmoria, Chris Hardy]
>
> Hooked up NVRAM for World Class Bowling 1.40. [Brian Troha]
>
> Backed out some of the Arm core changes which broke several games.
>
> Fixed the f1superb sound rom loading in ms32.c so that it doesn't
> crash.
> [David Haywood]
>
> Fixed a graphics glitch in Osman. [David Haywood]
>
> Updated the Taito Z driver: [Nicola Salmoria]
> - fixed road/sprite priority (cars no longer disappear when they go
> over a
> hill in Continental Circus)
> - removed bogus contcirc ROM containing 1989 copyright year
> - added PROMs
> - other minor changes
>
> dare2001

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote in news:6ZaJe.305$911.54
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

> I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
> and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
> 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
> calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
> assigned to a much older version of MAME.

Which would be correct - IF version numbers were based on decimal.
--
Do you want a free iPod?
http://www.freeipods.com/?r=15154431

 

[Guest]

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

Anti_Freak_Machine wrote:
> Troy wrote:
>
>> So... is this the Mame equivalent of the year 2000 bug?
>> i.e.:
>> Everyone knew it was coming but still coded for 2 digits.
>> All retrospective coding is completed on the last day.
>> All kinds of havoc is predicted, but nothing much happens.
>> ....but most of all...it'll be an excuse for a big celebration,
>> let's hope the mame dev's have saved up something good and big for the
>> .100 release.
>>
>
> Like pong? <g>
>

Like a working Buggy Boy! Woo Hoo!!

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff-B wrote:
> dare2001 wrote:
>
>> 0.99
>> ----
>>
>> Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
>> that
>> depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
>> better fix
>> it before then!
>>
>>
>> Source Changes
>> --------------
>> Fixed 1-bit errors in decryption keys for Crackdown and one of the
>> D.D. Crew
>> sets. [Nicola Salmoria, Chris Hardy]
>>
>> Hooked up NVRAM for World Class Bowling 1.40. [Brian Troha]
>>
>> Backed out some of the Arm core changes which broke several games.
>>
>> Fixed the f1superb sound rom loading in ms32.c so that it doesn't
>> crash.
>> [David Haywood]
>>
>> Fixed a graphics glitch in Osman. [David Haywood]
>>
>> Updated the Taito Z driver: [Nicola Salmoria]
>> - fixed road/sprite priority (cars no longer disappear when they go
>> over a hill in Continental Circus)
>> - removed bogus contcirc ROM containing 1989 copyright year
>> - added PROMs
>> - other minor changes
>>
>> dare2001
> I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version
> 0.100 and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learnt in math class that
> 0.10 = 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that,
> but calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already
> been assigned to a much older version of MAME.
>

Personally, I agree. Most software devs hold off on releasing v1.xx
until the project is out of beta phase. MAME is unique in that, because
it uses separate drivers (essentially programs) for each game or family
of games, it is both effectively beta *and* final, depending on the
status of each driver. I think that going back to v0.100 is a step in
the wrong direction, as there already /was/ a v0.1, and that will
confuse the /hell/ out of people just joining the scene, as well as
/totally/ screwing up any version sorting.

So go ahead and call the next release v1.00, MAMEDev! /We/ know what
you mean.

--
Thnik about it!
Deadly_Dad

protonegroid@yevenl.uy
fakement@eructationq.gov
Potawatomi@Penaeaceae.unmalignedu.com
jaob@undrinkablen.edu
bungarum@phyllostomine.fledgeo.gf

 

[Cordata]

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

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:29:47 GMT, Dead_Dad
<XXXspamtrap007@gmail.comXXX> wrote:

>Personally, I agree. Most software devs hold off on releasing v1.xx
>until the project is out of beta phase. MAME is unique in that, because
>it uses separate drivers (essentially programs) for each game or family
>of games, it is both effectively beta *and* final, depending on the
>status of each driver. I think that going back to v0.100 is a step in
>the wrong direction, as there already /was/ a v0.1, and that will
>confuse the /hell/ out of people just joining the scene, as well as
>/totally/ screwing up any version sorting.
>
>So go ahead and call the next release v1.00, MAMEDev! /We/ know what
>you mean.


Since it's always easier to look back and think of other ways to do
things... (or at least have fun with it...)

- We could start referring to the previous releases as version
0.0xx... By adding that extra zero, that would make the current
release 0.099.

- We could follow the logic the DMV uses with license plates. We're
outta numbers so we use letters... Starting with the next release we
go to version 0.A00, 0.A01, 0.A02, etc. Just not sure where we'd go
when we get to 0.Z99... 26 * 100 = 2600 versions

- We could use Star Trek logic... I think it was in one of the movies
after they destroyed the ship, someone said, "Well, there's still lots
of letters left in the alphabet..."


Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know... Slow weekend...

--
Cordata
http://abem.mametitles.com - alt.binaries.emulators.mame FAQ

 

[Guest]

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

On 2005-08-06, Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote:
> I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
> and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
> 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
> calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
> assigned to a much older version of MAME.

If you had stayed in school a year or two more you would have learned
the difference between a decimal point and a separator.

OG.

 

[Guest]

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

Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On 2005-08-06, Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote:
>
>>I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
>>and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
>>0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
>>calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
>>assigned to a much older version of MAME.
>
>
> If you had stayed in school a year or two more you would have learned
> the difference between a decimal point and a separator.
>
> OG.

Let's see..... A decimal point has an ASCII value of 46. Hmmmmm..... I
can't seem to find the value for a 'separator'. Perhaps it's in one of
the extended ASCII tables? <EG>

--
Thnik about it!
Deadly_Dad

helminthology@multituberculyf.com
lateral@vriddhig.net
Chamaenerion@repartakes.org
cannibality@orchioneuralgia.convergementp.edu
snakelike@productedv.edu

 

[Guest]

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

Dead_Dad wrote:
> I think that going back to
> v0.100 is a step in the wrong direction, as there already /was/ a
> v0.1, and that will confuse the /hell/ out of people just joining the
> scene, as well as /totally/ screwing up any version sorting.

The period in version numbers is NOT a decimal point, it is purely a
separator. This is the case in all version numbering schemes that I have
ever been aware of.

Therefore 0.1 is "version 0, release 1" and 0.100 is "version 0, release
100". The two are absolutely not the same.

All version sorting should understand this, or it's been implemented
incorrectly.

I've spent months arguing this point with people I work with, who are also
of the opinion that after "1.9" comes "2.0" instead of "1.10", so it's
familiar ground. It was argued that the users would find it confusing
moving from 1.9 to 1.10, but strangely if you open a MS Word document that
has section numbering switched on, it'll happily go from section 1.9 to 1.10
and no one finds that confusing at all...

--

(O)enone

 

[Guest]

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

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndfcdp8.dus.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
> On 2005-08-06, Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote:
> > I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
> > and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
> > 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
> > calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
> > assigned to a much older version of MAME.
>
> If you had stayed in school a year or two more you would have learned
> the difference between a decimal point and a separator.

It's not so easy.
Sometimes it's a decimal point, sometimes it is a separator; in most of the
cases it doesn't matter.
There are some software that release e.g. 1.03 before 1.1, other would do
the opposite.

AS

 

[Guest]

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

Amedeo Storni's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body were:
> "Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:slrndfcdp8.dus.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
>> On 2005-08-06, Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote:
>> > I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
>> > and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
>> > 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
>> > calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
>> > assigned to a much older version of MAME.
>> If you had stayed in school a year or two more you would have learned
>> the difference between a decimal point and a separator.
> It's not so easy.
> Sometimes it's a decimal point, sometimes it is a separator; in most of the
> cases it doesn't matter.
> There are some software that release e.g. 1.03 before 1.1, other would do
> the opposite.

Morons do it that way. Proper way though is to use it as a separator.

 

[Guest]

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

Hi,

> Morons do it that way. Proper way though is to use it as a separator.

Who gets to say what the proper way is? Is this documented somewhere?

It seems much more common to me to see software packages designed with it as
a decimal point. Many times you will see a company go from 9.0 to 9.5 to
10.0 for example.

Honestly I think going from 0.99 to 0.100 is moronic.

While we are on a versioning rant, I think 10,000 releases before version
1.00 is also stupidity. For some reason people decided to think of 1.00 as
a "complete finished product that will never be improved upon" instead of
"this is what we began with".

In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
8, 2005 release.

My two cents!

SA Dev

 

[Guest]

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

SA Development's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body were:
> In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
> eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
> 8, 2005 release.

That'd be too confusing for most people, especially with the developer
releases mixed in.

 

[Guest]

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

SA Development wrote:
-----8<-----
> In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
> eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
> 8, 2005 release.
>
> My two cents!
>
> SA Dev

Good Idea! 'MAME v050806' ROMs, extras, etc. for that version can be
easily set to that date, which makes it /dead/ easy to see if your (or
anyone else's) files are up-to-date. (Hint, hint, Roman! <G>)

--
Thnik about it!
Deadly_Dad

heptanone@ovoflavine.net
fimbriatum@psychotherapeuticsl.net
hydrophily@rushingly.baymanq.org
vigilate@henceforwardsr.mil
beadlet@terminablyh.net

 

[Guest]

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

Hellmark thought about it a bit, then said...
> SA Development's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
> body were:
> > In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
> > eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
> > 8, 2005 release.
>
> That'd be too confusing for most people, especially with the developer
> releases mixed in.

How do you figure that? A new .1 isn't more confusing than the August
5th Release?

Frankly, MAME should have been at 1.0 status ages ago, and all of this
..100 nonsense is, frankly, stupid. Less than a 1.0 release is usually
considered alpha or beta software, and MAME is way beyond that.

In software development, the generally accepted numbering standard is:

1 . 0 0
| | |
| | Bug Fixes Only
| Minor New Features and Bug Fixes
Major Version

It's time for a 1.0 release.

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com

 

[Guest]

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

Hi Kevin,

> Frankly, MAME should have been at 1.0 status ages ago, and all of this
> .100 nonsense is, frankly, stupid. Less than a 1.0 release is usually
> considered alpha or beta software, and MAME is way beyond that.
> In software development, the generally accepted numbering standard is:
> It's time for a 1.0 release.

I agree 100% (or is that .100% ha ha ha). MAME should be well past 1.0 for
where it is today...

Did you get a chance to look at my tweaks document I sent? I probably have
some more updating on it before it could be ready for your site. Have you
heard from Max lately?

Thanks,

SA Dev

 

[Guest]

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

SA Development thought about it a bit, then said...
> Hi Kevin,
>
> > Frankly, MAME should have been at 1.0 status ages ago, and all of this
> > .100 nonsense is, frankly, stupid. Less than a 1.0 release is usually
> > considered alpha or beta software, and MAME is way beyond that.
> > In software development, the generally accepted numbering standard is:
> > It's time for a 1.0 release.
>
> I agree 100% (or is that .100% ha ha ha). MAME should be well past 1.0 for
> where it is today...
>
> Did you get a chance to look at my tweaks document I sent? I probably have
> some more updating on it before it could be ready for your site. Have you
> heard from Max lately?
>
> Thanks,
>
> SA Dev

I have to admit I haven't looked too closely at the tweaks document yet
- I confess I was waiting for the "final version" (and I'm swamped with
a huge backlog now that I've been more or less off-line for nearly a
month!)

And no, I haven't heard from Max. Drop him a line and see if he's ready
for publication yet.

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com

 

[Troy]

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

Great, we've sorted that one out, let's move to a date based format.
Now then, will it be dd/mm/yy (UK) or mm/dd/yy (US), or perhaps yymmdd
or even yyddmm? Should we include the full 4 digit year, or only 2?
Do we back convert the previous releases or start afresh and have
old+new numbering schemes: how will the version tab work in Mame32?

Perhaps the existing mame numbering scheme isn't so bad after all!

Troy.


On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:17:24 -0500, "SA Development"
<nospam38925@forme.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Morons do it that way. Proper way though is to use it as a separator.
>
>Who gets to say what the proper way is? Is this documented somewhere?
>
>It seems much more common to me to see software packages designed with it as
>a decimal point. Many times you will see a company go from 9.0 to 9.5 to
>10.0 for example.
>
>Honestly I think going from 0.99 to 0.100 is moronic.
>
>While we are on a versioning rant, I think 10,000 releases before version
>1.00 is also stupidity. For some reason people decided to think of 1.00 as
>a "complete finished product that will never be improved upon" instead of
>"this is what we began with".
>
>In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
>eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
>8, 2005 release.
>
>My two cents!
>
>SA Dev
>

 

[Guest]

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

Hi Kevin,

> I have to admit I haven't looked too closely at the tweaks document yet
> - I confess I was waiting for the "final version" (and I'm swamped with
> a huge backlog now that I've been more or less off-line for nearly a
> month!)

No sweat. I've tried emailing Max, but haven't heard from him. I'll send
you the final version as soon as I get it updated.

Thanks!

SA Dev

 

[mcr]

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

Kevin Steele wrote:
> Hellmark thought about it a bit, then said...
>
>>SA Development's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
>>body were:
>>
>>>In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
>>>eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
>>>8, 2005 release.
>>
>>That'd be too confusing for most people, especially with the developer
>>releases mixed in.
>
>
> How do you figure that? A new .1 isn't more confusing than the August
> 5th Release?
>
> Frankly, MAME should have been at 1.0 status ages ago, and all of this
> .100 nonsense is, frankly, stupid. Less than a 1.0 release is usually
> considered alpha or beta software, and MAME is way beyond that.
>
> In software development, the generally accepted numbering standard is:
>
> 1 . 0 0
> | | |
> | | Bug Fixes Only
> | Minor New Features and Bug Fixes
> Major Version
>
> It's time for a 1.0 release.
>

I agree, it's not like we cannot have 2.0 3.0 etc in the future anyway.
In addition I dont think the status of drivers should affect the
maturity of the main code. MAME should be on version 2.0 anyway
(version 1.0 should have been the DOS version).

--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
Live! Gamertag MCROnline