Question on gambling roms in Mame32

[Guest]

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

The gambling roms were all added in version .99, correct? How come they
don't appear in the version list for .99 games?

--
FSogol

 

[Mike]

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:06:04 GMT, FSogol wrote:

> The gambling roms were all added in version .99, correct? How come they
> don't appear in the version list for .99 games?

Which version list is this? I find JohnIV's (MAME32) are a bit unreliable,
I prefer version.ini from MAME32FX - download from
http://mame32fx.altervista.org/download.htm - which gives you an accurate
breakdown by u version.

Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Mike <mdh@deadspam.com>after crossing the finish line at the Special
Olympics proudly proclaimed:

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:06:04 GMT, FSogol wrote:
>
>> The gambling roms were all added in version .99, correct? How come
>> they don't appear in the version list for .99 games?
>
> Which version list is this? I find JohnIV's (MAME32) are a bit
> unreliable, I prefer version.ini from MAME32FX - download from
> http://mame32fx.altervista.org/download.htm - which gives you an
> accurate breakdown by u version.
>
Its the offical version (Mame32). Doesn't FX have extra games that
wouldn't appear in Mame32?

--
FSogol

 

[Guest]

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

FSogol thought about it a bit, then said...
> The gambling roms were all added in version .99, correct? How come they
> don't appear in the version list for .99 games?

Didn't they appear in one of the .99u releases (u2 or so)? If so, you
probably need to download version .100 (my fingers just typed
"1.00"...sigh)

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

 

[Guest]

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

Kevin Steele wrote:
> FSogol thought about it a bit, then said...
>
>>The gambling roms were all added in version .99, correct? How come they
>>don't appear in the version list for .99 games?
>
>
> Didn't they appear in one of the .99u releases (u2 or so)? If so, you
> probably need to download version .100 (my fingers just typed
> "1.00"...sigh)
>
I did, I was talking about verion 1, err .100
The gambling roms do not appear in the version lists.
--
FSogol

 

[Guest]

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

FSogol thought about it a bit, then said...
> Kevin Steele wrote:
> > FSogol thought about it a bit, then said...
> >
> >>The gambling roms were all added in version .99, correct? How come they
> >>don't appear in the version list for .99 games?
> >
> >
> > Didn't they appear in one of the .99u releases (u2 or so)? If so, you
> > probably need to download version .100 (my fingers just typed
> > "1.00"...sigh)
> >
> I did, I was talking about verion 1, err .100
> The gambling roms do not appear in the version lists.

Weird. I wonder if they got pulled again.

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

 

[Guest]

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

On 2005-09-15, Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote:
> Weird. I wonder if they got pulled again.

Nope, they haven't.

OG.

 

[Mike]

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:30:09 GMT, FSogol wrote:

> Its the offical version (Mame32). Doesn't FX have extra games that
> wouldn't appear in Mame32?

Nope. It's just a lot better than MAME32, in my opinion, which has become a
bit too idiosyncratic for my tastes. Why not give it a try?

Mike

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:55:53 GMT, Mike <mdh@deadspam.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:30:09 GMT, FSogol wrote:
>
>> Its the offical version (Mame32). Doesn't FX have extra games that
>> wouldn't appear in Mame32?
>
>Nope. It's just a lot better than MAME32, in my opinion, which has become a
>bit too idiosyncratic for my tastes. Why not give it a try?

What do you mean by idiosyncratic?

Best,

- Mike -

 

[Guest]

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

Mike <mdh@deadspam.com>after crossing the finish line at the Special
Olympics proudly proclaimed:

>> Its the offical version (Mame32). Doesn't FX have extra games that
>> wouldn't appear in Mame32?
>
> Nope. It's just a lot better than MAME32, in my opinion, which has
> become a bit too idiosyncratic for my tastes. Why not give it a try?
>
How is it better? What do you like about it?

--
FSogol

 

[Mike]

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:32:27 -0600, Mike Haaland wrote:

> What do you mean by idiosyncratic?

For one, I really don't agree with John's design decisions when it comes to
icons etc. although that's his prerogative of course and can also be quite
easily changed. What I find a bit more bothersome is the censoring of a
number of (non-inflammatory) posts on the MAME32 message board. Several
people (including myself) have tried to raise the issue but nobody ever got
a response. Can you say more Mike? Thanks for all your excellent work, by
the way.

Cheers, Mike

 

[Mike]

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:04:42 GMT, FSogol wrote:

> How is it better? What do you like about it?

http://mame32fx.altervista.org/features.htm


Mike