Hi Paige,
Figured you'd pop in, and your points are well taken, but since I own the Duron 850. . .
>Mame has about 2350 unique games. Of which 85 percent would be >1997 unique games. So I challenge you to come up with 353 unique >titles that won't play on a Duron 850.
353 sounds high. 85% was just a rough figure, though.
>Heck, I challenge you to come up with 53 titles that won't play on >that processor. I think if you tried you would find that the actual >number of games that require more processor than that is about 20, >which would mean that a Duron 850 can play 99 percent of the >games.
Couple of qualifiers here - I recently upgraded to the Duron 850, and I mostly play older games. I think the unplayable number is closer to 53 then 20, though but 53 might be close. Cruisin and the .chd games are unlikely. I would guess MK and some of those type would be bad. I will probably grant you that the 53 would be including games that I have to back down from frameskip 0 to play and there's probably less than 20 that aren't playable if you can live with FS 5 or 6 or more.
>extra $300-$2000 people might spend on a faster computer is >largely wasted.
>Your money is best invested into more and better controls. Getting a >3 GHZ computer over a used 700 Mhz adds $300-$1000+ to the cost >of your project, and only adds 20 games to what you can play.
I didn't say a 3 GHZ computer or $300 - $2000, I said an XP 1700 - XP 2400. A Duron 850 new is $29 on pricewatch. An XP 1700 is $46 and an XP 2400 is $74. So we are talking an extra $17 to $45 for a noticeable difference in performance. I already had the Duron. If someone gave me a Duron PC, I wouldn't upgrade it, but if I were building from scratch, I wouldn't start with a Duron either.
>Even specialty controlllers like positional guns, yokes, steering >wheels, and spinners buy more games for your dollar than a faster >PC does.
Agreed, point taken