Main > Software Forum
Boot CD installs DOS, Vantage, Raine, MAME (1 of 7 versions) and Game Launcher
IG-88:
--- Quote from: spystyle on May 28, 2007, 11:31:04 am ---
--- Quote from: IG-88 on May 25, 2007, 08:44:08 pm ---
--- Quote from: spystyle on May 25, 2007, 03:05:32 pm ---
Anyway, I just tested the new release boot CD on an old computer:
P2 333mhz
32 MB RAM
4 GB HDD
24X CD-Rom
ISA soundblaster sound card, CT2260, Vibra 16
PCI video card, Ct6760, 3D Blaster Banshee
mame .36 optimized for Pentium 2
--- End quote ---
So, if I'm reading you right, you got your computer to work by using "version .36 mame" option and selecting the "1. Pentium II / III / 4 or Celeron (i686 optimization)" ?
I couldn't get any of mine to work unless I choose the "v.55 mame" and the "2. Pentium I (i586 optimization)....weird!
Have you tried the dmame option yet?
--- End quote ---
By the way, I had an old proprietary computer (compaq or something) and it would always crash with optimized MAME. So I think your problem is common for 'proprietary' computers, they probably all have the same motherboard chipset.
The P2 that I successfully used optimization on was a 'home build' (ie: not Compaq)
Dmame will likely solve the problem
--- End quote ---
Hey. What exactly does this dmame do that dos7 and mame doesn't? You still use the G.L. FE with it right? Does it just have more driver support or is it faster or what. I'm not sure what it's about. :dunno
spystyle:
--- Quote from: IG-88 ---Hey. What exactly does this dmame do that dos7 and mame doesn't? You still use the G.L. FE with it right? Does it just have more driver support or is it faster or what. I'm not sure what it's about.
--- End quote ---
DOS 7 = OS
DMAME = MAME without optmiziation
Dmame is just another name for DOS MAME, which has no optimizations (ie: not 686 or K6 ect)
Sorry to confuse you!
Dmame should be more compatible
optmized MAME should be slightly faster than DMame
I personally would try the optimization first (ie: 686 version) , and if it failed I would try Dmame.
Cheers,
Craig
spystyle:
OK, another update,
I have added Raine!
*To use Raine*
1. Insert a CD containing Raine roms in a folder called 'roms'
and optionally a folder called 'snapshots' containg the snap shots
2. type 'updateR' at the C:> prompt to copy the files to raine directory
3. In GameLauncher press 'Left CTRL' to change the game list from MAME to Raine
4. You can edit Raine's configuration file by typing 'setupR' at the C:> prompt. This file doesn't exist until you have run Raine once.
Cheers,
Craig
Kaytrim:
--- Quote from: spystyle on May 28, 2007, 12:44:54 pm ---CF card?
If it is faster than a hard drive, I'd like a link to info about that. The last time I becnhmarked a USB keydrive it was slower than a hard drive.
--- End quote ---
I use an IDE to CF card that plugs into the IDE connector on the motherboard. They are as fast as a hard drive because it uses the IDE buss not the USB buss. You can find more information on it here... LINK I got my cards from eBay just do a search for IDE to CF. Here is the auction where I got mine. I also got my 512 MB CF cards there as well.
spystyle:
On the topic of IDE CF to replace IDE HDD:
http://www.multigame.com/CF.html
It's cool! No IDE cables.
I would need to see a benchmark though... I think older IDE HDD are right around 25-35 MB/sec data transfer
Run HDtune to find out your MB/sec rate
On an intel board try installing "Intel application accelerator first, I've seen this turn an 8MB/sec drive into a 25MB/sec drive.
edit: I've just read to the end of that article, they are SLOW!
quote
"some will read as slow as 4Mbytes/sec, others as fast as 12Mbytes/sec. The 2GB card I have probably falls in the 6-8Mbyes/sec range,"
end quote
Much too slow for my taste, especially since I have a shoebox full of hard drives.
If I was using such a slow drive I'd be inclined to unzip the roms, I would assume that speeds things up because mame doesn't have to unzip them before loading. Maybe a MAME whiz will chime in and elaborate on that theory.
Cheers,
Craig
update:
Dana e-mail the author of that article, gotta love the internet eh? Read something on-line then a moment later contact the author - try that with Newsweek.
--- Quote from: IG-88 ---I just read your article on replacing hard drives with CF cards and I have a
few questions. I was just wondering on the speed issue. I think older IDE HDD
are right around 25-35 MB/sec data transfer. You said your rates were
"6-8Mbyes/sec range," Do you think a person would notice the difference in
those rates when loading or playing a game? What was your experience with them?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Clay ---It's *really* going to vary. Electrically speaking an IDE/ATA drive doing DMA33 could potentially do speeds in excess of 33Mbytes/sec... The problem is that the platter speed of the drive matters far more-- and then it depends on if the hardware was using PIO or DMA modes for shuffly the data around in the first place.
For an older drive you might have 3600 RPM with ~65 sectors per track and 512 bytes/sector. Multiply that out and you get 1.90MBytes/sec off the drive. (So while you could move data at 30Mbytes out of the cache/memory on the controller, the drive was still only getting it off the disk at less than 2Mbytes/sec-- so a CF card would probably be faster overall.) For newer drives they might be 5400RPM with 150+ sectors per track, that could give a data rate abover 7Mbytes/sec which would be comparable to a CF card.
The tricky part to know is whether or not the game uses DMA to move data, or the CPU. If the CPU it pulling data from the drive in PIO mode, then the speed will be limited by what the CPU can do, so as long as the media is faster than the CPU needs it, you're OK regardless...
If you're talking about games that didn't originally use a Hard Drive (like loading a NeoGeo game from a computer drive for emulation), a modern PC hard disk will likely always be faster and have quicker load times than a CF card. If you're talking about something like Killer Instinct where a drive is used, but it tends to load and run and not stream data-- it may or may not be noticeable. When you talk about something like Area51 that streams data constantly, as long as the media is faster than the slowest drive it was intended to work with it'll work the same. (Since "extra speed" isn't used since the drive is pulling data at a constant rate for the video.)
For something like a Dragon's Lair type game the CF card might actually be *better*-- since there's virtually no 'seek' time in a solid state drive the random access time is better than a hard drive that has to move the read heads and wait for the right part of the disk to come around...
In an arcade environment, as long as it plays OK I really prefer the CF. Less heat, immune to shock and vibration, no bearings or moving parts to wear out... -Clay
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: spystyle --- Interesting!
But remember he is talking about an arcade machine, not a computer.
So - we can't use "MB/sec" to gauge this thing.... I guess we should use a stop watch to measure "load times"
How long from power button to game launcher? 1. HDD ___ 2.CF ___
How long to load game X ? 1. HDD ___ 2.CF ___
For us with home arcades, we don't really benefit from "shock proof" because we don't roll our cabs off of trucks regularly.
However - I find them a tremendous novelty and wouldn't blame you if you do too!
One thing I would like acout the CF drive is "no noise" - the "whining" old hard drives annoy me.
Cheers,
Craig
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version