Jump to content

Photo

single One Point seeking Nine Zero


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#16 trudatman

trudatman

    one point nine hero

  • Members
  • Real Name:that guy
  • Location:State Of Love And Trust, The United State Of Amorica.

Posted 09 September 2013 - 06:24 PM

3/4 of my quests are 1.90 quests. my project with DaviAwesome is trying to transition to 2.5, but as of now 3/4 of my computers will not run ZQuest 2.5s. I have an XP PC left to try, but I have never even turned that system on, so it's going to take some doing. "just use 2.5" sounds good, but it isn't the answer. my quest that is over a decade old and still needs more work is going to stay a 1.90 quest. my current main project, Sticks And Stones is going to stay a 1.90 project, but it is being tested in the 2.5 players to maintain compatibility. my first quest (that will most likely never be opened in ZQuest again) is a 1.90 quest. I'm a 1.90 user. I'm trying to also be a 2.5x user, but that isn't happening quite yet because it doesn't seem to be compatible with the ME PC I have, nor the Mac 10.4.11 computer I have, nor the Windows 7 Starter Pack Craptop I have... here's hoping it will run on the XP PC. all of that aside and with no offense intended toward those making efforts to get the current builds up to par, I'm still hoping there is somebody else out there with an interest in using the only 99+% complete, functional and stable version of ZC/ZQ. if you are all "ZOMG 1.90 LOL WTF ROTFL LMNOP," save your efforts and move along. if you'd like to be a one-point-nine hero, please do.

Edited by trudatman, 09 September 2013 - 06:26 PM.

  • David likes this

#17 trudatman

trudatman

    one point nine hero

  • Members
  • Real Name:that guy
  • Location:State Of Love And Trust, The United State Of Amorica.

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:25 PM

....I don't really get the point in using that specific version, and then treating bugs as 'limitations'...

I don't get your point and I suspect that you don't either. what bugs are you talking about? I think you are either saying that 1.90 has bugs -- in which case, name them -- or that I see limitations in the new versions -- which is also not factual. please clarify the quoted point.

#18 Jared

Jared

    Deified

  • Members
  • Real Name:Jared
  • Pronouns:He / Him
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:33 PM

But Nathaniel, the thing is that most people can't even run 1.90 anymore. So even if he did make a quest with someone else in it, no one would be able to enjoy it!



#19 grayswandir

grayswandir

    semi-genius

  • ZC Developers

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:34 PM

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.

 

You just seemed to imply that, in order for 1.90 to work properly, you needed to run ZC in actual DOS, and not emulated DOS - I just assumed that anything which specifically required un-emulated DOS to run was buggy as hell.


Edited by grayswandir, 09 September 2013 - 08:34 PM.


#20 trudatman

trudatman

    one point nine hero

  • Members
  • Real Name:that guy
  • Location:State Of Love And Trust, The United State Of Amorica.

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:39 PM

poor assumption, yo. I don't know how you made that correlation, but it is quite a leap of logic.

....He is just interested in knowing if there is anybody out there....willing to work with him....

not necessarily "work" with, more like talk shop.
 

....most people can't even run 1.90 anymore. So even if he did make a quest....no one would be able to enjoy it!

this is not factual. as long as I am careful not to use certain warping and door setups, people will be able to play the game(s). I take it that you have not played my demos over the past few years.

Edited by trudatman, 09 September 2013 - 08:40 PM.


#21 grayswandir

grayswandir

    semi-genius

  • ZC Developers

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:47 PM

... to run actual DOS (emulation is almost definitely not sufficient) ...

That part, right there. :shrug:



#22 trudatman

trudatman

    one point nine hero

  • Members
  • Real Name:that guy
  • Location:State Of Love And Trust, The United State Of Amorica.

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:49 PM

that means that 1.90 is buggy? DOS emulators are buggy.

#23 grayswandir

grayswandir

    semi-genius

  • ZC Developers

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:02 PM

I'm of the opposite opinion. If it only runs on the original system because it relies on the specific implementation instead of the spec, I consider it a bug.

 

Like the original Sim City - in one spot it freed memory and then immediately started using it. Even though that happened to work on DOS, I'd definitely consider it a bug.



#24 trudatman

trudatman

    one point nine hero

  • Members
  • Real Name:that guy
  • Location:State Of Love And Trust, The United State Of Amorica.

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:03 PM

wow. I don't even....

here's my attempt:

"I consider Super Mario World to be buggy because it requires the original Super Nintendo system and doesn't work correctly on emulators."

"the app you made for the original iPhone is buggy because it doesn't work right on my Windows 8 tablet."

Edited by trudatman, 09 September 2013 - 09:11 PM.


#25 grayswandir

grayswandir

    semi-genius

  • ZC Developers

Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:27 PM

Heh. Well, it depends. If it's a bug in the emulator, it's a bug in the emulator.

 

But if the code is obviously doing something wrong, and this causes it to break in an otherwise perfect emulator, then I'd be hard pressed not to call it a bug.

 

Like the aforementioned Sim City - the developers obviously did that thing with the memory on accident, and didn't catch it because by happenstance DOS ended up not using the memory. Every other DOS program runs fine if you actually use the memory it specifically tells you to, but if you actually listen to Sim City when it says 'you can use this', it out right crashes. That's definitely a bug.

 

 

If the emulators perfectly match the specification for Super Nintendo, and Super Mario World acts buggy on them, then yes, I'd say it was bugged. (Plus, have you ever really played Super Mario World? It's plenty bugged on a real Super Nintendo already).

 

The Windows 8 tablet really doesn't try to emulate the iPhone in any way, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to do, there.



#26 Kite

Kite

  • Members

Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:46 PM

Okay, I think you're all just arguing for the sake of arguing now. It's veering wildly off the original intent of the topic. If there are no people that use 1.90 that want to talk shop with trudatman, then that's honestly his problem to deal with.

 

While it's nice that some people "care" (and I use that word loosely given some of the posts) enough to try to convince him to join the crowd, there's just a point where it goes from trying to get the person to join the crowd to flat out beating a dead horse and just wanting to get in a "you're wrong."

 

People are free to use whatever version of ZC and/or ZQ they want. If there are issues with compatibility and whatnot, then that's basically something the person will have to deal with because of their choice. While warning people about compatibility issues is acceptable, trudatman seems to be fully aware of what he is doing and is running in with his eyes open, so there really isn't a reason to keep beating on this. ZC has a significant amount of backwards compatibility, so 1.90 stuff is definitely playable in 2.50 if you really want to play his quests and he has been trying to keep things playable in 2.50 despite using 1.90 as far as I can tell.

 

My point here is that compatibility chat or how much 1.90 does or does not suck is not the topic. If you all want to discuss that type of stuff, please take it to a different topic.



#27 trudatman

trudatman

    one point nine hero

  • Members
  • Real Name:that guy
  • Location:State Of Love And Trust, The United State Of Amorica.

Posted 10 September 2013 - 02:17 AM

thanks. that would make for quite the debate topic. I wonder if it would help or hurt my chances of finding somebody with whom to chat. I hope people aren't scared off from responding in whatever way they see fit, as long as it's more than just digs at me and/or the program I use.

#28 Timelord

Timelord

    The Timelord

  • Banned
  • Location:Prydon Academy

Posted 10 September 2013 - 04:27 AM

Heh. Well, it depends. If it's a bug in the emulator, it's a bug in the emulator.

But if the code is obviously doing something wrong, and this causes it to break in an otherwise perfect emulator, then I'd be hard pressed not to call it a bug.

Like the aforementioned Sim City - the developers obviously did that thing with the memory on accident, and didn't catch it because by happenstance DOS ended up not using the memory. Every other DOS program runs fine if you actually use the memory it specifically tells you to, but if you actually listen to Sim City when it says 'you can use this', it out right crashes. That's definitely a bug.


If the emulators perfectly match the specification for Super Nintendo, and Super Mario World acts buggy on them, then yes, I'd say it was bugged. (Plus, have you ever really played Super Mario World? It's plenty bugged on a real Super Nintendo already).

The Windows 8 tablet really doesn't try to emulate the iPhone in any way, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to do, there.

I'm going to flag that down as nonsense. First and foremost, emulators do not perfectly emulate system hardware components, most of the time. They merely come close-enough that most software will run on them.

A good deal of old software found ways out of restrictions and limitations by directly tapping resources, registers, and system logic in ways that the hardware designers did not expect, and did not carry over to newer renditions of hardware based on the old specifications.

Even straightforward architecture changes made some software fail to run properly on updated processors (e.g. 68030 vs. 68060, or PPC601 vs. PPC750) because the newer chips dropped instructions that were rarely used. The industry term for doing this is depreciated, but in some cases, they are unappreciated.

Many emulators do not fully emulate the complete extent of the hardware: They do the best that they can, but even emulating a NES in relatively perfect terms took many years, and there are some functions that are not handled entirely right. (They are interpreted via reverse-engineering, after all, based on a system of posture and response, rather than foreknowledge.)

That, in contrast to an 80386 architecture, is a tinkertoy, and as yet we do not have 100% perfect, flawless emulation.

Then add to the problem that there are so many clones, hardware variations, graphic coprocessors, memory mapping systems, and other quirks to the 80386 platform that all add to the sheer difficulty of covering any and all facets of the hardware. DOS emulators are designed to run basic, software-compatible programmes, but not anything that taps direct hardware resources.

In contrast, tapping direct hardware resources was a common practice in the 1980s and 1990s, as it allowed the software developer to do amazing 'tricks' with the hardware that stretched its theoretical capabilities. (The C64 was famous for this, as was later CBM hardware.)

One of the best-emulated systems out there is the Apple II, and even that is imperfect, with issues handling software protection methods that used the Disk-II system in odd ways, recording partial tracks and using track-skipping or weird protection schemes to prevent bit-copying.

At this point, we can often emulate hardware that is 20 years old, but I have yet to see an emulator that is completely flawless, as the software designers rarely have access to diagrams and schematics of the components used. It's like the difference between curing a disease, and treating the symptoms.

In emulation, whenever a programmer finds a pothole, they patch it, but they don't repave the road.

Other than that, if 1.90 is such a headache, and you can't run 2.5, you can fall back onto 2.10, although it has its own share of bugs. 1.90 was not trouble-free, as I recall.

On a positive note, I am one of the people that has pestered Saffith for a PPC Mac (10.4.x) version of 2.50, and even offered to send a G5 to him to compile it (to ensure G5 compatibility). I think that the general consensus was that there wasn't enough of a point, as not enough people want it. My offer was, and is, open-ended, and still stands, for anyone who wants to try to compile a PPC version of ZC 2.50.

To paraphrase Frank Herbert (or Leto II), 'You cannot use logic to convince someone to change their opinion on a subject, when they know that they are right.'.

P.S. If I had enough room, time and resources, I would set up a 386 or 486 with Dos 6.0 and help you with any questions, but to be honest, very few features of 1.90 aren't documented that either do not exist or have greatly changed in 2.10 and 2.50. Most of your questions still have the same answers, it's just that few people remember the answers, because they stopped using those aspects.

Didn't 1.90 originally come with a few .txt files that explained how to use everything?

Edited by ZoriaRPG, 10 September 2013 - 06:38 AM.


#29 trudatman

trudatman

    one point nine hero

  • Members
  • Real Name:that guy
  • Location:State Of Love And Trust, The United State Of Amorica.

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:11 AM

....if 1.90 is such a headache, and you can't run 2.5, you can fall back onto 2.10, although it has its own share of bugs. 1.90 was not trouble-free, as I recall....

it looks like we may need that other thread, although I'm alright with letting this thread become whatever it becomes, because at least it increases the chances that oldbies peep the main request. if you recall 1.90 as a headache, I suspect you are thinking of 1.92. I still challenge somebody to list the supposed bugs in 1.90. it was far more of a complete program than 2.10. where are y'all getting the ideas that 1.90 was problematic? is it because it's outdated and you therefore assume it is buggy? is it because nobody still uses it and you think people must have moved on for reasons other that feature overload being alluring? 1.90 is not a headache, especially compared to the versions that came along after it. I challenge anybody who can run the program to try it. while you are at it, list its bugs.

Edited by trudatman, 31 December 2013 - 11:44 PM.


#30 Avaro

Avaro

    o_o

  • Members
  • Real Name:Robin
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:43 AM

Version 1.90 is playable on the Nintendo Wii. ;D


  • David likes this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users