znes better than snes9x

blasfemaz · Post by **blasfemaz** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:39 pm

has anyone ever used znes?

it's an snes emulator for the pc, and it is better than snes9x.....

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:44 pm

better for older hardware too...

But if you're mentioning this to see if someone wants to port Znes to DC, I don't think it's likely for one very good reason.

Most of the emulator is in x86 ASM.

blasfemaz · Post by **blasfemaz** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:47 pm

Ender wrote:Most of the emulator is in x86 ASM.

i have no idea what that means, but Bleh....

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:40 pm

blasfemaz wrote:
Ender wrote:Most of the emulator is in x86 ASM.
i have no idea what that means, but Bleh....

It means it's code that would only be compatible with PCs.

blasfemaz · Post by **blasfemaz** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:03 pm

bleh fuggin bleh

sux.....

guitardork864 · Post by **guitardork864** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:44 pm

I thought i heard somewhere that there was gonna be a port of znes to C, I might be wrong though

SSJKarma · Post by **SSJKarma** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:38 pm

go on their web site and take out the ZSNES that were made in C, the C version existed until 1.0 i think, then they left it to do only ASM.

anyway, zsnes was better and still is for poor machines, but compatibility wise it go surpasses ever since the snes9x 1.42 which now can play the SDD-1 correctly, which means it doesn't need any graphic packs anymore.

ZSNES still can't play those games without their graphic packs !
but i must say that losing ZSKNIGHT made the emulator developement go way too slow for comfort.
i think he doesn't code that much anymore. at least that i heard of !

anyway...
do we get along saying that may it be SNES9X or ZSNES, this sure would have still be the best emulator out there ?
i would say yes to that !

Aretak · Post by **Aretak** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:44 pm

ZNES works a lot better on my PC than SNES9x does, but as has been mentioned, a Dreamcast port just isn't going to happen. It's a shame, but that's life.

Rand Linden · Post by **Rand Linden** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:14 pm

blasfemaz wrote:i have no idea what that means, but Bleh....

Many programs are written in a language called "C" -- this particular language can be "spoken" easily by a lot of different platforms.

These platforms don't really all speak the same language, mind you, but there is an intermediate step that can translate the "C" language into whatever native language the platform does speak. The translation is done by a program called a "compiler".

This translation "compiler" makes it easy to "port" programs written for one machine to another, provided that a "compiler" exists on both machines.

"X86" is the native language that Intel processors speak (i.e. Your PC).

A "C compiler for X86" can translate "C" into "X86" -- such a compiler exists.

The Dreamcast doesn't "speak" X86, it speaks "SH4".

A "C compiler for SH4" can translate "C" into "SH4" -- such a compiler also exists.

There isn't an "X86 to SH4 compiler" that can translate "X86" into "SH4".

This means someone would have to do this translation manually. This translation is very (very) complicated and time consuming -- so it's not likely to happen.

Rand.

ETR · Post by **ETR** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:53 pm

Anyways, isn't snes9x open source, and ZSNES not?

ETR.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 12:14 am

They're both open now.

Post by **Quzar** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 12:24 am

i know this would of course not be simple task, but could someone in theory write an x86 to SH-4 asm translater or interpreter? since there are fewer commands in x86 then in C as well as SH-4, you could end up with a conversion table of x86 to SH-4 operations/instructions and then write a program to automate the conversion of one set to the other. probably way more complex than possible.

The Dream Lives On.

aced411 · Post by **aced411** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:36 pm

Znes is the closest to perfect emulation I've ever seen with snes. I've played many games on both of the best emulators and I personally believe Zsnes is better (but not by much, snes9x is really really good). Anyway, in some threads people talk about ASM being too complicated on Dreamcast. Then in other threads I'm told Bleemcast is coded in ASM and is one of the only games to utilize the DC to it's full potential. You never know who is truly knowledgable on the subject and who just might have read some stuff somewhere and believed what they read. If I was asked to come up with a reason zsnes can't be ported, I'd say more homebrewers know C coding and find it less complicated. ASM, although much faster, might be quite complicated to code, especially if you're not getting paid. Does that sound believable? That's just an assumption and not an educated guess. There seems to be too many assumptions floating around the forums, especially about dreamsnes.

Post by **Quzar** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:40 pm

dc asm is hard to write in. and bleemcast was written completely in asm. that is why it could do what it could. by the way, your assumption is correct. very very few people know SH-4 asm. few people know any asm because it is much more complicated than languages like C. asm is machine code, meaning it can be understood almost directly by the hardware it is written for. on the other hand C is in a more 'spoken language' sort of way, relying on a more human understandable structure. this means that you need a program to convert the C to asm. this works but it comes up with asm code that is less than perfect in terms of efficiency.

so yea, you are right, but that dosnt mean it cant be done

The Dream Lives On.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:07 pm

Any ASM is really more time consuming than complicated. Most people don't know how to use it properly, and those that do know that it will take them 10x the amount of hours to write something in ASM that they could have written in C.

But converting ASM is a different matter. Since x86 and sh4 are two different chips with two different instruction sets, to convert all of the assembly one would basically need to convert all of the x86 ASM to C and then convert that C code to sh4 ASM.

Or, I suppose you could make up dozens of diagrams pointing out what each chunk of code is doing....

So if you see an open source x86 program, and want someone to port it, check how much assembly is involved. If there's more than 100 lines or so of code, I doubt anyone would bother doing it.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:43 pm

To put together a strained analogy, ZSNES and Bleem are like keys machined to match a particular lock, while snes9x is like a skeleton key - the skeleton key will always be a little bit slower and clunkier, but you can't just take the machined key and use it on another lock without basically destroying it and rebuilding it, so you may as well just make a new key if the difference is that important to you.

Post by **Quzar** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:54 pm

that is a bad analogy. a better one would be that Zsnes and bleem are like Windows and Mac OS, they have been made to run on a specific processor or type of processor, and will not work on others (not without MAJOR work). snes9x however ,like *nix has not been made to run on a specific processor type at all, and therefore with a relatively small amount of work, can be made to run on drastically different processors. the problem, is that with added compatability comes reduced ease of use and decreased efficiency.

an analogy that may work in the line of good old fashioned tools would be pliers vs a wrench. socket wrenches are specific sizes and are made to be able to work with only those sized nuts or bolts, and will not work on other sizes without an adapter, but works great on what it is designed to be used with (like zsnes or bleem). pliers on the other hand can be used on most any size of nut or bolt, but requires more force and sometimes time or such and is hard to get to work on some sizes (like snes9x, which can be used on most different types or processors, but is not as efficeint or fast as a program made to run on a specific processor ).

hope that is slightly better

The Dream Lives On.

Benoit · Post by **Benoit** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:55 pm

I despise anyone who comes out and pretends to anyone that ZSNES is better. It's not. And no, I'm not a SNES9x fanboy. I use both emulators, and they both have their strengths and weaknesses. Using a Pentium II 233 Mhz PC in these days of Ghz processors, I can still see the difference.

I use SNES9x to mainly play Mega Man X on. The music seems better on the SNES9x for that particular game, and runs faster. 60/60 FPS. On ZSNES it gives me between 30/60 and 45/60. And it's not pretty.
ZSNES has better sound overall. I use it to play RPGs on. The latest releases are lacking in sound quality, though, so I used an old pre-1.0 version. You can notice the difference especially when in the World of Ruins in FF6.

To sum it up, you uses SNES9x for speed, and ZSNES for music.
That's all.

Post by **Quzar** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:03 pm

zsnes is faster overall. some games may run slower on it, but it is faster overall than snes9x.

The Dream Lives On.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:03 pm

Maybe it depends on the hardware, but Zsnes (pre 1.0) always ran faster than the current Snes9x (at the time) for me. But I haven't used either in more than 5 years