From: Eero Tamminen <oak@he...> - 2008-07-25 14:39:46
On Sunday 13 July 2008, Pomarede Nicolas wrote:
> > If things are not fixed already years ago, IMHO it's good to add also a
> > note about which (approximate) Hatari version is required, e.g.
> > something like "Hatari >v1.0 required for the overscan bottoms to work
> > properly".
> Yes, I agree it's possible to add the version required, but I think it
> would be better to add a note like 'always use the latest version for
> best result' at the top of the page.
That should be obvious i.e. redundant.
> For example, writing that a program runs with version > 0.80 is
> interesting for archival reasons, if we want to keep trace of the hatari
> progress over the time, but for the final user, I think it's more
> explicit to just say 'it works if you use the latest version'.
> I mean, we don't expect a user to run version < 1.0 if there's a more
> recent 1.10 version for example ?
At least I do. Hatari got quite a bit slower just before 1.x when the UAE
core was updated and it doesn't work fast enough in "Compatible" mode
on embedded devices (and often it's too slow even without it and when
using other options that make it faster). I.e. there's a use-case for using
less complete & faster emulation.
I wouldn't mind information about the compatibility with "Compatible"
mode disabled either. :-)
> Or perhaps compatibility list could be split in two parts :
> - programs that work with the latest version of hatari, without further
> details (only if sound/gfx/... are all ok)
Almost all programs should work, so AFAIK this list is not so relevant.
> - programs that don't work, with description of the missing parts.