Helping newcomers...

[Kitty]

My personal thought is that Deleauvive is deep from his Amiga heart trying to help but I must agree that the detail he goes into can become very confusing if you are new to Amiga Emulation, however I do read every reply post as I find it all very interesting, but most often choose the simplest way to resolve the problem.

All help is much appreciated

[tero]

Hoping nanogoblin isn't scared now
He didn't post thereafter

[NewDeli]

Glad you mention that Quickstart discussion.
My opinion is that kitty issues haven't been solved.







I mean can someone in all honesty say that this looks like a worked-out perfectly functional 3.1 WB ?

The facts are no one care for starting again the discussion about her config. & environment because it is plain tedious.

Also, my opinion is that people should be notified of v1.6.1 being obsolete on the main site.
The facts are people get confused because it is generally accepted that a final version is more suited to newbies than a bleeding-edge beta. Because of this explanations about the best version to use turn into an unwanted beta VS final debate, so yes, "forget about v1.6.1" I assume this opinion.

My opinion is that members like KG made the right decision to put me on their ignore list. You don't read my posts -> you don't need to overreact to my prose. Simple.
The facts are it is becoming a trend which is a bit displeasing (Ian followed that course AFAIK), but on the other hand, it may simply make thoses threads in which I participate more readable.

Too many things are just wrong assumptions concerning newcomers :

• Proper version of the KS being used
• A functional host machine
• Thoughtful decision of choosing a preconfigured package over another
• Minimal awareness about the legality of ROMs

So I feel I should be reviewing these things with the OPs even on a not-requested basis (and among those things, are hints which are not really someone likes to admit he should be aware of), because they are plain time-wasters for Toni. I try to keep it in PMs, but sometimes it would spill on the forum.

The positive effects are not always immediately noticeable, but I have always been more interested in honesty about me doing things the right way or not (that was the case with dlfrsilver "hooking my attention" on the latest beta's). I may be wrong in assuming it's a major concern when people come here, but at least it should be.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Deleauvive

I mean can someone in all honesty say that this looks like a worked-out perfectly functional 3.1 WB ?

Maybe you can at least accept that not everybody shares your way of doing things (and you were proven serveral times that it's not 'perfect'). That's why you should only answer the question at hand in understandable way. This (and not your lenghty posts) get people to learn for themselves and get to a point where they can answer these questions themselves. Preaching one way to do things and telling everybody else off isn't really helpful. Giving answers that work and resolve the problem is IMHO.

[Kitty]

I mean can someone in all honesty say that this looks like a worked-out perfectly functional 3.1 WB ?

I dont understand why you think this setup is a problem?

1.) Runs WHDLoad perfectly
2.) Runs all A1200 games
3.) Runs all Amiga CD32 games
4.) Runs all Amiga 500/600 games
5.) Runs all Amiga Demos
6.) Runs all CD32 Games
7.) Runs all Amiga CD games
8.) Workbench is setup exactly how I want it and runs exactly how I want it.

Now tell me one thing, if all that runs how I want it to run then isnt that a worked-out perfectly functional 3.1 WB/Amiga Emulation Setup for my own needs?

I was quick to dismiss Classic Workbench I admit that, but I never said that I wouldn't attempt to go back and try again at a later date.
Same with AmigaSYS4, this is something I will be playing around with too in the near future.

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by Deleauvive

I mean can someone in all honesty say that this looks like a worked-out perfectly functional 3.1 WB ?

What is wrong with it? Looks like a working system to me, you may not like it but you don't have to use it. As for the rest, what all others said...

[NewDeli]

Framerate should be 50, no more no less. I think one of your earlier (yesterday or the day before) screenshots showed a perfect 50.

Also, the exagerated vertical stretching could be an indication that your some of your display settings are wrong.

I don't use ClassicWB or AmigaSYS as my main AmigaOS, so it's all right with me if you stick to 3.1.
It's just that it will take loads of Aminet browsing before it becomes as functional as an updated preconfigured distro.

Finally, I don't think it is very wise to also dismiss RTG, as I found the additional screen modes Picasso96 would offer very convenient myself, especially at the beginning of my emulated WB explorations.

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by Deleauvive

Framerate should be 50, no more no less. I think one of your earlier (yesterday or the day before) screenshots showed a perfect 50.

Also, the exagerated vertical stretching could be an indication that your some of your display settings are wrong.

What have emulator settings to do with a WB installation that you complained about?

[Kitty]

I'll let you into a secret about the framerate, I have 35 tabs open on firefox and also utorrent running so the framerate would have dropped at the time due to resources being used so that isnt an accurate framerate.
If I was to just run WinUAE without all that running in the background, I'm sure it would be well over 50.

Also, the exagerated vertical stretching could be an indication that your some of your display settings are wrong.

using a 19" widescreen monitor may be the reason for that.

[prowler]

@Kitty,

Don't worry about your WB3.1 setup. Actually, it doesn't look too dissimilar to mine on my A1200s and on WinUAE.

If it functions as you would like, then why worry about eye candy?

I've not had a problem with such a setup for years.

[eLowar]

Originally Posted by Kitty

using a 19" widescreen monitor may be the reason for that.

Or his overactive imagination, because I don't see it.

[ppill]

Really guys (and believe me I'm not pointing any fingers)... instead going into lengthy discussions why not become a wiki editor and write a simple, easy to follow guide on a topic you're familiar with that others might appreciate. EAB's wiki would benefit a lot from new articles.

[eLowar]

Originally Posted by ppill

Really guys (and believe me I'm not pointing any fingers)... instead going into lengthy discussions why not become a wiki editor and write a simple, easy to follow guide on a topic you're familiar with that others might appreciate. EAB's wiki would benefit a lot from new articles.

Good idea, but that won't solve the problem of certain people () confusing many other people.

[NewDeli]

Originally Posted by eLowar

because I don't see it.

May I suggest you have your glasses fixed then ?

And to make things clear, I believe the critics in that matter should be those who offer their help on a regular basis, TCD, Retro-Nerd...


Polluting the threads as you or KG, or even DH do, with already known to all opinions and putrid allusions about my lack of knowledge is not something that should raise any interest from the newcomers, nor from the GMs (I am suspecting that the ultimate goal in sending false alarms about my posts to the men in charge -Toni, DamienD... is to get me into further trouble, and that you couldn't care less about the WinUAE/WHLoad issues actually being solved)

[Kitty]

I prefer the Old-School Amiga Workbench, I guess its basically your own preference, but that looks nice too Deleauvive, AmigaSYS4?

[TCD]

Sorry, but I can't see a problem (stretched) with Kitty's screenshot either. She's simply running a different resolution than you, that's all.

[eLowar]

Originally Posted by Deleauvive

May I suggest you have your glasses fixed then

May I suggest you learn something before spewing more nonsense? The default Amiga Workbench resolution is 640x256 (and even though I was pretty sure, yes, I did actually check before posting this), which means non-square pixels are perfectly normal. And the icons (and other graphics) made for that resolution actually look fine and not distorted.

[eLowar]

Originally Posted by Deleauvive

Polluting the threads as you or KG, or even DH do, with already known to all opinions and putrid allusions about my lack of knowledge is not something that should raise any interest from the newcomers, nor from the GMs (I am suspecting that the ultimate goal in sending false alarms about my posts to the men in charge -Toni, DamienD... is to get me into further trouble, and that you couldn't care less about the WinUAE/WHLoad issues actually being solved)

Alarms are anything but false, and I do believe the "men in charge" have already told you that you're causing nothing but confusion and problems as well. Although, of course, you've completely ignored them (see for instance your "reply" to GH's post above).

If it was just about myself, I would indeed just put you on ignore, but alas that won't save the rest of the board, least of all the newcomers (and googlers) who don't know that it's better to ignore you, yet.

Edit: By the way, I find it hilarious that you accuse others of polluting anything.

[Kitty]

May I suggest you have your glasses fixed then ?

[NewDeli]

@kitty
This is the UAE flavor of classicWB, and it's a preconfigured OS, entirely based on WB 3.1 (hence the name "classic"), which is something you fail to understand apparently.
While keeping your current setup (which I find utterly ugly colorwise, although I've been asked not to make distracting comments why ? Because the copper effect is not supposed to stamp through the icons like that), would you not prefer to have your icons "unstretched" ?


Concerning the FPS
Is your framerate @ a steady 50 when playing games ? With games, It should vary from 50 in tiny increments.
(I'll better ask one question after the other, but what I would really like is to see how your Display tab looks like)


@TCD
So basically, for the sake of complying to this so-called "native resolution", the recommended window resolution in WinUAE is 640x256 ?