It's time for a change!

Adderly · 27 September 2006, 22:29

We now have around ~21000 adf game images in Amiga-Tosec. On a Windows PC you need a NTFS partition for the whole games/adf directory coz Fat32 only allows 10k files per dir. And it takes more than just some seconds of loading time if you just want to browse the games/adf dir with a filemanager.

It's time for a change!

Why not have multiple adf's in a single zip? IPF/SPS already have multiple disks collected in one zip so why not do this for adf's as well.
With this we could shrink the whole set a lot too: All the [a]'s with only a few bytes difference would be very well compressed if put together into one archive.

Since i already bring this (old) discussion up again i also suggest a radical change to fix the too long filenames issue. The new created zips could have shorter names. As extreme we could just use the gamename for the zip and put all according adf's (with long filenames) into it. That would mean ~3500 zips in the whole games/adf dir. Still enough if you ask me...

Constructive comments are welcome!

Codetapper · 27 September 2006, 22:51

Personally I think TOSEC lost the plot years ago. You used to be able to search for games, see the CRC's, suggest changes etc. Now you can't do a bloody thing on their site. The grandiose 5 year plans with no details are also pretty stupid, why not say what the plan is so others can make suggestions before it goes live?

I also hate their massively long names and the fact nobody seems to check for basic errors - half of the [a] games can be deleted straight away as bad files by a simple file copy off the disks shows you read errors all through them. But with nowhere to report the problems TOSEC will gain more and more useless files meaning file listings go slower and slower.

TOSEC really have lost the plot imho - a perfect example of how to destroy a useful site and replace it with nothing...

Marcuz · 27 September 2006, 23:18

i agree in part with Codetapper, but i don't think to blame people at Tosec: there have been defections and rehauls, and some decision i don't agree with. the problem is that is a big project whose goals interest relatively few people or at least are not much clear. the most of the people' -here and elsewhere- interest is to play with them games.
but i prefer not to discuss that, nor it's my place.
a rationalization of amiga stuff is surely a good idea.
my point is that for the sake of renaming only, probably the archive is not bad as it is. while for the gaming needs, probably it would be useful to concertate an unique set of best versions of games for to use for instance in gamebase / mage without it to need to do yet another set. that would be just one option, but why don't to do something together with Lemonade and gamebase about that? i mean if the sake is the usability of the archives

mr_0rga5m · 28 September 2006, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adderly

Why not have multiple adf's in a single zip? IPF/SPS already have multiple disks collected in one zip so why not do this for adf's as well.
With this we could shrink the whole set a lot too: All the [a]'s with only a few bytes difference would be very well compressed if put together into one archive.

This is what i did to my 'horde' quite some time (years) back .. I have collated most of them and then rezip'd them to 7z.
I had to write a coupla QUAD utils to assist me, and i did plan to one day tidy them up and release them.
I even (partially) built a romcenter .dat too.

Example:

Code:

¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 1 of 5)(Boot)[cr CSL].adf¬59fc7bbe¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 1 of 5)(Boot)[cr CSL][a].adf¬c153e372¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 1 of 5)(Boot)[cr CSL][t +10 LGD].adf¬86a2cf92¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 1 of 5)(Boot)[cr CSL][t +10 LGD][a2].adf¬1e0d575e¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 1 of 5)(Boot)[cr CSL][t +10 LGD][a].adf¬099d55f5¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 1 of 5)(Boot)[cr FLT].adf¬efff1927¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 1 of 5)(Boot)[cr QTX].adf¬a0502813¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 2 of 5)(1)[cr CSL][t +10 LGD].adf¬7e6d3803¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 2 of 5)(1)[cr FLT].adf¬a2caac9d¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 3 of 5)(2)[cr CSL][t +10 LGD].adf¬6083d14e¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 3 of 5)(2)[cr FLT].adf¬50af1388¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 4 of 5)(3).adf¬913772c2¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 4 of 5)(3)[cr CSL][t +10 LGD].adf¬aed4d2f0¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 5 of 5)(4).adf¬274b7d72¬901120¬¬¬
¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)¬Heimdall (1991)(Core)(Disk 5 of 5)(4)[cr CSL][t +10 LGD].adf¬14aab1ea¬901120¬¬¬

This gave me a file called "Heimdall (1991)(Core).7z" which contains the 15 TOSEC named .adf's which is 3.62 MB (3,804,052 bytes) as opposed to the TOSEC made 15 .zips which are 11.8 MB (12,411,303 bytes).

Basically I think its a good idea.

.

Adderly · 28 September 2006, 02:16

@Codetapper
Tosec is not a collection of verified good images like gamebase/mage/lemonade etc. is. It's a database of all available images. Especially the bad [b] and alternate [a] images are needed if somebody is going to scan his collection! If we would remove all bad images and useless alt's users wouldn't got them identified among their stuff. Personally i think of Tosec as a collection of trash with some pearls. All files are needed, sorry.

@mr_0rga5m
I did exactly what you did, with the help of a JAVA tool coded by poohbear! (see http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=20620)
The whole Tosec collection (without CD's) is around 5GB smaller if 7zip is used and much better to handle this way!
The problem: With the next Dat update you need to depack all the stuff, rescan and then sort/repack it again.

mr_0rga5m · 28 September 2006, 02:32

Yea like i mentioned i wrote some QUAD (Quick And Dirty) utils to assist in taking a tosec dat and making my own for easy re-scanning with romcanter. Perhaps i need to dig this out and bring it upto date. Now you got me interested.

Unknown_K · 28 September 2006, 03:15

The last full tosec I collected (for the Amiga) was V.24, and thats a bit old. I don't see what having a newer version buys me except for more alternates or some rare games I would never bother playing.

I don't mind the long names, all my stuff is on an NTFS Win2k partition and I burn batches to DVD with ISO 9999 which allows for real long filenames.

People who want to burn a cd readable to the classic OS 3.0 will have a problem with long filenames.

Codetapper · 28 September 2006, 03:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adderly

@Codetapper
Tosec is not a collection of verified good images like gamebase/mage/lemonade etc. is. It's a database of all available images. Especially the bad [b] and alternate [a] images are needed if somebody is going to scan his collection! If we would remove all bad images and useless alt's users wouldn't got them identified among their stuff. Personally i think of Tosec as a collection of trash with some pearls. All files are needed, sorry.

You miss my point though. The old website was useful, you could suggest fixes yourself. You can't seem to do anything on the current one.

For example I downloaded a coverdisk the other day. There were 2 versions, I grabbed them both and turned out the [a] one is simply unusable, broken files all through it. It should be marked as [b]ad but I can't even report the problem to them. Any reasonably competant cracker could go through and dismiss most of the alt files straight away when the files don't depack or have read errors etc.

Kodoichi · 28 September 2006, 09:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codetapper

TOSEC really have lost the plot imho - a perfect example of how to destroy a useful site and replace it with nothing...

I blame it on everybody writing into the offtopic forum here on EAB and not helping out Tosec.

Marcuz · 28 September 2006, 15:03

i think that if the TOSEC site/community are or not right on the spot with their decision, it is not the discussion here. i personally find very useful what Adderly and [idoru] do about it.
also Kodoichi you cannot blame everybody who's not interested in Tosec or in anything for the shortcomings of it, if ever.

Anubis · 28 September 2006, 15:43

One of the reason I'm not using the tosec is that contains way too much crap. Another reason is that there is no dat file that will keep all files for the game in one zip (or prefferably 7zip) file. This would help with organization and dat file should be able to search trough zips and see difference (same it does with mame roms).

Why whole amiga tosec is 1 file per zip I have no idea.

NOB · 28 September 2006, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adderly

And it takes more than just some seconds of loading time if you just want to browse the games/adf dir with a filemanager.

same here.
It is nearly impossible to browse the dir.

IMHO the best way to solve this problem is to collect
multiple adf´s in a single zip/dir.

[idoru] · 28 September 2006, 16:52

I suggested multi-file archives several times down the years & it was always vetoed, don't forget TOSEC is a general project & doesn't revolve around Amiga. It's worth bearing in mind that it's also only a hobby project with few people involved currently. Having said that, I'd still like to see it happen so if any other life is shown outside Amiga renaming then I'll make the case again.

Also, it's quite easy to split your files into multiple directories - there's nothing telling you you HAVE to have all 21k games in 1 directory...

As for Codetapper's comments about the website, yes the website sucks & there is no maintainer. The old "useful" site wasn't replaced with something crap on purpose - the host's server fried & they couldn't recreate it from their backups for whatever reason. I was under the impression that the then admin had his own backups but who knows where they are (both admin & backups). There have been requests for site admins, but as usual the 1 or 2 offers never resulted in anything.

I also agree that the dat options in TIM suck, all the stuff from the old website (ie. create dats without bad dumps, without adf's of games that also appear in SPS dat etc etc.) are all still missing from TIM. Guess what - yeah, the coder & site admin are the same person

Don't expect me to defend TIM either, I use it just like a lot of people - purely to generate ClrMamePro dats, but there are people who use it in preference. Again, a few people have corrected the odd bug in the code but nothing more substantial has been offered helpwise.

I disagree that there isn't anywhere you can report corrections though - there has always been a forum on the TOSEC site with sections for that very thing. There has been the corrections thread here at EAB for years also.

Various renamers down the years have contributed, some better than others. An idea was to eventually have a "crap" dat containing all the useless adf's (bad dumps, bad cracks etc) but I personally don't have the time or the want to go over all the previously included files. If anyone wants to help then great - you know where we are.

I do this as and when I want to, which is the same I'm sure as Bippym. If I don't want to do anything, I won't - as it's a hobby not a job.

To be honest this is also not the place to be starting this type of discussion, the TOSEC site has a perfectly usable forum of it's own for suggestions & discussion.

Kodoichi · 28 September 2006, 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by marco pedrana

also Kodoichi you cannot blame everybody who's not interested in Tosec or in anything for the shortcomings of it, if ever.

I blame it on everybody that downloads ADFs and ROMs named after Tosec convention but doesn't contribute to it.

Anubis · 28 September 2006, 18:51

As I'm the one who (mostly) posts in off-topic area I wonder how do you like me to contribute.

Just finished reading idoru's post which tell sme that they (they as TOSEC) people are not much open for change and that my input hardly would make any changes.

And yes, I'm using random files from tosec, but it's been more then 3 years since last time I scaned my folders.

Should TOSEC adjust to Amiga and allow mutlipe disks in one archive or stay the same unusable as it is today.

Just for comparison Gametronik has most of the stuff in 7zip archives and one archive has all roms for the same game (also different language, bad dumbs, overdumps...) Their SNES, NES, Gen, SMS, GG collection all together is half of what is TOSEC for SNES by it's self and yet they have more files for SNES?!

[idoru] · 28 September 2006, 19:25

Quote:

As I'm the one who (mostly) posts in off-topic area I wonder how do you like me to contribute.

I'm not asking you to contribute. You contribute if YOU want to. My post said "If anyone wants to help", not specifically calling on individuals that SHOULD help.

Quote:

Just finished reading idoru's post which tell sme that they (they as TOSEC) people are not much open for change and that my input hardly would make any changes.

I don't see where you get that from. The only thing I mentioned was that multi-file zips containing all images for a single title was vetoed on the occassions I raised it. If it was a closed shop then surely it wouldn't even have been discussed. In my experience, people only tend to call things as not open for change if they disagree with the way something is done. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions of course, but just because something isn't done your way doesn't mean it's any less valid.

Quote:

Should TOSEC adjust to Amiga and allow mutlipe disks in one archive or stay the same unusable as it is today.

Many, many people would disagree that they are unusable. Some would agree it's not ideal. Some would also agree with you I'm sure. If you find it unusable then don't use it - I won't get offense

Quote:

Just for comparison Gametronik has most of the stuff in 7zip archives and one archive has all roms for the same game (also different language, bad dumbs, overdumps...) Their SNES, NES, Gen, SMS, GG collection all together is half of what is TOSEC for SNES by it's self and yet they have more files for SNES?!

Never looked at Gametronik, but there's nothing stopping people 7zip-ing stuff after they've scanned it. None of the utilities (ClrMamePro, RomCenter, TIM) work with 7zip archives which is partly why the various renaming projects don't, of course there are a few addon utils that will 7-zip stuff for you based on the setnames etc... The TOSEC SNES dat is only very early so doesn't contain everything yet.

I've said it before, if people have genuine suggestions then go ahead and make them in the correct place, but if people have got nothing constructive to say then please ignore the threads.

Adderly · 28 September 2006, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by [idoru]

The only thing I mentioned was that multi-file zips containing all images for a single title was vetoed on the occassions I raised it.

Do you mean vetoed by EAB users or by the other Tosec staff?

[idoru] · 28 September 2006, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adderly

Do you mean vetoed by EAB users or by the other Tosec staff?

Vetoed by those involved with the project.

Anubis · 29 September 2006, 03:26

Idoru,
my comment about being called was meant for Kodoichi, not you.

Who else is involved with Amiga TOSEC?

Why they don't try to see what users would like to see and benefit from?

WinUAE supports multiple adfs inside archive, wich is another reason to get them all grouped.

And when did you suggest this?

Marcuz · 29 September 2006, 04:15

i understand the point of TOSEC being the catalogue and preservation of all the adf from the original data, and not the gaming, but on the other hand why should people to catalogue the adfs if not to play with them?
believe me when i say i treasure what you renamers do and do not complain about it being not a job but a free time occupation.
i would like just to see a nice, ordered, lighter, consultable and most of all usable TOSEC archive and a more opened TOSEC community as their site simply don't do the job, imho, neither it does TIM.

27 September 2006, 22:29	#1
Adderly [Satan^God] Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 701	It's time for a change! We now have around ~21000 adf game images in Amiga-Tosec. On a Windows PC you need a NTFS partition for the whole games/adf directory coz Fat32 only allows 10k files per dir. And it takes more than just some seconds of loading time if you just want to browse the games/adf dir with a filemanager. It's time for a change! Why not have multiple adf's in a single zip? IPF/SPS already have multiple disks collected in one zip so why not do this for adf's as well. With this we could shrink the whole set a lot too: All the [a]'s with only a few bytes difference would be very well compressed if put together into one archive. Since i already bring this (old) discussion up again i also suggest a radical change to fix the too long filenames issue. The new created zips could have shorter names. As extreme we could just use the gamename for the zip and put all according adf's (with long filenames) into it. That would mean ~3500 zips in the whole games/adf dir. Still enough if you ask me... Constructive comments are welcome!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Time for a name change	BippyM	project.EAB	44	01 October 2013 09:57
Time in Prefs - Won't change Date OS3.1	illy5603	project.ClassicWB	11	17 October 2009 12:22
App to update Amiga System time from web time??	DDNI	request.Apps	2	31 December 2007 07:21
change the cd-rom unit number(sorry wrong place if a moderator can change)	turrican3	support.OtherUAE	19	04 May 2007 23:27
Icon colors are shifting from time to time	digital	support.WinUAE	15	11 March 2003 22:48

27 September 2006, 22:51	#2
Codetapper 2 contact me: email only! Join Date: May 2001 Location: Auckland / New Zealand Posts: 3,182	Personally I think TOSEC lost the plot years ago. You used to be able to search for games, see the CRC's, suggest changes etc. Now you can't do a bloody thing on their site. The grandiose 5 year plans with no details are also pretty stupid, why not say what the plan is so others can make suggestions before it goes live? I also hate their massively long names and the fact nobody seems to check for basic errors - half of the [a] games can be deleted straight away as bad files by a simple file copy off the disks shows you read errors all through them. But with nowhere to report the problems TOSEC will gain more and more useless files meaning file listings go slower and slower. TOSEC really have lost the plot imho - a perfect example of how to destroy a useful site and replace it with nothing...

27 September 2006, 23:18	#3
Marcuz Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: . Age: 48 Posts: 5,562	i agree in part with Codetapper, but i don't think to blame people at Tosec: there have been defections and rehauls, and some decision i don't agree with. the problem is that is a big project whose goals interest relatively few people or at least are not much clear. the most of the people' -here and elsewhere- interest is to play with them games. but i prefer not to discuss that, nor it's my place. a rationalization of amiga stuff is surely a good idea. my point is that for the sake of renaming only, probably the archive is not bad as it is. while for the gaming needs, probably it would be useful to concertate an unique set of best versions of games for to use for instance in gamebase / mage without it to need to do yet another set. that would be just one option, but why don't to do something together with Lemonade and gamebase about that? i mean if the sake is the usability of the archives

28 September 2006, 02:16	#5
Adderly [Satan^God] Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 701	@Codetapper Tosec is not a collection of verified good images like gamebase/mage/lemonade etc. is. It's a database of all available images. Especially the bad [b] and alternate [a] images are needed if somebody is going to scan his collection! If we would remove all bad images and useless alt's users wouldn't got them identified among their stuff. Personally i think of Tosec as a collection of trash with some pearls. All files are needed, sorry. @mr_0rga5m I did exactly what you did, with the help of a JAVA tool coded by poohbear! (see http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=20620) The whole Tosec collection (without CD's) is around 5GB smaller if 7zip is used and much better to handle this way! The problem: With the next Dat update you need to depack all the stuff, rescan and then sort/repack it again.

28 September 2006, 02:32	#6
mr_0rga5m Tik Gora :D Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Round yo momma's Posts: 1,273	Yea like i mentioned i wrote some QUAD (Quick And Dirty) utils to assist in taking a tosec dat and making my own for easy re-scanning with romcanter. Perhaps i need to dig this out and bring it upto date. Now you got me interested.

28 September 2006, 03:15	#7
Unknown_K Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ohio/USA Age: 55 Posts: 1,380	The last full tosec I collected (for the Amiga) was V.24, and thats a bit old. I don't see what having a newer version buys me except for more alternates or some rare games I would never bother playing. I don't mind the long names, all my stuff is on an NTFS Win2k partition and I burn batches to DVD with ISO 9999 which allows for real long filenames. People who want to burn a cd readable to the classic OS 3.0 will have a problem with long filenames.

28 September 2006, 15:03	#10
Marcuz Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: . Age: 48 Posts: 5,562	i think that if the TOSEC site/community are or not right on the spot with their decision, it is not the discussion here. i personally find very useful what Adderly and [idoru] do about it. also Kodoichi you cannot blame everybody who's not interested in Tosec or in anything for the shortcomings of it, if ever.

28 September 2006, 15:43	#11
Anubis Retro Gamer Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Underworld Age: 51 Posts: 4,061	One of the reason I'm not using the tosec is that contains way too much crap. Another reason is that there is no dat file that will keep all files for the game in one zip (or prefferably 7zip) file. This would help with organization and dat file should be able to search trough zips and see difference (same it does with mame roms). Why whole amiga tosec is 1 file per zip I have no idea.

28 September 2006, 16:52	#13
[idoru] Registered User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: UK Posts: 246	I suggested multi-file archives several times down the years & it was always vetoed, don't forget TOSEC is a general project & doesn't revolve around Amiga. It's worth bearing in mind that it's also only a hobby project with few people involved currently. Having said that, I'd still like to see it happen so if any other life is shown outside Amiga renaming then I'll make the case again. Also, it's quite easy to split your files into multiple directories - there's nothing telling you you HAVE to have all 21k games in 1 directory... As for Codetapper's comments about the website, yes the website sucks & there is no maintainer. The old "useful" site wasn't replaced with something crap on purpose - the host's server fried & they couldn't recreate it from their backups for whatever reason. I was under the impression that the then admin had his own backups but who knows where they are (both admin & backups). There have been requests for site admins, but as usual the 1 or 2 offers never resulted in anything. I also agree that the dat options in TIM suck, all the stuff from the old website (ie. create dats without bad dumps, without adf's of games that also appear in SPS dat etc etc.) are all still missing from TIM. Guess what - yeah, the coder & site admin are the same person Don't expect me to defend TIM either, I use it just like a lot of people - purely to generate ClrMamePro dats, but there are people who use it in preference. Again, a few people have corrected the odd bug in the code but nothing more substantial has been offered helpwise. I disagree that there isn't anywhere you can report corrections though - there has always been a forum on the TOSEC site with sections for that very thing. There has been the corrections thread here at EAB for years also. Various renamers down the years have contributed, some better than others. An idea was to eventually have a "crap" dat containing all the useless adf's (bad dumps, bad cracks etc) but I personally don't have the time or the want to go over all the previously included files. If anyone wants to help then great - you know where we are. I do this as and when I want to, which is the same I'm sure as Bippym. If I don't want to do anything, I won't - as it's a hobby not a job. To be honest this is also not the place to be starting this type of discussion, the TOSEC site has a perfectly usable forum of it's own for suggestions & discussion.

28 September 2006, 18:51	#15
Anubis Retro Gamer Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Underworld Age: 51 Posts: 4,061	As I'm the one who (mostly) posts in off-topic area I wonder how do you like me to contribute. Just finished reading idoru's post which tell sme that they (they as TOSEC) people are not much open for change and that my input hardly would make any changes. And yes, I'm using random files from tosec, but it's been more then 3 years since last time I scaned my folders. Should TOSEC adjust to Amiga and allow mutlipe disks in one archive or stay the same unusable as it is today. Just for comparison Gametronik has most of the stuff in 7zip archives and one archive has all roms for the same game (also different language, bad dumbs, overdumps...) Their SNES, NES, Gen, SMS, GG collection all together is half of what is TOSEC for SNES by it's self and yet they have more files for SNES?!

29 September 2006, 03:26	#19
Anubis Retro Gamer Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Underworld Age: 51 Posts: 4,061	Idoru, my comment about being called was meant for Kodoichi, not you. Who else is involved with Amiga TOSEC? Why they don't try to see what users would like to see and benefit from? WinUAE supports multiple adfs inside archive, wich is another reason to get them all grouped. And when did you suggest this?

29 September 2006, 04:15	#20
Marcuz Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: . Age: 48 Posts: 5,562	i understand the point of TOSEC being the catalogue and preservation of all the adf from the original data, and not the gaming, but on the other hand why should people to catalogue the adfs if not to play with them? believe me when i say i treasure what you renamers do and do not complain about it being not a job but a free time occupation. i would like just to see a nice, ordered, lighter, consultable and most of all usable TOSEC archive and a more opened TOSEC community as their site simply don't do the job, imho, neither it does TIM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)