#1871 - SimonB - Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:20 pm
new version of NO$GBA has been released.
15th January 2003 - version 1.4c
- dos: arjzip-preview rejected except in f12-menu (eg. not editfile,assfile,etc)
- cartloader: saves old battery/eeprom data to .SAV instead newname
- cartloader: deallocates old ROM and saves SAV (thanks matt, also snaploader)
- dos: sound engine initial sampbufhead=10 (instead =2) avoids DMA overrun noise
- debug: f8-key: run until current subroutine ends (eg.next higher POP PC/BX LR)
- dos: sound emulation (sound blaster, pc speaker, covox/lpt, gravis ultrasound)
- dos: faked newint03 recovers old interrupt enable flag, added cpu detection
- dos: also hooks smooth 1024hz RTC timer INT70 (with realmode es:bx expire flg)
- debug: shows used GBA CPU time vs free HALT INTRWAIT time (regs/bar + f10/nn%)
- dos: no$gba.exe may be renamed, cpsr flags displayed, stack x-width adjusted
you can find the NO$GBA site here
#2020 - Esseb - Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:34 pm
Marat must love us:
:)
_________________
Gee, I hope I spelled that right.
#2026 - Dev - Mon Jan 27, 2003 10:18 pm
That's not Marat's Site, it's Martin's.
#2142 - Esseb - Thu Jan 30, 2003 2:22 am
Oh right, my bad.
Still, what's up with the gba section?
_________________
Gee, I hope I spelled that right.
#2162 - FluBBa - Thu Jan 30, 2003 11:08 am
I think someone said MUGS had made a crack that let them play comercial roms on it ( > 256kByte).
Retards...
#2586 - Dev - Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:12 am
Martin's site has been updated with the news about what happened.
The GBA dev community has lost something significant here... I wonder if anyone will notice.
IMHO, Martin's site still has the most complete and accurate GBA tech specs anywhere.
#2587 - JonH - Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:28 am
mugs are lamers!
#2595 - Lord Graga - Sat Feb 08, 2003 10:41 am
| JonH wrote: |
| mugs are lamers! |
Yeah, they are.
I feel sorry for Martin for making a developing tool to sell to developers, and then peoples think it is a emulator and crack it open :(
#2608 - Touchstone - Sun Feb 09, 2003 12:44 am
I don't really feel sorry for him. He was either very naive, or slightly dense, if he thought his program was never gonna get cracked. Discontinuing the freeware version only shows that he'd rather look after his own interest rather than doing something good for the world. Well, for the gba development community atleast. That is of course understandable but when doing so you kinda turn down the right to any sympathy from other human beings. I don't think he deserves any hobbyists sympathy seing how he's continuing to develop his professional version, and probably didn't lose a substantial amount of money on having his freeware version cracked. Besides I personally don't think highly of making money of of reverse-engineered and/or stolen intel.
It is always bad when the authors of good programs don't get their investments back but I don't think what has happened changes any business for Martin.
_________________
You can't beat our meat
#2630 - tepples - Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:47 pm
Given that VisualBoyAdvance exists, is Free Software, and is nearly as accurate as no$gba was, I always wondered what the point of the hobbyist version of no$gba was.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#2640 - Dev - Sun Feb 09, 2003 9:48 pm
I don't believe that the "hobbyist version" was anything more than a demo of his professional development version.
It had some exceptionally accurate and useful low-level features that are pretty much used only by developers.
Also, there's more than one site that used the technical information he made available to correct errors in their own docs.
Sure, it had very little use for non-developers, but that's precisely what the site said in a bunch of places.
Touchstone, you don't have to feel sorry for him, and from the rest of what you wrote, it's obvious that you've never programmed for a living, and couldn't possibly understand. There are so many other things wrong with just about everything else you wrote, I couldn't possibly hope to explain why each of them is equally offensive. Hopefully you'll continue programming and someday be faced with the same issues that Martin was, and then perhaps you'll realize why.
Oh, and as for "reverse engineering", you *are* using a PC, right???
#2655 - Touchstone - Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:18 pm
Dev, I have been working as a programmer since I graduated, so I have in fact been programming for a living, even if it has only been for four years now.
What do you mean with "Oh, and as for 'reverse engineering', you *are* using a PC, right???"? I am doing my Gameboy Advance programming on a Mac, so yes, I am using a PC.
Perhaps I should explain further why I don't feel sorry for him. No one who would pay for his gba emulator is using the cracked version, therefore I don't think he has lost any business, hence he hasn't been economically affected by having his freeware version cracked.
_________________
You can't beat our meat
#2656 - pelrun - Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:31 pm
"No one who would pay for his gba emulator is using the cracked version"
Since you can't actually have any FACTS to support such a claim, I can only assume you pulled that out of your ass. Usually when somebody does that it's because the rest of their argument is flimsy.
And, well, how much do you value your time? I know Martin lost countless hours dealing with the various lamers and assholes who pirated his NO$GMB, and expected him to help them for free, and abused him relentlessly when he (righfully) refused. Now if you took the amount of money you earn at your programming job per hour and multiplied it by at least 50... well, would you consider that "no financial loss"? And if you were faced with the same prospect with your new product, would you *really* voluntarily submit to it, just so some lamer on some messageboard wouldn't "not feel sorry" for you?
And there happens to be this little law in Germany whereby any law firm can pre-emptively start legal action against anyone they believe is infringing on a company's IP rights. Regardless if the firm actually represents the company or not. Martin lives in Germany. Now would you really want to continue to supply a program that can be readily converted into a tool primarily used by pirates, when it would take just one lawyer at one law firm to sense the opportunity for some money? That would be quite a "financial loss".
And, if you really think that money should the sole reason for doing anything, why are you criticising him for not providing a free version...?
#2666 - Touchstone - Mon Feb 10, 2003 4:15 pm
"Now if you took the amount of money you earn at your programming job per hour and multiplied it by at least 50..."
Since you can't actually have any FACTS to support such a claim, I can only assume you pulled that out of your ass. Usually when somebody does that it's because the rest of their argument is flimsy.
Martin would still be infringing on N's IP when selling his devtool, regardless of if the freeware version has been cracked or not. He was violating that law before and he is continuing to do so since he is still supply his program to companies.
And I wasn't criticising him for not having a free version of his tool so I can't answer your last question.
_________________
You can't beat our meat
#2674 - tepples - Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:20 pm
| Touchstone wrote: |
| Martin would still be infringing on N's IP when selling his devtool |
"Intellectual property" is a vague term used often by people who don't know whether they're referring to copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or publicity rights. Which of those does no$gba infringe? Does it contain Nintendo's copyrighted BIOS? Does a hardware patent in Germany cover software emulations of that hardware as well? Was Martin under an NDA with Nintendo?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#2677 - MayFly - Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:41 pm
I think Dev's comment:
| Quote: |
| ... as for "reverse engineering", you *are* using a PC, right??? |
may inference how Compaq reversed engineered IBM's PC BIOS thereby allowing Compaq to make "IBM compatible" -- of course only if it ran flight simulator pcs... this was the REAL beginning of the clone wars (sorry couldn't help it.)
There is also the wonderful IBM/Via/Cryix/AMD/intel Shenannigans. Between these chip manufactures and EDA (tools for making hardware) vendors: I would imagine employ 1/4 of the worlds lawyers, but very few of the companies mentioned (to my knowledge) have been found quilty of serious copyright infringments... actually Avanti is the exception.
My knowledge of copyright laws in any country is limited, but seeing as how Compaq was able reverse engineer such a critical PC component and is still making coin off it's endevour I don't understand why no$gba is breaking copyright laws IF the author derived the information from public sources AND not from within the vaults of the mighty fortress N.
I'd appreciate the clarification.
MayFly
#2678 - MayFly - Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:44 pm
I think Dev's comment:
| Quote: |
| ... as for "reverse engineering", you *are* using a PC, right??? |
may inference how Compaq reversed engineered IBM's PC BIOS thereby allowing Compaq to make "IBM compatible" -- of course only if it ran flight simulator pcs... this was the REAL beginning of the clone wars (sorry couldn't help it.)
There is also the wonderful IBM/Via/Cryix/AMD/intel Shenannigans. Between these chip manufactures and EDA (tools for making hardware) vendors: I would imagine employ 1/4 of the worlds lawyers, but very few of the companies mentioned (to my knowledge) have been found quilty of serious copyright infringments... actually Avanti is the exception.
My knowledge of copyright laws in any country is limited, but seeing as how Compaq was able reverse engineer such a critical PC component and is still making coin off it's endevour I don't understand why no$gba is breaking copyright laws IF the author derived the information from public sources AND not from within the vaults of the mighty fortress N.
I'd appreciate the clarification.
MayFly
#2681 - Touchstone - Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:24 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| Touchstone wrote: | | Martin would still be infringing on N's IP when selling his devtool |
"Intellectual property" is a vague term used often by people who don't know whether they're referring to copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or publicity rights. Which of those does no$gba infringe? Does it contain Nintendo's copyrighted BIOS? Does a hardware patent in Germany cover software emulations of that hardware as well? Was Martin under an NDA with Nintendo? |
I don't really know if Martin is in fact violating any laws, I just assumed he was since Pelrun mentioned it. My point was that no$gba is still being developed and I would belive that Martin is still making money of of it. If no$gba was illegal before the freeware version was cracked it would still be illegal now.
_________________
You can't beat our meat
#2682 - Touchstone - Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:26 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| Touchstone wrote: | | Martin would still be infringing on N's IP when selling his devtool |
"Intellectual property" is a vague term used often by people who don't know whether they're referring to copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or publicity rights. Which of those does no$gba infringe? Does it contain Nintendo's copyrighted BIOS? Does a hardware patent in Germany cover software emulations of that hardware as well? Was Martin under an NDA with Nintendo? |
I don't really know if Martin is in fact violating any laws, I just assumed he was since Pelrun mentioned it. My point was that no$gba is still being developed and I would belive that Martin is still making money of of it. If no$gba was illegal before the freeware version was cracked it would still be illegal now.
_________________
You can't beat our meat
#2683 - Touchstone - Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:27 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| Touchstone wrote: | | Martin would still be infringing on N's IP when selling his devtool |
"Intellectual property" is a vague term used often by people who don't know whether they're referring to copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or publicity rights. Which of those does no$gba infringe? Does it contain Nintendo's copyrighted BIOS? Does a hardware patent in Germany cover software emulations of that hardware as well? Was Martin under an NDA with Nintendo? |
I don't really know if Martin is in fact violating any laws, I just assumed he was since Pelrun mentioned it. My point was that no$gba is still being developed and I would belive that Martin is still making money of of it. If no$gba was illegal before the freeware version was cracked it would still be illegal now.
_________________
You can't beat our meat