forums.marpirc.net

I'm pretty sure XMAME already has MacOS X support in it.

And I'm also sure that BBH would love to see some of those optimisations in DOS MAME too.

mahlemiut wrote:I'm pretty sure XMAME already has MacOS X support in it.

yes, I had said it "supports" it in that it runs within X-windows for OS X...however it's 5-10 times slower than macmame cuz it lacks the assembly optimizations for the game CPUs...also not sure video acceleration is supported by current implementation of X-windows for X which might be a big part of the problem.

Ok, you just made it sound like it a separate build from the official XMAME.

Seems pretty pathetic that there is no X11 video acceleration. Makes you think that Apple doesn't really want anyone using it...

mahlemiut wrote:Seems pretty pathetic that there is no X11 video acceleration. Makes you think that Apple doesn't really want anyone using it...

Well, their next version of X-windows claims to have added basic 2d video acceleration. I haven't seen any xmame test in this to see if performance improved though.

I guess I'll have to try this myself...got to install x-windows etc. ...think the binary of this direct port was released....will have to check.

Are inp files between xmame and mame/dmame/mame32 compatible for most games?

ie. pacman? I ask for something simple in case xmame performance still isn't so great...I can still test with that game that has little cpu requirement.

I ask cuz I just want/need a nice inp sample to work with that is known to work fine in both of those...to then see if ok in that direct xmame port to mac.

The main difference would be the 68000 core again, DOS and Windows versions use the ASM version, which quite obviously can't be used on a Mac. But there is no reason why a DOS or Windows version couldn't use the C core. So yes, they should be compatible with a version compiled with that C 68000 core. Of course, this would only affect games that use a 68000 CPU, so this won't matter for Pacman.