Talk:Snes9x

SNES9X not free software? Bwhuh??
Uhhh.... no. That makes zero sense. So what if it's for "non commercial purposes". That has absolutely no bearing or even anything to do with whether it is free software or not. And it is free to download and all to use, made so by the developer.

So, yeah. SNES9X is free software. This sentence really needs to change, asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.53.50 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 February 2009
 * Uhh... no. Do you even know the definition of free software? follow the link, first freedom is "Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.". Debian, following their free software guidelines distribute snes9x under non-free section, http://packages.debian.org/unstable/games/snes9x-x . Check the article on MAME licence, which is also free for non-commercial... You might at least bother to check before you edit.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.7.30 (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Now the article claimed its open source. Its license is not OSI approved hence not open source by definition (and their definition is substantially identical and genealogically related to FSF's), if one goes and reads the article on open source that was so linked, this is very clearly explained, click on the open source definition and see: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." I suggest one checks on the list of OSI approved licenses before claiming a particular one is open source: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical, and similarly on the FSF's list of free software licenses for claiming a particular one is free software http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html (and the two lists are like 99% identical) 93.136.98.152 (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What's emulated / What's not
Do we really need these section? Some of the stuff mentioned is rather obvious (if Snes9x didn't emulate the 65c816 main CPU it wouldn't be an SNES emulator), for one. For two, linking to the readme.txt file would probably be a lot more effective, not to mention it'd result in a much more concise article. TerraFrost 07:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We dont need that part at all. Replacing it by some declaration about "incompleteness of emulation" would be better. Whats different in ZSnes, actually thats what matters. Also, copypasting from readmes and websites is copyvio. --Omega Said 21:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

SDD-1
I've been doing a lot of SNES emulation, and I recall that SNESGT (for which there is no page at the moment) implemented SDD-1 decompression before Snes9x did. The code was released onto the Snes9x forum (at which point it was probably already in private builds of Snes9x) and the coders of SNESGT implemented it into a public release a few days prior to a release of Snes9x with the code in it. The paragraph that says Snes9x was first should probably be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.81.172 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 July 2006


 * It's actually spelled S-DD1. --Snarius 06:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It says SNES9X has been ported to the DS.
I haven't found it. Can there be proof? The site needs it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It was never ported to the DS, since Snes9x was originally designed for use on PC it is way too resource intensive/inefficient to run on the DS hardware at least without intense optimization. I removed the link. - Aug Leopold (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dev comment
While Brad is still involved in the SNES emulation scene, he no longer takes an active role in developing snes9x. I might rephrase the statement something like "Initially the collaborative effort of Gary Henderson of snes96 fame and Jerremy Koot of snes97 fame, and later maintained by Brad Jorsch and MKendora, Snes9x is now maintained by ...", but I will not directly edit this article myself due to WP:COI. This was left by (presumably) one of the devs as an HTML comment in the article. I am moving it here where it belongs. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

lockdown?
whats this about a lockdown from google and firefox? is it true or false? should i delete it or keep it?

Please discuss! Tranceduo (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See . Anomie⚔ 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if this a little demanding but could you please copy and paste or just summarize the link? thanks! Tranceduo (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was an SQL injection bug in the software managing the site, which was used by some cracker/bot to insert malicious javascript into some of the pages on the site. Google detected that malicious javascript and listed snes9x.com in their "suspected attack site" listing, which is used by some versions of Firefox to put up a warning. Anomie⚔ 11:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lockdown?
I read in the previous discussion section about a problem with an SQL injection bug in the software that manages snes9x.com, and Google listed that website in their "Suspected attack site" listing.

I don't know much about this kind of stuff. But I clicked on the first link in the previous discussion section, which brought me to that site. I guess it was just the forum on snes9x.com....

But could somebody tell me if my computer is now at risk since I was on snes9x.com? It said in the forum that they were fixing the problem....'''Does anybody know whether snes9x.com is safe to go to? I would also like to know (if anybody knows) if Snes9x itself has malicious code or similar problems that haven't been fixed yet.'''

Sorry if I sound like a 6th grader...I wish I understood that stuff better. Thanks for reading and I hope to get a response! I know this isn't for discussion of things outside the article, but I figured since it doesn't mention anything in the article itself about this, that I could question this. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I forgot to mention (not sure if it matters)---I use Firefox 3.5.7. Thanks. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the attack happened more than one year ago. As far as I know, Snes9x.com has been completely safe since then. --Lashiec (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh... so it was just a temporary thing? That's good to know. Thanks, that had me quite worried. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I hope that didn't sound sarcastic. My intent was truly to be thankful, not to sound sassy, but I forget how ambiguous typed text can be sometimes! Let me rephrase that so that it doesn't sound that way: "Thanks for checking! I was quite worried about this, but now I don't have to be! :) 24.10.181.254 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources tag
I removed the "primary sources" tag - the info in this article is very straightforward and utilitarian and thus not prone to bias, and the fact is, "reliable 3rd-party sources" as usually defined on WP, simply don't publish on the minutiae of SNES emulators. Thus primary sources are acceptable in this case under stated WP policy. The tag implies that there is something wrong with this article and I find no basis in fact for that supposition. Feel free to share your thoughts. --173.233.16.44 (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That reliable third parties don't comment on SNES emulators is why we don't routinely cover SNES emulators. Either reliable third party sources are eventually added, or this article ceases to be. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

According to original author, information on Wikipedia is wrong
The snes9x history in this article is the same as when the message below, written by original developer Jerremy Koot, was posted. It appears corrections should be made to the article.

"Some info on the Snes9? series of emulators, some of which is wrong in most of the interwebz (even incorrect on Wiki).

Snes96 was originally also written by me, it is often claimed (incorrectly) that Snes96 was solely written by Gary. This is completely untrue, Snes96 was not even started by Gary!

I started that project in '95 and released the first working version in '96, but due to time constraints I had to drop the project. When I did that I offered the code to a select few that e-mailed me. Gary was one of those select few and the only one that actually continued my work.

In '97 I got the emulator vibes again and started work on Snes97, my main goal was to fix a lot of the issues Snes96 had (mainly in the graphics department). Snes97 was completely written from scratch.

When I started Snes97, Gary (who was one of the few to ask for the Snes96 code and actually continue work) had started working on sound support and squashing a bunch of bugs in the instruction core.

Somewhere in '98 me and Gary decided to combine his continued work on Snes96 and my new work on Snes97 into Snes9x. Which is the emulator you all now use. "

(Source: http://www.snes9x.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=29484&highlight=#29484) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.182.58 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! The article needs to be changed with the correct information. --LordKaiser00 (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"First SNES emulator to offer sound" is very likely incorrect
I'm 90% sure ESNES was the first. I can't find any source for that info though. All I know is it was discontinued only one month after Snes9x started development, and the last version does have sound support. I can't figure out when that support was added, but ESNES started development on Oct 1st, 1996. http://www.zophar.net/snes/esnes.html 68.147.60.10 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Image:
Reminder that the image for Snes9x is used on the main Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System section. The last one was deleted and replaced with another image, but the image in that section was not updated. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary licenses (GNU LGPLv2.1, GNU GPLv2+)
In the sidebar, the licenses GNU LGPLv2.1 and GNU GPLv2+ are listed, both with "clarification needed" tags. I think both licenses should be removed, because (1) these are the licenses of projects based on Snes9x, and (2) the supposed licenses of said projects seem invalid.

I'm looking at this thread http://www.snes9x.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4835, and it seems that these licenses (along with several others) were used for various projects based on Snes9x, against the wishes of the developers. In fact, I think the original license does not allow re-release under these licenses, due to the non-commercial clause. The thread says this situation arose because the projects were hosted on code.google.com, which used to not allow "other" as a choice of license.

I archived the 2-page thread here https://archive.is/tQ8ur and https://archive.is/0M5YE, and the linked page about code.google.com changing its license options here https://archive.is/iO4eN. Vikareya (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarify that SD2SNES is now FXPak
SD2SNES changed its name into FXPak, so I think the name should be changed with a clarification that it was originally called SD2SNES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.249.251 (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Authencity of ROMS
How do we tell if the downloaded ROMS are authentic? Also, by "emulating", does it imply that the samples have been recreated from scratch, or actually uses the originals? Also, how are SNES games ported to ROM? --31.35.43.49 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Discontinued
While there are occasional repo updates, no official versions were released in 2.5 years, which might be enough to consider adding discontinued = yes to the infobox.

Keep in mind it's very unrealistic there'll be sources confirming a discontinued software, which just stopped updating its official versions years ago.

In the off chance they'll one day release a new official version, the infobox can always be updated accordingly. -Cardace (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you before, you need to cite a source when setting  in the infobox. Wikipedia is quite content to leave this status unspecified in the absence of a reliable, published source.  — jmcgnh (talk)  (contribs) 10:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As per jmcgnh - it's important to note that there are in reality three settings for parameters in the infobox - "yes", "no", and "unknown" - which is covered by just not using the param at all. As there is no corroborating data either way - just leave it blank until there is...  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)