FAQ Question Suggestions to be added?

[Deathlike2]

I think there should be more questions... which include some of the following.. (some ideas stolen from the Snes9x FAQ)

What's an IPS file? I have a translation/hack for a game, how do I use it?

One side note: In the IPS patching section.. it should be noted that "IPS" will be displayed on the ZSNES screen when an IPS patch is loaded and that the checksum will generally be bad...

Why is the text squished in some games like Secret of Mana and what can I do about it?

Why is the screensaver kicking in while I'm using a gamepad and what can I do about it? (I assume this happens.. otherwise there wouldn't be a feature for it)

What can I do to stop the emulator from continuing to run while something interrupts ZSNES? (I think the question could be phrased better)

I have two monitors.. can/how do I get ZSNES to run on one/both of them?

[Jipcy]

I have two monitors.. can/how do I get ZSNES to run on one/both of them?

I definitely agree with this one.

This brings up a good point. Right now the FAQ is kinda the documentation page that holds everything that doesn't fit everywhere else.

I'm going to get right to the point. I think the current documentation is too large, especially the FAQ page. Obviously, ZSNES is a very complex program, with LOTS of different features that need to be explained. However, my goal is to make the non-FAQ parts of the documentation more robust and thorough, so that the answer to a user's question could be inferred from the main documentation, rather than explicitely answered in the FAQ.

Furthermore, I would like to reduce as much as is reasonably/practically possible the amount of non-ZSNES related information in the current documentation. Ideally, all users of ZSNES would always know what to do, but they don't, so we write documentation. But, we have to set a limit at SOME point, so that we don't end up documenting the entire world. The information in the documentation should be directly related to ZSNES and the use of the program.

How does this change the current docs? Well, most of the pages in the current docs are pretty straightforward and are directly related to ZSNES. However, the FAQ page is huge, and somewhat poorly organized, just by the virtue that its a bunch of questions and answers. So, my greater goal is to try to move some of the detailed information in the FAQ to another location, possibly the ZSNES-docs website, and point the user to find information there.

For example, the question about the IPS file. It doesn't belong in the ZSNES documentation. It's a more general question about emulation. Yes, we should explain how to use IPS files with ZSNES, but we should not explain what they are, etc. Perhaps we can put this information on the zdocs website, but not in the main documentation.

Anyway, that's my thoughts for now.

[Deathlike2]

I have two monitors.. can/how do I get ZSNES to run on one/both of them?

I definitely agree with this one.

This brings up a good point. Right now the FAQ is kinda the documentation page that holds everything that doesn't fit everywhere else.

I'm going to get right to the point. I think the current documentation is too large, especially the FAQ page. Obviously, ZSNES is a very complex program, with LOTS of different features that need to be explained. However, my goal is to make the non-FAQ parts of the documentation more robust and thorough, so that the answer to a user's question could be inferred from the main documentation, rather than explicitely answered in the FAQ.

Furthermore, I would like to reduce as much as is reasonably/practically possible the amount of non-ZSNES related information in the current documentation. Ideally, all users of ZSNES would always know what to do, but they don't, so we write documentation. But, we have to set a limit at SOME point, so that we don't end up documenting the entire world. The information in the documentation should be directly related to ZSNES and the use of the program.

How does this change the current docs? Well, most of the pages in the current docs are pretty straightforward and are directly related to ZSNES. However, the FAQ page is huge, and somewhat poorly organized, just by the virtue that its a bunch of questions and answers. So, my greater goal is to try to move some of the detailed information in the FAQ to another location, possibly the ZSNES-docs website, and point the user to find information there.

For example, the question about the IPS file. It doesn't belong in the ZSNES documentation. It's a more general question about emulation. Yes, we should explain how to use IPS files with ZSNES, but we should not explain what they are, etc. Perhaps we can put this information on the zdocs website, but not in the main documentation.

Anyway, that's my thoughts for now.

I think the documentation is large in respect to that it is written in html, but I could be wrong. Definately there is too much info there to digest and needs more separation.

I agree with the assessment that something like IPS doesn't really need to be in the documentation except when it applies to using them...

Some of the FAQ questions could definately be grouped better.. that's for sure.

I think what you plan to do will take some time... personally when I compare the size of the Snes9x FAQ file to ZSNES's... a whole lot could be clarified better to reduce the need for "too much info".

[Jipcy]

I think the documentation is large in respect to that it is written in html, but I could be wrong.

I'm not really sure what that means. Yes, the HTML mark-up adds to the total size, in bytes, of the docs. But the usability gained from the HTML more than outweights the extra bytes. Besides, the ratio of mark-up to content is tiny.

Even in addition to that, we will be offering text-format documentation alongside the HTML docs. I don't think any of us are yet sure how we will offer them. But, we might package both the full txt and HTML docs in each official distribution.

[Nach]

I originally thought text for DOS, CHM for Windows, HTML for SDL.

Although thinking more, it might be best to package all...

[Jipcy]

I agree the txt must be packaged with the DOS port, but I really don't see why we need the CHM at all. Since it's exactly the same thing as the HTML docs, only harder to use. I personally think we should package the HTML docs with all ports, and then the others formats as desired with the various ports.

[Deathlike2]

I agree the txt must be packaged with the DOS port, but I really don't see why we need the CHM at all. Since it's exactly the same thing as the HTML docs, only harder to use. I personally think we should package the HTML docs with all ports, and then the others formats as desired with the various ports.

CHM is Windows only right?

The only useful thing CHM (like HLP) has is to have some neat logical form/menu... though, the current version of it seems to render oddly with the ZSNES logo looking off...

I think it makes sense to dump CHM altogether...

HTML is universal...

TXT is more universal though...

[Jipcy]

CHM is Windows only right?

No, there are CHM viewers for Linux and such.

[Deathlike2]

CHM is Windows only right?

No, there are CHM viewers for Linux and such.

I meant something different.

Does Linux by default able to view CHM files? It is not good when you need something installed just for the docs... I hate it when sites tell you to use Adobe because their doc is in pdf format (not that Foxit PDF Reader doesn't kick ass, but it's a minor hassle).

[Jipcy]

I meant something different.

Does Linux by default able to view CHM files? It is not good when you need something installed just for the docs... I hate it when sites tell you to use Adobe because their doc is in pdf format (not that Foxit PDF Reader doesn't kick ass, but it's a minor hassle).

Right. I don't think there's a default viewer, however it's kinda hard to talk about "defaults" with Linux.

Windows XP is the only Windows OS I know has a default viewer for CHM, since it's the only OS in which I've used/viewed a CHM file.

The other thing about CHM files is that, at least in Windows, I think it uses the Internet Explorer rendering engine. Which brings its own problems. People should have a choice about how they view their HTML files, and CHM takes away that choice.

[Deathlike2]

I meant something different.

Does Linux by default able to view CHM files? It is not good when you need something installed just for the docs... I hate it when sites tell you to use Adobe because their doc is in pdf format (not that Foxit PDF Reader doesn't kick ass, but it's a minor hassle).

Right. I don't think there's a default viewer, however it's kinda hard to talk about "defaults" with Linux.

Windows XP is the only Windows OS I know has a default viewer for CHM, since it's the only OS in which I've used/viewed a CHM file.

The other thing about CHM files is that, at least in Windows, I think it uses the Internet Explorer rendering engine. Which brings its own problems. People should have a choice about how they view their HTML files, and CHM takes away that choice.

When I mean by default.. you have just installed the OS, and you click on the file and the file opens immediately without any extra intervention.

I believe Win98 supports it.. for sure Win98SE and later.

As said before, I'd just drop CHM to make life easier.

[Clements]

CHM files are compressed, self contained, searchable, and accessible to virtually all users using ZSNES. A lot of other emulators I know have CHM files:

• Project64
• 1964
• Chankast
• ePSXe
• PCSX2

... and so on. Advantages over the other formats in more detail:

• It becomes harder to search when you have more than a single page like with the text and HTML docs. CHM has a built-in search that highlights key words for you on any of the pages. The CHM is easier to use than the other formats because of this. Why would it be harder? These files are already used extensively in Windows Help, and they are intuitive and work like a webpage does.
• Compression means it takes less space on your hard drive. It is 50% of the size of the HTML docs. Text docs are the same size but do not have the complete changelog. If it did, then the CHM is smaller here too.
• Self-contained means there's less clutter and the CHM can reside along with ZSNES without making a huge mess, or putting the docs in a folder that people may not necessarily notice.
• Accessible since all versions of Windows from Win95 and up can view them (yep, all the versions that ZSNESW can run on), and also Linux as well with free software if you so wish.

Any rendering problems are due to the code not cooperating with IE and should be reported, so possible fixes can be written. I have reported many IE-specific issues as have some others through my work on the CHM, and they were all fixed without invalidating anything.

The text, HTML and website-based docs for ZSNES are still being maintained for the purpose of compatibility - no one is forcing anybody to use the CHM alone, it's another documentation format that's convenient for Windows users in particular.

Updating SVN, editing, compiling and commiting the CHM takes me about 2 minutes = no hassle.

[Nach]

When I mean by default.. you have just installed the OS, and you click on the file and the file opens immediately without any extra intervention.

Linux has no default of being able to click on anything.
Linux has no default viewers for anything.

I hear the next KDE version will have CHM support in the base package.
Some distros today also have XCHM in the default install.

[creaothceann]

Just my two cents...

Compression means it takes less space on your hard drive. It is 50% of the size of the HTML docs. Text docs are the same size but do not have the complete changelog. If it did, then the CHM is smaller here too.

Personally, the size of the docs doesn't bother me when it has reached my hard drive. It doesn't take away that much space.

Self-contained means there's less clutter and the CHM can reside along with ZSNES without making a huge mess, or putting the docs in a folder that people may not necessarily notice.

You can always put a shortcut to the main HTML file in the base directory.

[Clements]

Size can save bandwidth, and thus money. I have 300GB at my fingertips, but I do compress the ZSNES EXE with UPX, just to save unnecessary wastage of space.

Extra shortcuts are not necessary when you can have a CHM in the same folder.

I don't understand the negativety towards the CHM. I would personally rather have that than the entire source code of a website. It's very unprofessional, confusing to a non-computer literate user as to what file contains the info they need (the sort of people who want to read the docs in the first place) and cumbersome to use, but I am not in favour of getting rid of the HTML docs. They are required for both the website and the CHM. The more formats we have, the more users it can reach, the less unnecessary posts on the boards and the less confused users there are.

I would understand if the CHM was hard to compile, or use, or was bloated in file size. The exact opposite is true for these.

[Jipcy]

Size can save bandwidth, and thus money.

Moot point since all the distributed packages are compressed anyway. The compression ratio of zipped/rarred HTML files is probably about the same as CHM-compressed HTML files. And a CHM file probably doesn't get compressed much further inside a standard archive.

I would personally rather have that than the entire source code of a website. It's very unprofessional, confusing to a non-computer literate user as to what file contains the info they need (the sort of people who want to read the docs in the first place) and cumbersome to use, but I am not in favour of getting rid of the HTML docs.

Yes, a shortcut in the main directory next to ZSNES labeled "Help" or something would probably help. However, it's not really source code for a web site. The format of the docs has no bearing on their intended media of distribution. The fact that they are HTML makes it easy to publish them on the web, however.

And come on. Really. There's a certian limit we have to set as to how much we "baby" users of ZSNES. If they can't figure out how to open HTML files, they probably shouldn't be attempting to use ZSNES.

[Deathlike2]

When I mean by default.. you have just installed the OS, and you click on the file and the file opens immediately without any extra intervention.

Linux has no default of being able to click on anything.
Linux has no default viewers for anything.

I hear the next KDE version will have CHM support in the base package.
Some distros today also have XCHM in the default install.

I didn't mean literally like that.. some distributions obviously include certain apps/plugins by default but you did answer the question thoroughly though. I just wanted to know which Linux distros had a chm viewer installed by default...

One other thing..

CHM is a handy format in its own way.. I think we should distribute it but separate from the ZSNES Windows port.

The only Windows OS that most likely does not support it natively is Win95.. and although we all pray they have moved on to newer and better computers.. this OS is the only reason as to why we shouldn't distribute the chm version by default. It does sound pretty weak, but that's the only real negative here.

Obviously CHM was primarily introduced for Win98 and later.. and anything requiring extra programs to support it is not a good idea (Linux users primarily).. hell, we are giving them a man version... though man is literally the Unix/Linux equivalent of the manual..

That's probably all I have on CHM.

Some slightly relevent info found in this link:
http://www.ingasoftplus.com/id76.htm

HLP files are supported under Win95.. but I never did like that format.

[creaothceann]

I think CHM help files were supported in Win95 when you installed a certain version of IE. Can't remember any details though...

The *.HLP reader (winhlp32.exe) closes when you press the ESC key... that's the only reason I still like them.

[/ot]

[Deathlike2]

I think CHM help files were supported in Win95 when you installed a certain version of IE. Can't remember any details though...

The *.HLP reader (winhlp32.exe) closes when you press the ESC key... that's the only reason I still like them.

[/ot]

I presume it was installed with IE4.. IE3 didn't have super amounts of bloat at the time, but if someone could find out.. that would be great.

Edit: Never mind, I was right. Found a relevent link:
http://www.helpscribble.com/htmlhelp.html

[Clements]

The only Windows OS that most likely does not support it natively is Win95.. and although we all pray they have moved on to newer and better computers.. this OS is the only reason as to why we shouldn't distribute the chm version by default. It does sound pretty weak, but that's the only real negative here.

This is true. But also consider that ZSNES itself cannot run on all Win9x or even earlier Windows 2000 releases natively. Reason being that DirectX 8.0 is required for the Windows version, which has to be downloaded separately. DirectX 8.0+ is only available by default on WinXP and perhaps some versions of Win2k that have service packs bundled. You can get newer versions of IE with Windows Update, so it would be unusual for a Win95 user to not have IE4 unless they did a fresh install and couldn't access updates. If you know to download DirectX8.0a for Win95 for ZSNES, you can download IE4 from Windows Update too.

[Deathlike2]

The only Windows OS that most likely does not support it natively is Win95.. and although we all pray they have moved on to newer and better computers.. this OS is the only reason as to why we shouldn't distribute the chm version by default. It does sound pretty weak, but that's the only real negative here.

This is true. But also consider that ZSNES itself cannot run on all Win9x or even earlier Windows 2000 releases natively. Reason being that DirectX 8.0 is required for the Windows version, which has to be downloaded separately. You can get newer versions of IE with Windows Update, so it would be unusual for a Win95 user to not have IE4 unless they did a fresh install and couldn't access updates.

The difference though is that most users that give a damn about gaming will have some newer DX version installed... Documentation should not have such a requirement.. only games/apps should have requirements to install the necessary stuff to run them properly.

Windows 95 doesn't have Windows Update available by default.. only when IE4 or above is installed. No Win95 installation (unless "slipstreamed" or whatever) has IE4 by default... only the later versions of Win95 have IE3. I don't really know what browser they generally use to surf the Internet, but forcing them to install IE4 or better is not a good solution.

Also.. Windows 2000 includes DX7 by default. Service packs do not change the DX version at all.

[Clements]

It appears that there actually is a version of Windows 95 that came with IE4 called OEM Service Release 2.5, so you're wrong on that point.

Service packs do not change the DX version at all.

In general though, they can, since WinXP SP2 included DX9.0c, whereas SP1 only had 8.1. I have never owned Win2000 so wasn't sure if SP1-4 included DX8.0.

[Deathlike2]

It appears that there actually is a version of Windows 95 that came with IE4 called OEM Service Release 2.5, so you're wrong on that point.

I guess, but that was near the end of its lifetime (same version that probably supports AGP). I wouldn't really consider it the majority of the Win95 user base though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95

I love the various Win95/IE versions that came through..

Service packs do not change the DX version at all.

In general though, they can, since WinXP SP2 included DX9.0c, whereas SP1 only had 8.1. I have never owned Win2000 so wasn't sure if SP1-4 included DX8.0.

I should have said Win2k Service Packs. That I should know because that is my primary OS.

[Clements]

It appears that there actually is a version of Windows 95 that came with IE4 called OEM Service Release 2.5, so you're wrong on that point.

I guess, but that was near the end of its lifetime (same version that probably supports AGP). I wouldn't really consider it the majority of the Win95 user base though.

From 1997 onwards, Windows 95 supported it natively, so for a user to not be able to view the CHM the following criteria must be met:

- PC or CD must be bought prior to 1997;
- PC must not be updated in regards to IE.

To be even using ZSNES:

- The PC needs to have DirectX 8.0a in order to run ZSNES;
- Computer must also meet the system requirements of the Windows version of ZSNES, and of course be bought in 1996 to meet criteria 1.

So the reason we are not shipping ZSNES with the CHM is because a handful of users who are still using Windows 95 (bought prior to 1997) who do not update their PC in regards to IE (but do with DirectX) will not be able to open it. So we are depriving the vast majority of users here for a technicality that affects people with computers that pre-date 1997. Fantastic.

[Deathlike2]

It appears that there actually is a version of Windows 95 that came with IE4 called OEM Service Release 2.5, so you're wrong on that point.

I guess, but that was near the end of its lifetime (same version that probably supports AGP). I wouldn't really consider it the majority of the Win95 user base though.

From 1997 onwards, Windows 95 supported it natively, so for a user to not be able to view the CHM the following criteria must be met:

- PC or CD must be bought prior to 1997;
- PC must not be updated in regards to IE.

To be even using ZSNES:

- The PC needs to have DirectX 8.0a in order to run ZSNES;
- Computer must also meet the system requirements of the Windows version of ZSNES, and of course be bought in 1996 to meet criteria 1.

So the reason we are not shipping ZSNES with the CHM is because a handful of users who are still using Windows 95 (bought prior to 1997) who do not update their PC in regards to IE (but do with DirectX) will not be able to open it. So we are depriving the vast majority of users here.

I wouldn't go so far into making that the prime reason. I think it is a reason.

For the small minority that even use Win95.. consider the following:
Unlike Win98/SE that have actual product differentiation, Win95 has it more obscure. You have the A, B, and C designations.. and unlike 2k/XP users have service packs (though MS won't give 2k users a new SP ), Win95 users must actually find/buy the updated builds to take advantage of the newer features (95 original did get a service pack to the A version, but that was it).

There are so many unique/quirky things about Win95, it's rather sad too. Did you know only the C version of Win95 had AGP support (I heard it was poor)? Did you know the B version was when USB support was added (it had an update for supporting USB)? Not that it pertains to ZSNES directly, Win95 is generally not the OS of choice in many circumstances...

Though, I often wonder with 95 being the minimal OS ZSNES supports, then again a Geforce 2 is recommended for the video card (not that most video cards bought off the retail shelf can't run it) it seems rather extreme. Meh, what do I know?

For a related thought, what stops a user from using Mozilla/Opera instead of updating their IE in Win95?