I know that it is a double edged sword for each.
The pros and cons (from what little I know):
Stable build: it is [supposed to be] less buggy and be more reliable. However it does not get updates nearly as fast as the dev. builds (because obviously its not a dev. build :p).
Development build: has hot fixes (I think that's the right term) and is updated much faster. However things can break much more easily.
__________
So should I use the stable or dev. build? keep in mind I am some what of a noob, but I am willing to learn. Cheers!
Use both.
Try your games with the stable release first. If they work fine you have no reason to use something else. If they don't work then try latest builds (or older ones
).
Also you can try latest builds to see what improvements/changes have just been done. Not necessarily to play but to keep up-to-date.
This is what I usually do
(04-12-2013, 12:01 AM)LordVador Wrote: [ -> ]Use both.
Try your games with the stable release first. If they work fine you have no reason to use something else. If they don't work then try latest builds (or older ones ).
Also you can try latest builds to see what improvements/changes have just been done. Not necessarily to play but to keep up-to-date.
This is what I usually do
Thanks for the advice. I think I'll try the stable build and see how it runs first. First I need to rip my games and hope that they work...
This is a subjective decision, just do what floats your boat.
If you want to have the latest features (such as the reworked HLE audio), the development builds are your best bet, for the most part they're fairly stable, but they might crash every now and then.
(04-12-2013, 09:43 AM)nintendo_nerd Wrote: [ -> ]but they might crash every now and then.
Not that the same isn't true of the "stable releases".
(04-12-2013, 09:53 AM)RachelB Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2013, 09:43 AM)nintendo_nerd Wrote: [ -> ]but they might crash every now and then.
Not that the same isn't true of the "stable releases".
Cool a developer!
____
Yep no release is truly "stable". I think that a "stable release" is a release that is just
less likely to crash and have problems.
Really, the point of using a stable release is that it stays the same, and it's easier to find information on what works and what doesn't (since more people use it). In general, the newest revision will be the best. Sometimes though, there's regressions, and things stop working. The benefit of using a stable release is that you can easily find out what works, and what doesn't, and that will always be the case. If you stay up to date with the newest changes, you can't easily be sure something that worked last week will still work today.
The stable release is NOT less likely to have problems. Do you think we've just been making things worse in the over 1200 commits to master since 3.5? Some things have gotten worse, but overall, it's pretty safe to say the latest revision has way fewer problems than 3.5.
(04-12-2013, 01:52 PM)RachelB Wrote: [ -> ]Really, the point of using a stable release is that it stays the same, and it's easier to find information on what works and what doesn't (since more people use it). In general, the newest revision will be the best. Sometimes though, there's regressions, and things stop working. The benefit of using a stable release is that you can easily find out what works, and what doesn't, and that will always be the case. If you stay up to date with the newest changes, you can't easily be sure something that worked last week will still work today.
The stable release is NOT less likely to have problems. Do you think we've just been making things worse in the over 1200 commits to master since 3.5? Some things have gotten worse, but overall, it's pretty safe to say the latest revision has way fewer problems than 3.5.
I was wrong. I guess it does make sense to have one version to be able to easily get information for.
Commit? I'm assuming that's a change? sorry I don't know the terminology. I'm just going off what Google says about programming and "commits".
To answer your rhetorical question: "Do you think we've just been making things worse in the over 1200 commits to master since 3.5?" Well I'd hope not. I just like to stay with the stable version, because why would I want to upgrade 2 times every day? granted I'm sure some users (not devs. who have to do it) do, but as for me it is just a hassle. Since my games for the most part run fine I don't see the need to use the SVN/Nightly Build (whatever you call it). Unless I need to upgrade for some reason I'll just wait until the next stable release is picked.
Sorry for apparently ticking you off. Thanks for your work on the emulator though.
Quote:Commit? I'm assuming that's a change?
That's right.
Quote:I just like to stay with the stable version, because why would I want to upgrade 2 times every day?
Well, you wouldn't. It might be wise to update every few weeks, or months though.
Quote:Sorry for apparently ticking you off.
You didn't. Sorry if it came across that way.