I don't see why not on paper, since AVG in SIDE emulation mode is supposed to act exactly like SIDE, and therefore should not present any ROM or registers in the way of U1MB. I tried the other day starting UFLASH.XEX from the AVG loader (not in SIDE mode) and it didn't work, but I attempted this only to answer a query from a forum user. In SIDE2 mode, the AVG loader should not feature in the procedure at all, which should be functionally indistinguishable from updating U1MB firmware using a real SIDE2.

Absolutely no doubt about it.

Bullshit:

Fact:

Bullshit:

Fact:

And so on...

You forgot this email account. I know time passes quickly as one gets older, but this email was sent only nineteen days ago from the same email account you previously used to register one of several sock-puppet accounts at AtariAge, at the very least (I won't repeat the details of more recent discussions I had with the forum administrators here).

That's great (albeit a bit hard to swallow given the fact you're using an account with which you previously spoke about yourself in the third-person despite the fact everyone suspected it was you using a pseudonym), but if that's genuinely true, do you want to start by not sending me stupid emails (from the same account you previously used to register an account at AtariAge)?

As per: https://forums.atariage.com/topic/11040 … nt=4194599

It's pretty clear who is 'playing the victim' here. Someone who propagated multiple AtariAge forum accounts and then - after being banned - multiple social media accounts, and has admitted same in as many words (falsely professing to have shut down the accounts on multiple occasions, before proceeding to continue using them). He then plays the victim by claiming that the consequences of his actions were not the result of maintaining sock accounts, shilling, spamming, libel, sending unsolicited and menacing emails and DMs, but some kind of conspiracy to damage his business. Perfectly legitimate constructive criticism (which began politely and in good faith before it became apparent that the protagonist was using the sock 'Bluemoon_001' account to deflect remarks about 'gaps in music' which were only recently acknowledged to have existed all along, and finally - three years later - have been fixed; this was only one of several illegitimate accounts) is - again - framed as 'victimisation', 'bashing', etc. You can see the discussion between two accounts (PeteyM5 and Bluemoon_001) maintained by the same person right here:

https://forums.atariage.com/topic/28529 … ser-video/

Why anyone would dredge up this three-year old farce (and the legitimate criticisms, which he clearly can't get over to this day) when it's the very thread that resulted in him being booted off the forum after he sailed too close to the wind with the 'Bluemoon_001' account, I don't know; I couldn't have selected a better example which demonstrates every point I am trying to make.

Never mind my 'understanding' and forgiveness toward stupid behaviour: there are 'social consequences' to pig-headedness (deafness to criticism) and deliberate deception (presenting to potential customers mutliple sock-accounts masquerading as independent, unbiased commentators); perhaps if one had not employed such nefarious methods in the first place, and had not continued to do so, it would not be necessary to publicise the matter for the benefit of uninformed community members (as I am inclined to do, having blocked the sock accounts, every time I receive another creepy email from a new burner account).

This is the reason this 'game developer [faced] challenges here', not because of 'envy' (of what?) or 'price'. Not even the nothingburger debates regarding PoP and its use of XBIOS or the game author's theatrical, cape-swinging exit from one of my threads is comparable in any way.

In any case: write more, since the material becomes more interesting with each post. ;)

I thought for a moment a few posts back that you had started to become reasonable, but clearly you still believe that someone who 'uses mean words' to the attention-seeking idiots previously listed deserves to have his house vandalised (violence, empty-threats and abject cowardice of course being the first refuge of those who cannot provide a cogent argument using words).

No, it's not pleasant at all, especially in such a small community. Peter can say it's not him, but unfortunately he's been caught in a lie yet again, since the 'Anne Krys Stark' account (previously named 'Katzpinke Colleen', 'Marie Rousso', 'Mary Rose Bartkowicz', and 'Meri Barinov') was one of the moderators of his facebook group when this screenshot was taken:

His attempts to explain this away just result in further convolution:

Regarding Rensoup: I can only assume Peter is referring to some debate regarding Prince of Persia, which fizzled out no later than March 2022. PoP is in fact freely downloadable, and Rensoup's latest (and quite reasonable) complaint is that someone appeared to be selling or was planning to sell pre-flashed cartridges with copies of his software on them.

As for Lance Ringquist: that's the usual response he issues, but he in fact shares Peter's opinion of AtariAge and repeatedly defends Peter's behaviour.

Here's another example of Peter admitting to being in control the account while simultaneously denying it:

Spooky.

Very remininscent of some shill facebook accounts which advocate vandalism and assert that 'we have agents everywhere'. I wouldn't post anything I wasn't happy to have repeated elsewhere on public forums anyway, so why the idea of 'eyes everywhere' is supposed to be intimidating, I do not know. I know one individual from Buffalo, NY has been reading this thread, since the shill social media accounts were out in force only hours later. And why would he not read it, since it was said in public.

I don't know where said posts are, but it's easy to contact me with bug reports (this being a beta) if the desire is to get things fixed and not simply to troll, and I just released a bug-fixed update the other day. Not that it was my idea to provide the beta on sold devices anyway (indeed, I initially prohibited this), and since I'm not responsible for the code which ensures the hardware behaves in a determinate manner on a given device, there is only so much I can do in terms of maintenance. ;)

That's the best thing you've ever written.