> > You prefer a tiny, non-fullscreen applet embedded in a webpage over a
> > fullscreen, vsync'ed opengl, rendered app, which you can use offline as well?
> A Java emu is great, but if you have to install it and have fullscreen and
> stuff, surely MAME would work exactly the same and be faster?
> I think it would be better if it was directly in a webpage...
Compared to MAME or java applets, there's a few things going for JEmu2 (some of which is directly related to it being developed in Java and deployed using webstart):
* Installation is as easy as it can be: You click a link on a webpage and it gets installed and started automatically. You don't have to manually download a file, unzip, click set.exe etc. You even don't have to click 'next' a few times, just one click on a webpage and you get a menu to start a game immediately :-) Getting MAME32, install it, hunt for roms and play a few games can be quite a hassle for non technical people.
* Your installation is updated automatically, so you always have the latest version.
* I know it works on Mac and Linux too, even though I've never seen it work on that because I don't have a mac or linux box.
* JEmu2 saves high-scores on the internet. I personally think this adds a lot to the fun.
* Unlike an applet, you can use it offline too.
* Unlike an applet, you can play the games full screen and vsync'ed (vsync is enabled by default when using full-screen, unlike MAME)
* With applets, there's always versioning problems and browser integration issues. The last time I checked a java applet game, I couldn't play because my browser uses the same keys the applet used. With web start, you have much more control.
But of course, it will never really compare to MAME, but then again, MAME has a slightly different goal. JEmu2 is all about playing the games.
And of course MAME is faster, but JEmu2 is fast enough for the games it currently supports so who cares?