What have you in mind to do with OCM ?

Page 17/19
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | | 18 | 19

Par Latok

msx guru (3866)

Portrait de Latok

14-12-2006, 21:55

Yes, Dumas. I know. But will it be available in large quantities?

Par msd

Paragon (1472)

Portrait de msd

14-12-2006, 22:17

Dumas sounds a little overkill for the ocm.. I mean you only need the enthernet part of it

Par Alex

Master (205)

Portrait de Alex

14-12-2006, 23:04

We need to connect the 1chipMSX to the internet so it needs an ethernet connector, either wired or wireless. But do these ethernet options have a standard way of using? Like cax already mentioned?

Apparently several of the USB / Wired-ethernet adapters use the same chipset. See www.linux-usb.org/usbnet/ for more details on this subject.

I suppose to make this work would require some support at the hardware level (in VHDL/FPGA) but also a driver at the software level. Maybe that the Nestor TCP/IP stack can be adapted?

Par Hydlide

Master (171)

Portrait de Hydlide

15-12-2006, 09:11

and if someone would implement the "BEEP" protocol (on the s/w or OS layer), real effortless zero configuration networking would be possible Smile

Par spl

Paragon (1470)

Portrait de spl

15-12-2006, 09:26

Yes, Dumas. I know. But will it be available in large quantities?

Dumas... you are talking about the writter? Tongue I am starting to be a bit skeptical about it...

Par Trebmint

Champion (294)

Portrait de Trebmint

15-12-2006, 11:01

Has anybody looked into hq2x or a similar filter thing though I'm not sure it would be possible. This would improve the look of all games, without adding features that aren't already there

Par snout

Ascended (15184)

Portrait de snout

15-12-2006, 12:17

Hmmm... it would be great if (an improved) Obsonet could be reproduced, as both USBorne and 512kB extra RAM aren't really useful for the OCM. Those are great for ordinary MSX2s, but not really necessarry for the OCM.

Par Niles

Hero (545)

Portrait de Niles

15-12-2006, 12:54

Is there any reason why SD/MMC slot is not enough as external storage ?

Currently you could have a lot of Gb of "MSX loadable stuff"... you can use one or more SD/MMC cards but, I prefer have all together in a single drive well organized plus MSX stuff for PC, MSX magazine scans and so on...

yes, it's a matter of preferences Eek!

Par spl

Paragon (1470)

Portrait de spl

15-12-2006, 13:48

Hmmm... it would be great if (an improved) Obsonet could be reproduced,

I agree here.

Par Tanni

Hero (556)

Portrait de Tanni

15-12-2006, 14:29

Hydlide, December 13 2006, 19:54:


I would like the MSX users define the standard for the next MSX systems by themselves. There must be discussions on that issue, and it will take some time. We need not come up with that in a few month. It also will become ''difficult'' to define such a standard when hardware can be changed by reconfigurating the system.

of course i meant users should have input. BUT, and this is a biggie: eventually someone will need to make a decision. From professional experience i know that if everyone keeps discussing, there will be no end. I think Bazix/D4E/MSXAssoc should be the parties to decide, okay, enough, this is what we will do.

I was talking to ivke2006 and talked about a sub-sub notebook powered by OCM .. a lightweight terminal for all kind of stuff.. Develop a decent USB stack and endless possibilities: wifi, bluetooth, etc

anyway, all I'm saying we should be open to possibilities, and not hold on to the old MSX standards too tightly. If that's going to be the case, then I'll have wasted 250 euros by buying the OCM and I'd rather use an emulator instead of "the real thing".

I agree with you, Hydlide. There shouldn't be endless discussions. At some point in time, there must be a decission made by BAZIX/D4D/MSX A. By the way, is there anybody from MSX Association here in this forum?

Your thoughts about the sub-sub notebook powered by OCM and the lightwight terminal for all kind of stuff sounds very good to me. Thats the way MSX should proceed. There also could be others of course, i.e. we should be open to all possibilities to keep MSX alive, in any form. Therefore, we need not hold on to the classical standards too tightly, because with FPGA based devices, we always can go back to the classical configuration.

dvik, December 13 2006, 20:05:

If that's going to be the case, then I'll have wasted 250 euros by buying the OCM and I'd rather use an emulator instead of "the real thing".

You bring up a good point. The OCM has a lot of potential and is a nice platform for different devices. I think its a quite big chance that we'll soon loose the 'M' in OCM if we go too far from the old MSX standards. Its not really anything bad in developing the VHDL and get the most out of the hardware. The OCM hardware could probably be used as a OCC64 or OCS without any problem, and of course it can be used for something more powerful. But my fear is that the only MSX thing left in the OCM will be the cartridge slot.

But if we can get other scenes to use the OCM hw, like spectrum and c64 or just as a custom vhdl platform, then production and sales could increase significantly which would reduce the price of the OCM which would benifit MSXers who would like to run the plain old boring MSX2 vhdl dvik,

MSX was one of the most flexible and most extensible homecomputer systems, if not the most. It was designed to be so. If there is a MSX philosophy at all, than it's that. With FPGA and VHDL, flexibility and extensibility extends to the hardware which now becomes configuable. Then, this would be covered by the MSX philosophy, too, doesn't it? As I have already mentioned earlier, FPGA is a design style. From the users point of view, one need not bother about the way the functionality of the chips is implemented. What counts to maintain the compatibility is that at least most of the existing MSX software will work on future MSX devices, even if the chip is totally different inside. Even in classical homecomputer times, there were some incompatible MSX stuff as far as I have heard.

So I can imagine a totally different MSX architecture based on runtime reconfigurable FPGA which detects if the software to be run is MSX1, MSX2, etc. and does some appropriate reconfiguration before executing it.

Has somebody already contacted other scenes to also use the OCM for their systems? This also was discussed here some time ago, as far as I remember.

wolf_, December 13 2006, 20:57:

tanni: my notebook can do a lot more than this OCM, and I already have one, and more people will have one (as desktop replacement for instance).

So from the perspective of already having a notebook, an OCM for office tasks seems a bit like a waste of time. Look, as far as I see computers, I think today's PC's are the office machines and the workhorses. In the 80's your MSX was also the office machine, but those days are over. I see the 'MSX' (both the old ones as well as the OCM) as a retro machine for games, and perhaps demos. On PC it's less 'done' to do real retro games because ppl could discard you as n00b if you don't make the most 1337 shooter at 1600x1200 res with all details on.. "Electronic Arts marketing" so to say ^_^ On a retromachine you don't need an excuse to do retro stuff, the thing *is* retro.. so you'll do what the machine's good at.

Which doesn't render SymbOS useless btw, tho I'd never use it for office tasks, it's still an extra de luxe filemanager.

So, what I'd personally would like the OCM to become is flexible gameconsole for retrogames.., those games you don't dare to pimp with on PC/PS2|3/M$X360 etc.

In fact, something G9k'ish VHDL code with fast memorymappable 'vram' and decent audio VHDL, and done we be! Let's call these extentions: G9k MK2 and Starsound. Then with boosted Z80 speed what more do we need?

wolf_, I have a notebook, too!

Most likely, Hydelide didn't have office applications in mind, and I don't have it either. MSX was never an office machine, none of the homecomputers really was. Maybe the early Apple machines, but were they really homecomputers in the sense of a ZX81, a ZX spectrum, a C64 or an MSX?

The term ''retro'' is not well choosen, it has a negative touch. Better to say classical homecomputers, classical games, etc. (sounds more like 'classical latin').

So, if you mentally get rid of the term ''retro'' in concern with homecomputers, you propably will think more forward on the issue. If you can extend the OCM VHDL code, than it will be done, even beyond your proposals.

Hydlide, December 13 2006, 20:59:

@dvik: ... but the hesitation is more or less founded in the same feelings: afraid to lose touch with the "old" architecture.

i think this is not necessarily the case, even if you implement lots of new features. but if we want to go ahead, maybe some sacrifices must be made, I think. and again, it's always possible to fallback to the original MSX version of course (which still needs some tweaking anyway).

the real question is: should OCM remain a geek only product which eventually will fade away apart from hardcore users, or should it become (at least try!) to get some marketshare, maybe function as a basis for other developments as well, and attract NEW users, not just the MSX diehards/fanboys/girls. Look at the v-tech computers.. simple, but fun.. and on a platform that's VERY outdated. Really, this was an opportunity missed by Nishi when he worked on the OCMv1.. if he (and MSXAA etc) would've looked further than just MSX compatibility, people would have an OCM instead of a v-tech. (ok, I'm dramatizing, but you get the point, I hope).

I'd prefer to have the OCM become a relative "mainstream" device (okay, it'll always be a niche), where developers could work on new software/extensions and even make some money from it. it doesn't need to be overtaking the PS/Wii/Xbox, but a smallish niche should be possible..

Maybe they fear to loose touch with the familiar architecture. But it also can be interesting to develop a new one. I totally agree with you!

dvik, December 13 2006, 21:18:

It reminds me of my compiler class at university. They invented their own simple CPU and computer language to make the class easier. Noone in the world would be interested in their CPU or language. Creating a new spec for a retro machine intended to just run retro like games sound a bit strange to be honest.

There are plenty of existing retro platforms that are a generation or two newer than MSX so there is no need at all to reinvent a similar system.

I think that if the OCM will evolve into something MSX3'ish with a higher spec than TR, it needs to provide something new, ...

In a compiler class, your're going to learn to build a compiler. This is best by practicing it. A real all purpose processor and a real all purpose programming language would be to complex and to complicated to be the subject of study, and you only need to get acquainted with the basic principles. Later, in a company, you will be doing new things based on that basic principles, very likely. With the OCM and hardware description it'll be just the same.

Alex, December 13 2006, 23:54:

I'm definitely not against defining an entirely new computer into the OCM with a faster CPU and a VDP with less rendering modes but with direct vram access by the CPU and with a blazingly fast command engine. I'm eventually willing to join such a project. If we get enough people to join this project and to agree on a common standard, we may even get the blessing from MSX Association and that they declare this new design a MSX3 or something like that. After all, only MSX Association can officially declare what is an MSX and what not; they own the MSX trademark.

Keep in mind that to make such a new MSX usefull, we must not only have a bunch of people that implement the VHDL part but there must also be volunteers who want to work on the operating system and on applications. This is a huge undertaking. Obviously, we could decide to keep the CPU compatible with the Z80 so that it will be relatively easy to port SymbOS. That would already give a big jump-start with respect to the OS and applications. But it would also make life difficult on the long run as the 64k address limit would stay in place and would still require paging tricks or some kind of virtual memory approach to be able to manage the memory.

On the other hand, it is also possible to be more ambitios, define a completely new 32-bit CPU and port a minimalistic linux system (e.g. some embedded linux flavor) to it. All options are still open.

I agree with that!

[D-Tail], December 14 2006, 07:24:

Maybe even MSX (and the OCM) should move towards the mobile area. I like the idea of carrying my MSX around everywhere

Yes, I like that idea, too! With OCM having access to the internet, it's also easier to download new configurations. For carring the OCM around, there must be a new casing with space for the batteries, etc.

Page 17/19
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | | 18 | 19