Is the One Chip MSX a real MSX or not?

Page 7/13
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Par iamweasel2

Paladin (701)

Portrait de iamweasel2

10-02-2007, 22:13

IMHO, this thread raises important points:
As DVik said, the question about OCM being an emulator or a real MSX uses the idea that if it's an emulator, it can never be as good as a real MSX. I don't believe in that, since BlueMSX and OpenMSX are there to prove that, if its well done, an emulator can supply all the needs a msx user has, with many advantages compared to a real machine. In the other hand, Snout is right about the coolness of turning on the OCM, and having it boot quickly without having to wait for a host OS to load, or using real cartridges in OCM. On the other hand OCM cannot accurately run as many msx software as Blue/Open can, so it looses to these emulators in this very important issue (compatibility). IMO, currently OCM does not fulfill entirely its goal (to provide a new MSX machine to msx users) yet, but that may change in the future. So how to settle the question about what is a MSX and what isn't? I would say that anything that behaves accurately as a MSX in such a way that no one can write a MSX software that can recognize if its running in a real (classic machine in this case) MSX or anything else, deserve to be recognized as a MSX. A software meant to test the hardware and its timing could be developed to settle this question about anything that is meant to work as a MSX, in a similar way Sun has its own test to certify any software that claims to be a 100% functional Java Virtual Machine. Maybe that would be a reasonable way to solve this question... Smile

Par iamweasel2

Paladin (701)

Portrait de iamweasel2

10-02-2007, 22:30

MSX2 programs don't run on MSX-machines. MSX turboR programs don't run on MSX2-machines. Still, both MSX2 and MSX turboR machines are MSX machines. No one questions that. Same counts for 1chipMSX. If MSX Association says this device is an MSX, so be it. And whether it's compatible? Hopefully, with future VHDL updates, MSX Association creates a computer which suits our modern needs. I can't imagine this MSX being compatible with MSX, MSX2 and MSX turboR. I would like the idea of backwards compatibility, though.

That's a good point. Does OCM runs all MSX1 software well enough so we can say its a "perfect" (?) MSX(1) machine? Smile

Par Ramones

Champion (264)

Portrait de Ramones

11-02-2007, 00:45

Ok, Latok but ... run OCM soft in my "real" MSX2?

Sorry Latok, but... OCM is "new" MSX Machine? Have new "features"?
I guess OCM is a new MSX2 "model". New Machine involve new features and backwards compatibility, no?

MSX->MSX2 : New VDP, 64k Ram base, ... MSX comp.
MSX2 -> MSX2+ : New VDP ... MSX, MSX2 comp
MSX2+ -> Tr : New micro, .... MSX, MSX2, 2+ Comp ...

TR -> OCM : ?¿?¿? MSX,MSX2 comp?

In *this* moment OCM is only a new MSX2 computer. And for me, this is enought. Smile

Think in new MSX with "modern" needs is stupid. I have a beatiful Mac with to supply modern needs. Smile And the hardware in OCM is ... old for make new computer.

OCM YES, but please ... totally compatible with MSX and MSX2 soft ... and please ... new OCM soft, totally compatible with MSX2, 2+ and TR computers.

Par multi

Expert (74)

Portrait de multi

11-02-2007, 17:01

this discussion is too weird...

1 lets all agree this is not the MSX2 but the MSX OC.
2 also lets agree that newer MSX'es were NOT 100% backward compatible (TR without no cassete poort, 1 T-Cycle slower timing on a MSX2+ VDP then a MSX2 VDP, etc)

so what is the problem?

the MSX OC is a machine that runs on LE's instead of Z80 opcodes. it's parallel instead of serial and it's backward compatible (to some degree) via an MSXA approved MSX2 simulator.

now the question is: why do all of you try to make the MSX OC something it's not?

in my oppinion the problem is not if the MSX OC is an MSX or not, it's not if its MSX backward compatibility is simulated or not. those are both clearly true!

now lets all go think what the real problem is and why we are arguing if this is a MSX or not?

Par Latok

msx guru (3866)

Portrait de Latok

11-02-2007, 17:44

Easy answer: because in the active MSX scene, MSX Association and their representatives abroad haven't earned enough authority yet. If Sony or Philips would have released this device calling it a 1chipMSX, everyone would cheer in awe.
I'd like to repeat my sentence on page 2 of this thread: "I fiercely hope the MSX authorities will understand the importance of identity in order to let the 1chipMSX be a lot more than just this footnote. The device is great, the VHDL-concept is great, but its strong point 'reconfigurable' is also its greatest risk." MSX Association has taken the first step: releasing the hardware. Now they have to make step 2: Give the device identity and show the world they are the much needed authority.

Par wolf_

Ambassador_ (9950)

Portrait de wolf_

11-02-2007, 18:42

MSXA having authority is no problem as long as they make the perfect MSX3 no-one would complain about. If they don't, then you can count on the scene to make their own VHDL code, and then you have the divide between scene and MSXA.

Par dvik

Prophet (2200)

Portrait de dvik

11-02-2007, 19:02

I'm not so sure about this MSX3 thing. Honestly I don't believe that an MSX3 would get much attention at all. Only a very few developers would find it interesting. I know about three or so on MRC that champion MSX3 but its an unrealistic dream. If it had happened in the early 90's it would have been a different thing, but why try to step back 15 years and continue developing something that obviously wasn't good enough to compete.

I think its far more important to improve the current MSX2 OCM so that it mimics a real MSX as closely as possible. Ideally it would get so good that it could be a reference platform for developing games. Not only would this be good for developers, it would also make it possible to actually brand it as a real MSX and noone would question it.

Par Latok

msx guru (3866)

Portrait de Latok

11-02-2007, 20:31

MSXA having authority is no problem as long as they make the perfect MSX3 no-one would complain aboutExactly my point. They have to deliver. If they don't, then you can count on the scene to make their own VHDL code, and then you have the divide between scene and MSXA.No, then you have a divide within the scene and a hardware device without identity and therefore no new MSX.

Par Latok

msx guru (3866)

Portrait de Latok

11-02-2007, 20:48

I'm not so sure about this MSX3 thing. Honestly I don't believe that an MSX3 would get much attention at all. Only a very few developers would find it interesting. I know about three or so on MRC that champion MSX3 but its an unrealistic dream. If it had happened in the early 90's it would have been a different thing, but why try to step back 15 years and continue developing something that obviously wasn't good enough to compete.

I think its far more important to improve the current MSX2 OCM so that it mimics a real MSX as closely as possible. Ideally it would get so good that it could be a reference platform for developing games. Not only would this be good for developers, it would also make it possible to actually brand it as a real MSX and noone would question it.Ah well, MSX3. Maybe, in a far future, after many VHDL-updates, we might speak of an MSX3.....It shouldn't be a goal right now. One step at a time.

Par tfh

Prophet (3160)

Portrait de tfh

11-02-2007, 21:43

What if I replace the MSX VHDL-code with ZX-81 code and draw a Spectrum logo on the OCM? Is it still an MSX? Tongue

If MSX Association authorizes your ZX-81 code and your beautifully drawn Spectrum logo and labels that as an MSX: yes, it is an MSX. Point proven. Thank you, tfh.
Hmmm, is it?
So if MSX-A says my vacuumcleaner is an MSX, it's officially an MSX, because MSX-A says so? Stupid way of thinking. So, no.. you have just contradicted your own remark Smile

Page 7/13
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12