Is the One Chip MSX a real MSX or not?

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

Par Latok

msx guru (3866)

Portrait de Latok

11-02-2007, 21:53

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 SmileIt is indeed. But probably not very popular with computer fanatics. Let alone retro freaks.

Par dvik

Prophet (2200)

Portrait de dvik

11-02-2007, 21:54

It is funny but I suppose MSX-A has the right to expand the brand name MSX to include vacuum cleaners too. I sure hope they stick to retro computers preferable limit it to MSX compatible machines.

Par syntax_error

Resident (51)

Portrait de syntax_error

11-02-2007, 21:55

Will does the OCM MSX support USB keyboards?

Par poke-1,170

Paragon (1768)

Portrait de poke-1,170

11-02-2007, 23:30

I don't think that msx-a will even care a rats ass about anyone's updated code...

same with the gp2x, people have written way better videoplayers then they have.
do they listen ? nope.... do they implement improvements ?
nope...
it would undermine their skills if they would omit homebrew code and release it as their own.
So, they stick to their own "visionary" outdated stuff, while the scene makes the truely great stuff.
but, since they are the ones who pay for the production, it's their call to do whatever they want with it.
I don't expect any corporate business in this field to implement scener's code.
specially not korean (gp2x) and japanese (msx)...
Why would japan listen to what happens in europe or outside of japan anyway ?
They do it for their own market mainly...

Par wolf_

Ambassador_ (9950)

Portrait de wolf_

12-02-2007, 00:05


I don't think that msx-a will even care a rats ass about anyone's updated code...

same with the gp2x, people have written way better videoplayers then they have.
do they listen ? nope.... do they implement improvements ?
nope...
it would undermine their skills if they would omit homebrew code and release it as their own.
So, they stick to their own "visionary" outdated stuff, while the scene makes the truely great stuff.
but, since they are the ones who pay for the production, it's their call to do whatever they want with it.
I don't expect any corporate business in this field to implement scener's code.
specially not korean (gp2x) and japanese (msx)...
Why would japan listen to what happens in europe or outside of japan anyway ?
They do it for their own market mainly...

And ^ that, deary Tok, is the thing I'm slightly worried about.

Par poke-1,170

Paragon (1768)

Portrait de poke-1,170

12-02-2007, 00:10

I'm afraid it's like this: they offer the platform, you play with it, but don't bother us.
we'll update it every now and then, but we won't implement any ideas you have
(or we claim we did).
which for some reason seems to be the case with every newly released platform:
you bought it, we claim to bring you oodles of updates, but it never seems to be the case.

Par Ivan

Ascended (9305)

Portrait de Ivan

12-02-2007, 00:53

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'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.

I fully agree with these two comments.

Par multi

Expert (74)

Portrait de multi

12-02-2007, 00:58

i'll say it once more: the OCM == (new) MSX.... it says so on the box...

VHDL == part of new MSX standard (OCMSX), Altera == part of OCMSX standard, claiming the OCM is sometihng it's not (only an emualted MSX2) is to dumb to even listen to, the OCM is even packaged with a VHDL development kit... how much more clues do you need...

Par poke-1,170

Paragon (1768)

Portrait de poke-1,170

12-02-2007, 01:05

well yeah what should msx3 be ? better msx ?

I mean... a ps1 is already better, so is a pc... what should an msx 3 be then ?
It's already there anyway, so how do you define better ? I mean... gfx9000 ?
moonsound ? should it be between state of the art and 8 bit nostalgia ?
msx 3 should have been some logical progression after msx turbo R I guess,
but what on earth would you like to prove with it now ?
if you want something better, it's called a pc... or a mac....

I can however see the point in the OCM, since it will be customizable
to what people want from their msx, customize it the way you like it.
Also it's quite future proof, since it's not a closed system.

fact is: there is an official new msx product... guess you should be
very happy that it is even realized. Don't think you can expect
anything on such a scale coming from an obsolete 80's computer ever again

Par dvik

Prophet (2200)

Portrait de dvik

12-02-2007, 01:09

@multi: I agree that from a branding point of view, the OCM is an MSX because MSX-A said so. But that does NOT, and I say it once more, NOT mean that the OCM isn't a hardware emulator trying to mimic the old MSX2 machines. Regardless of what you say, it is a hardware thingie that emulates an MSX2. There is also no new standard for modern MSX machines. The OCM has a nice specification but it is not a standard. MSX2 for example had a standard and companies were free to do whatever they wanted hardware wise as long as it met the standard. You could perhaps say that the OCM (tries to) conform to the MSX2 standard but it did not create a new standard.

So you need to understand that there is a difference between branding and design. I don't disagree that MSX-A brand the OCM as an MSX. As you said, it says clearly on the box and only a blind person could disagree on that. But when it comes to the actual device and its design its a different thing. Just because MSX-A calls it an MSX doesn't mean that it is not emulation. How hard is it to understand????

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