Is the One Chip MSX a real MSX or not?

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

Par poke-1,170

Paragon (1768)

Portrait de poke-1,170

12-02-2007, 01:11

as for msx-a's plans with it, you could drop hally from vorc a mail... he works there so maybe he knows Wink
actually d4 enterprises though....

hally at vorc dot org

Par multi

Expert (74)

Portrait de multi

12-02-2007, 01:14

nope it's a MSX that implements backward compatability via hardware simulation, you can't deny that VHDL is part of the package even. this is the OCMSX standard and it includes VHDL

Par poke-1,170

Paragon (1768)

Portrait de poke-1,170

12-02-2007, 01:14

for a c64 it looks pretty blue though Wink

Par poke-1,170

Paragon (1768)

Portrait de poke-1,170

12-02-2007, 01:18

also, out of curiosity, since it's manufactured by just 1 company.... would panasonic or sony be allowed to make their version of it too, as long as they stick to the standard ? I thought the interchangeability was one of the msx'es main features.

Par dvik

Prophet (2200)

Portrait de dvik

12-02-2007, 01:19

nope it's a MSX that implements backward compatability via hardware simulation, you can't deny that VHDL is part of the package even. this is the OCMSX standard and it includes VHDL
Hmm. That's exactly what I'm saying. I think part of this thread is discussing whether its a real (which obviously has a lot of different meanings) MSX or if its emulated. I'm saying that from a branding perspective its real and from a hw/sw point of view its simulating/emulating an MSX in VHDL.

Par dvik

Prophet (2200)

Portrait de dvik

12-02-2007, 01:27

also, out of curiosity, since it's manufactured by just 1 company.... would panasonic or sony be allowed to make their version of it too, as long as they stick to the standard ? I thought the interchangeability was one of the msx'es main features.

The OCM is not a standard or did I miss something? Afaik the OCM is just a device made by MSX-A and as with similar devices it has a nice specification describing what it is as well as open source for the VHDL. I don't think MSX-A did a well documented standard that other companies need to comply to if they also want to make an OCM and call it MSX. I really don't think MSX-A has time or money to run a standardization organization that approves or denies third party implmementations.

Btw, It seems a bit strange if MSX-A actually wrote a standard for something that tries to mimic MSX2, which already is standardized.

Par poke-1,170

Paragon (1768)

Portrait de poke-1,170

12-02-2007, 01:32

thanks for the explanation dvik Smile so ehmmm, how did that go then when msx was manufactured by more companies ?
You could apply for the rights to manufacure msx-es ?

Par multi

Expert (74)

Portrait de multi

12-02-2007, 01:34

so we are clear it's not a real MSX2 because it was already a real OCMSX, now next on the list is the emulation part. it emulates an MSX2 just like an Pentium cpu emulates and 8086 cpu in emulation mode. is the pentium cpu real or not? of course it's real... is it an 8086? nope of course not it was already an pentium cpu... is it an x86 intel cpu, yes it is...

so for the OCMSX we can clearly say the following:
1 OCM = OC MSX (true)
2 OCM = MSX2 (false)
3 OCM = MSX (true)
and finally
4 OCM = Real (true)

as long as you keep your mind clear and not try to make the OCM something it's not then things are really simple i guess...

Par MicroTech

Champion (385)

Portrait de MicroTech

12-02-2007, 11:37

IMHO defining ocm an "hardware emulator" is not correct, try to explain my pow with an example.

MSX technical databook states in which conditions and terms a signal must be asserted to satisfy MSX standard.

Let's consider a slot select signal: it must be asserted when some conditions are met eg. A15 = 1 and A14 = 1 and MREQ = 1 and so on...

Slot select signal assertion may be achieved with a simple IC, with a PAL or a more sofisticated FPGA, it doesn't matter which hardware will be used: until signal is asserted according the MSX standard then signal is MSX.

From this pow no MSX computer is identical to another but they all follow the standard so they ARE MSX.

If you open a turboR there is not a Z80 LSI but Z80 is embedded somewhere and is surely implemented differently from Z80 inside an old MSX1 but this doesn't mean that turboR is not an MSX.

Ocm can be a multi-purpose platform but this is a value, not an aberration Cool

Par iamweasel2

Paladin (701)

Portrait de iamweasel2

12-02-2007, 13:59

About OCM not being a hardware emulator :

If I write a VHDL code that mimics an Apple II behaviour and install it on OCM, I will be able to use Apple II software on OCM. My OCM running a VHDL code that mimics a different architeture and running software developed for other line of computers still will be recognized as a MSX computer? If that ever happens (Apple II VHDL on OCM) can I say that, since a OCM that runs apple II software still is a MSX, a classic Apple II computer should be considered from now on a sort of MSX as well? Tongue

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