MSX easier to emulate than C64? | MSX Resource Center (صفحة 8/13)

بواسطة [D-Tail]

Ascended (8263)

10-10-2006, 16:32

The motorola would kick the R800's ass. The Amiga1200 I have here, has a Motorola 68020 CPU @ 14MHz, 32 bits. Eat your heart out, 7MHz, 8 bit R800!

بواسطة Samor

Prophet (2174)

10-10-2006, 19:03

So far I haven't seen anything on MSX like Lotus III or Pinball Dreams/Fantasies (let alone Pinball Illusions, but that's AGA)... this would hint at the Amiga being not just a little more powerful
of course, there's probably no Turbo-R game in existance that actually pulls out all the stops, but I doubt that would make the nescesary difference.
Before we drag Space Manbow into the argument... there are enough shmups on Amiga that visually kick its butt...gameplay is a different story, though.

بواسطة dvik

Prophet (2200)

10-10-2006, 19:22

emulation makes a difference (I've been running several moonsound using demos on blue, never tried any gfx9000-related though (is it supported? I wouldn't know even)).
gfx9000 isn't supported in blue. Personally I won't spend the time supporting it but if someone is interested I can certainly help out a bit.

And oddly enough, last few years ppl seem to have moved back to the MSX1. (MSXDev) .. it's not something that helps the G9k's popularity (or lack of..?).
The reason may be that the MSX1 system actually existed and was widely spread. gfx9000 is just a wet dream some dutch guys (I guess some swiss too) had in the mid 90's . I can see the challenge and fun in getting as much out an 8 bit system based on the MSX standard but its really a tiny niche that isn't wide spread at all.

بواسطة msd

Paragon (1515)

10-10-2006, 19:43

Yes I code for a tiny niche

بواسطة dvik

Prophet (2200)

10-10-2006, 19:46

I code for the broad audience. I bet my recent demos has been viewed by at least 300 persons I guess all is relative and MSX1 is quite narrow too.

The gfx9000 sub culture is a bit like vintage Cadillac fans, putting in a new BMW engine to try to compete with Porches. Nothing wrong with that at all. Its just not for me

بواسطة msd

Paragon (1515)

10-10-2006, 20:06

d-tail: internally the r800 is 16bit..

بواسطة jalu

Master (158)

10-10-2006, 22:52

Hmmz, I have had quite some Amigas and also quite some MSX's. The compatablity issues on the Amiga were quite iritating in the beginning. A lot of old software didn't like the kickstart 1.3/2.0 and 1MB chipram. But this was only an issue in "the early days". And I remember some notorious MSX machines as well, when it comes down to running certain software, like the Sony HB500. Yeah, that machine gave me more headaches then any Amiga ever did.
As for calling the Amiga "the poor man's mac": Well, take of your mac-sunglasses and take a look at the specs of the Macs at that time, and the Amiga. Besides the fact the computers were both targeted at different audiences, both had their advantaged and disadvantaged.

But, calling the MSX technically beter then the Amiga... Well, that is quite an interesting statement. Also makes me wonder a bit how much you actually know about the amiga, the different custom chips and on how to programm these.

Well, I do know this much about the Amiga's custom chips, the Denises and Agnuses and whatever those things were called to call exactly those the Amiga's greatest weak spot, btw, I still remember having problems with Amiga's and software compatibility in the early nineties, not exactly the Amiga's "early days".

Don't misunderstand me, I know the Amiga is powerful, more so than any MSX, but imho it is essentially an early 16 bit gameconsole; al the custom chips made it an ideal games machine but hardly an interesting "serious" computer system, nor the hardware nor the OS have ever really reached any kind of maturity, in contrast to MSX, which became mature with MSX2, albeit with it's shortcomings. And in that way, I really think MSX is technically in a way superior because the architecture is, well, kind of cleaner(and WAY better documented) and less dependent on very exotic and poorly documented custom chips. And really; if you're really stating that hardware incompatibilities were more annoying on the few exotic MSX2 machines like the early Sony machines compared to ALL early Amiga's up to the not so very early A500 machines (not just some isolated types) then I really think you either have less Amiga experience then you claim or you have just been damn lucky: nearly all my early MSX using friends switched to the Amiga and were all bragging about it's capabilities but in the mean time were so annoyed by the Amiga's compatibility problems that none of them stayed with the Amiga for more then two years or so before switching again to IBM/MS-DOS alike systems.

بواسطة jalu

Master (158)

10-10-2006, 22:57

So far I haven't seen anything on MSX like Lotus III or Pinball Dreams/Fantasies (let alone Pinball Illusions, but that's AGA)... this would hint at the Amiga being not just a little more powerful
of course, there's probably no Turbo-R game in existance that actually pulls out all the stops, but I doubt that would make the nescesary difference.
Before we drag Space Manbow into the argument... there are enough shmups on Amiga that visually kick its butt...gameplay is a different story, though.

Pinball Dreams/Fantasies is quite a poor example in my opinion, both games ran like a dream on a simple 12 MHz 286 PC with exactly the same graphics and sound as on an Amiga... And the PC version of Lotus ran quite nicely on a 16 MHz 386sx, iirc.

And indeed, there are shoot'm'ups on Amiga which look better than Space Manbow; but none of them has ever captured the fun and atmosphere of Space Manbow, which, btw, does really show a very 16-bit like graphics quality which no other 8 bit system could reproduce. Which does show that MSX2(+) was and is quite powerful considering the simple architecture, with a CPU that was arguably outdated the day the first MSX was introduced to the public.

بواسطة Samor

Prophet (2174)

10-10-2006, 23:28

Pinball Dreams/Fantasies is quite a poor example in my opinion, both games ran like a dream on a simple 12 MHz 286 PC with exactly the same graphics and sound as on an Amiga... And the PC version of Lotus ran quite nicely on a 16 MHz 386sx, iirc.

well, they're probably not the most demanding Amiga games out there... but those old pc's you mention are also a lot more powerful than a Turbo-r, not to mention at the time way more expensive than either the Amiga or Turbo-R, and I think the games required beefy (S)VGA cards to match the right speed and Soundblasters to sound a bit like the Amiga (yes, the same mod music in Pinball Dreams, but the Amiga's playback quality was superior...Lotus on PC just had MIDI.)
I don't think they're bad examples, as "generic" Amiga titles they still are graphically superior to anything I've seen on any MSX.

which, btw, does really show a very 16-bit like graphics quality which no other 8 bit system could reproduce. Which does show that MSX2(+) was and is quite powerful considering the simple architecture, with a CPU that was arguably outdated the day the first MSX was introduced to the public.

I agree that some of the last big MSX2 games indeed are comparable with 16-bit titles, but there are enough 16-bit games that graphically surpass them, like aforementioned Pinball Dreams and Lotus

بواسطة jalu

Master (158)

10-10-2006, 23:45

I don't think they're bad examples, as "generic" Amiga titles they still are graphically superior to anything I've seen on any MSX.

I agree that some of the last big MSX2 games indeed are comparable with 16-bit titles, but there are enough 16-bit games that graphically surpass them, like aforementioned Pinball Dreams and Lotus

Oh, but I don't disagree on that subject, don't get me wrong. However, specifically the Amiga suffered from lots of games which were all graphics and no fun(with the beformentioned pinball games as welcome exceptions, it's no wonder people remember those games), just like lots of modern games on Xbox 360 and PC...

That, however, is another discussion; my statement was and is that the Amiga is not an example of a strong architecture, quite the contrary in my opinion. It just never matured, and any contemporary system, either MSX, Atari ST and all kind of CP/M systems were all more mature systems than the Amiga, which, as I stated before, is an early 16-bit gamesconsole with a keyboard bolted on, simply because it first saw the light of existence exactly in those years which saw a complete collapse of the market for gameconsoles. Honoustly: the architecture with the custom chips just screams :"I am a gamesmachine", just like a Sega Megadrive or a SNES.