You call it a games machine, Amiga fans may call it the first multimedia computer. And there must be some merit, considering applications on the Amiga like Lightwave and Video Toaster.
There's little truth in that imho; none of the Amiga's form the era in which the Amiga was really powerful enough to be called a real multimedia machine; it wouldn't be stretching it calling an NMS 8280 or HB-G900P a multimedia machine either, but neither the Amiga nor the video MSX2 machines were really ever powerful enough for real multimedia purposes; they were ahead of their time too much, there was just no hardware capable of doing real multimedia tasks in those days.
MSX is a standard, that definitely has advantages. Amiga is just a proprietary computer sold by one company. On the other hand, 24/32-bit addressing is surely cleaner than slots, subslots, and mappers.
I agree with that. But I think the Amiga really had the initial power of the MC 680x0 spoilt by the custom chips with all their funny little problems and quirks...
MSX programmers had to do things right to make their code run on different MSX computers. Amiga programmers too often only tested their code on a stock A500, or they called undocumented ROM routines, or used self-modifying code, timing loops, etc. You can't blame the creators of Amiga for that. Plus, EVERY MSX has a 3.58MHz Z80 (or equivalent) but Amigas got the whole range of 680x0 CPUs and a lot of that poorly written software will only run on a 68000.
Well, you *can* blame the creators of Amiga for not trying any harder to make the programmers behave themselves. The name "Amiga" almost became an empty shell because there is not one Amiga but a whole lot of them and I really think it says a lot that compatibility problems between computers from the same manufacturer and baring the same name were quite bigger and more annoying than the problems existing between MSX machines. I mean, a FS-A1GT is REALLY a different beast compared to a VG-8010, but yet, 99% of software written for the latter can run flawlessly on the tR. Even the new CPU, the R800, outperforming the 3.58 MHz Z80 by lightyears is still *very* compatible to that Z80A.
I think my MSX is more fun to play games on while my Amiga is better for applications. Both are out of date hardware but the MSX continues to have games written for it and the Amiga has a friendly multitasking OS, web browsers, winamp clones, etc.
To be honoust, why use an Amiga these days for running tasks that any mainstream computer, be it Windows, Linux or Mac or whatever, can do flawlessly? And with a multitude of software available? Anyway, that is your own choice ofcourse, *and* a completely different discussion too... 
well, that last point - I don't use the MSX for serious work either....and in fact, never did. It was just gaming and a bit of Basic programming here, oh, also, doodling in desiplus. Too bad I don't have any of the old stuff anymore... not that it's of any considerable quality, but it would be great to look at, for laughs..... anyway, that's OT 
technically, C64 beats the crap out of MSX, both graphic & sounds wise.
technically, Amiga beats the crap out of MSX 2(+), both graphis & sounds wise.
Quoting 3 days ago I agree Amiga had more advanced sound and gfx than MSX had. But, excuse me, you actually dare to state C64 had better sound and gfx than MSX? My neighbours had a c64 back in 1984 (orso) whilst I had a MSX VG820 (well, my dad did) and man did that C64 suck compared to the MSX. I mean screen 3 is more close to c64 than screen 2 will ever be Or else, please explain me why all games use 4x4 pixel blocks to draw ? 
Or else, please explain me why all games use 4x4 pixel blocks to draw ?
@Bart: I think your neighbors had a vic20
On the audio the c64 beats the crap out of an MSX1 (except my CX5M) The SID is so much better than the PSG so its no point of even comparing the two. The C64 graphics is also better than than the MSX1 imo. I'm not sure what applications you were running on the c64 but quite a few games that have really good graphics, like international cartate which I liked a lot. The problem with c64 is that the processor is rather slow, so its hard to use the more fancy screen modes to something more useful than just still images but later games make use of it pretty well. One thing that I like with the c64 graphics is that you don't have the two color per 8 pixel limitation. Another quite sad limitation of the MSX1 is the absence of a configurable palette. This really puts a limitation on what type of gfx you can do.
But even if I think the c64 has both better video and audio than MSX1, there is something special with the MSX. It feels like a more serious computer, with better hardware organization and better basic. And of course games like nemesis helps a lot. And the Z80 is approximately 1000 times more fun to program than the 6510.
Here is a pretty cool c64 emu site. Never seen it before and I'm not sure how good the emu is, but there are many nice screenshots of c64 games:
have to disagree there. Three registers are so much easier to keep track of than however many the Z80 has...
Sorry I have to laugh here 
. More registers is much easier. Less registers is never a benifit. If you have problems with more registers consider writing in c
Another quite sad limitation of the MSX1 is the absence of a configurable palette. This really puts a limitation on what type of gfx you can do.
Mhoa, I could live with a fixed palette (c64 = fixed too), but the MSX1 palette is way to bright. It has all the pure colors, and lighter shades, but it really lacks dark colors. Often enough I try to make standard palettes that are useful for all kinda games. I typically start with the MSX1 palette, then adjust the prime colors and replace unuseful colors with more useful ones.
l00k:
and:
Far more useful for anything compared to the standard bubblegum MSX1 palette, not to mention the standard bubblegum-on-stereoids MSX2 palette.
Comparison c64/msx .. is hard. The C64 can do things the MSX can't, and vice versa. You won't see typical C64 demos on MSX. And those who think it can be done: show us. :P But I doubt you'd see a quality game like Nemesis3 on C64.
Mhoa, I could live with a fixed palette (c64 = fixed too), but the MSX1 palette is way to bright.I guess those old TVs were quite dark in displaying those colors. I can remember having to turn up drightness on my TV and setting palette values to at least 2 to be able to distinguish a color from black. Especially the blue component :/
That is *not* the standard MSX1 palette. (Color 9 is light red, not orange, color 13 should be purple instead of grey), or is this the palette with 'unuseful colors' adapted?