MSX easier to emulate than C64?

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

Por erikd

Master (255)

Imagen del erikd

10-10-2006, 23:50

I guess Lotus would run like a pig on MSX2 Tongue

Space Manbow was kind of spectacular for an 8bit game, but it does reveal the limitations of MSX2 in the fact that it's done in screen 4. Screen 5 would probably have been too slow.

I guess that from a technical pov, there's no denying in the fact that any Amiga outperforms any MSX, even the Turbo-R (which is, apart from a commercial failure, still essentially an 8bit machine even though the R800 has a 16bit ALU).
I also think that (from what I know/read), the MSX's architecture was probably better specified and perhaps cleaner, so easier to program for. It was quite easy as a developer to keep compatibility across MSX versions and makes.

For me personally, what defines the better system is just how much fun I had with it. Since I never owned an Amiga, the choice is easy Big smile
I did own an ST, but although I used the ST to death (even until the late 90's in my recording studio as a MIDI sequencer next to a 48 track digital HD recording system), I'll remember my MSX2 with a slightly more warm and fuzzy feeling Smile
Sure there were games on the ST which are impossible on MSX (Damocles, Stunt Car Racer, Vroom, Super Hang-On come to mind), there were no equals in gameplay of the best Konami classics (like MG, MG2, Nemesis series) available for the ST. Sound on the ST was basically the same as the standard MSX 'bleep'-fest.

Oh, and BTW, the name FAC was basically a bit of a joke Smile I don't think any of us really had a grudge against Commodore (but maybe that's just me Smile)

Por Manuel

Ascended (18792)

Imagen del Manuel

10-10-2006, 23:58

btw, I don't think the turboR was a commercial failure. Considered that it is targeted only for Japan, I think they sold many! Does someone know the numbers?

Por Sonic_aka_T

Enlighted (4130)

Imagen del Sonic_aka_T

10-10-2006, 23:58

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! TongueThere's no comparing the two. You're comparing a 32bit CPU with FPU to an 8/16bit legacy processor. You might as well compare the 68020 to a P4... Eek!

Por Samor

Prophet (2147)

Imagen del Samor

11-10-2006, 00:50

I guess Lotus would run like a pig on MSX2 Tongue

there exists a C64 version. It's... crap.

btw, I don't think the turboR was a commercial failure. Considered that it is targeted only for Japan, I think they sold many! Does someone know the numbers?

I wouldn't know. In terms of commercial software support, it didn't get many exclusives.... if the hardware itself was a hit in Japan is a whole different story.

Por [D-Tail]

Ascended (8259)

Imagen del [D-Tail]

11-10-2006, 08:20

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! TongueThere's no comparing the two. You're comparing a 32bit CPU with FPU to an 8/16bit legacy processor. You might as well compare the 68020 to a P4... Eek!Hey, the guy asked for it, right? Wink

BTW, I don't drool over technical specs. I drool over gameplay as well Smile

Por DamageX

Master (217)

Imagen del DamageX

11-10-2006, 08:49

There's no comparing the two. You're comparing a 32bit CPU with FPU to an 8/16bit legacy processor.
The 68020 doesn't have an internal FPU and the stock A1200 doesn't include one. The '020 has a 256-byte instruction cache but no data cache and the stock A1200 has slow memory (CPU only gets access once every 8 cycles). If you compare extracting an LHA on an A1200 and tR, or decoding a JPG, the speed might not be that different.
Honoustly: the architecture with the custom chips just screams :"I am a gamesmachine", just like a Sega Megadrive or a SNES.
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.

Jay Miner was largely responsible for the design of the Amiga custom chips. He reportedly wanted to make the Amiga a computer, while those who provided the initial funding wanted a games console. The result is a compromise between cost and capability much like the Atari 800 that he worked on previously.
I really think MSX is technically in a way superior because the architecture is, well, kind of cleaner and less dependent on very exotic and poorly documented custom chips.
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 still remember having problems with Amiga's and software compatibility in the early nineties
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.

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.

Por Sonic_aka_T

Enlighted (4130)

Imagen del Sonic_aka_T

11-10-2006, 11:25

btw, I don't think the turboR was a commercial failure. Considered that it is targeted only for Japan, I think they sold many! Does someone know the numbers? I don't know numbers, but I do know you don't start selling a second (more expensive) version of a product unless the first version was a commercial success.

Por hap

Paragon (2040)

Imagen del hap

11-10-2006, 12:07

Like the unsuccessful Atari Lynx and Lynx II? (Atari were also planning to release a Jaguar II, but let's not get into that Tongue poor Atari)
Even if we had an idea of the amount of TR's sold, it'd be meaningless without knowing the same for MSX1/2/2+.

Por MisterT

Resident (35)

Imagen del MisterT

11-10-2006, 15:27

Well only thing i can say (i have an amiga, and an atari 1040st and a MSX 2 + MSX Turbo-r GT)
ill stick with the MSX platform although the amiga and atari are also nice machines,
who cares if the amiga/atari is a 16/32 bit machine its just not downwards compatible
like the msx (when kept to clean programming)

Por Sonic_aka_T

Enlighted (4130)

Imagen del Sonic_aka_T

11-10-2006, 17:11

Like the unsuccessful Atari Lynx and Lynx II? (Atari were also planning to release a Jaguar II, but let's not get into that Tongue poor Atari)
Even if we had an idea of the amount of TR's sold, it'd be meaningless without knowing the same for MSX1/2/2+.
There's no comparing the two. The market for each machine was completely different, and the companies themselves were as well. Atari was struggling in a very competitive console market, in which you go bankrupt if you do nothing. Atari could either re-release some existing hardware (I doubt they had the cash to develop something truely new) to try to survive, or they could just go ahead and file for chapter 11. Panasonic on the other hand had no known financial troubles and released a machine on a market where there was no competition. They most likely had a fairly good idea of how many units they could still sell, and went ahead an produced the turboR, knowing that it would do well at that time. They also recycled a number of components (like the casing, PSU, switches, diskdrive etc) which probably reduced the cost considerably. Short of calling Panasonic there's no real way of knowing, but I think the facts seem to indicate the GT was made because the ST sold well. I certainly doubt the GT was released as a last desperate attempt to save Panasonic, as was the case with the Atari Lynx II.

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