if MSX2 had been the MSX SYSTEM ?

Page 1/5
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

By MäSäXi

Paragon (1884)

MäSäXi's picture

27-07-2004, 11:38

Because there was no answers to this wondering, I put this on new place, so I guess you all can see this now...

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nishi stated in his speech in Tilburg that MSX2 actually should have been the MSX system, but because Yamaha could not deliver the V9938 in time, the MSX1 system was rushed to market.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understood years ago that MSX was designed and made purposely of cheaper old technology parts to make it cheaper so everyone could buy MSX to help MSX spread all over the world.

When they announced commodore 64 in 1982, it costed 1000 us$.

If MSX2 was meant to be the MSX system... it cannot be hard to guess, that MSX2 had expensive technology inside it (compare the price of c64 and think the fact MSX2 has better grafx etc).

So MSX had been then VERY expensive computer in beginning of the 1983. And much more people had been forced to leave MSX to shelves because of very high price and buy another computer. What about MSX world conquest then??

I like to hear what you all think about this fact.

Login or register to post comments

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

27-07-2004, 12:44

The main idea behind MSX was not to make it dirt cheap, but to create a standard, which was something unprecedented at that time. Sure, Nishi wanted the machine to be as cheap as possiblel, which is why he wanted to include as much features on as little chips as possible (yup, he already had his one chip ideas in mind back then! Tongue), but as far as I know the purpose never had been to become the cheapest of them all.

Discussions like this are very cool though, as you'll never know what would have happened if.... (the MSX2+ was skipped and the turboR was released a year earlier) Wink

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

wolf_'s picture

27-07-2004, 12:54

..if the moonsound (or a similar chip) with 640kb sram was released in 1990, worldwide..

By mars2000you

Enlighted (5513)

mars2000you's picture

27-07-2004, 12:58

Other great point of MSX2 is a very extended BASIC, including the graphic part.
Ar the same time, trying to programming on a Commodore was very painful and don't forget that MSX2 can be compared to Amiga for the graphic part.

So, if MSX2 has been released in 1983, the history should have been very different and the battle between MSX and Commodore should have given very different results. The price is not all, but also the easy-to-use aspect, the possibility of create himself little games with good graphics and good music.

Ah, on this last point, the FM-PAC should have been existed also in1983 !
Or more realistic speaking, the following scheme :
1983 MSX2
1985 MSX2+ with MSX-MUSIC built inside
1987 Turbo-R with support for CD-ROM and video files

We can dream .... MSX is the best computer to dream !

By MäSäXi

Paragon (1884)

MäSäXi's picture

27-07-2004, 20:22

in that different past, in 1987 I am afraiding that maybe I never could have MSX, because of high price.....

in reality where we are now, in july 1987 my Toshiba costed 1350 MK (I don´t remember were Penguin Adventure cartridge and 10 Computer Hits 3 cassette in that same price) that is about 227 euros nowadays.. of course money had more value in ´87. if MSX costed that much, everyone can guess how MUCH
MSX(2) could have costed back then... if we had lived in that different past with "boosted msx", then it could be possible, that I never could have had MSX... maybe I could have been one of Commodoreans... horrible vision about me studying VIC-20 Basic on Commodore 64... of course that is Basic too, but it´s horrible job to do something with those pokes and peeks... make MANY lines just to play one note... and then put your notes to DATA lines... hmmm... And I was the one who wanted MSX just because it has SO GREAT BASIC!! And Amstrad was more expensive too than Commodore 64 back in ´87... and Memotech MTX-512 was dying (or dead) computer in ´87 Finland... hmmm... I don´t know which computer enthusiast I could be now, if..... *shivers*

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

27-07-2004, 20:26

If the MSX2 had been introduced earlier, it would have been about the same or even a lower price. They key to a price of homecomputers in those days was mass-production. I guess Wink

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

27-07-2004, 21:44

One of MSX's goals was indeed cheapness. In practice, most MSX's weren't cheap (although there definitely were cheap types, but they sucked Tongue).

That's also why I think Nishi's $100 idea for the new MSX would not be the average, but rather the bare minimum price.

By MäSäXi

Paragon (1884)

MäSäXi's picture

28-07-2004, 00:12

If the MSX2 had been introduced earlier, it would have been about the same or even a lower price. They key to a price of homecomputers in those days was mass-production. I guess Wink

<3 very Romantic idea <3 , Snout, but I surely disagree. Think the fact that MSX had much older technology than MSX2, (so it was MUCH cheaper than MSX2 to produce and to buy) so if they had produced msx2 as msx, how it could be possible to sell MORE EXPENSIVE thing with same or even lower price as cheaper thing??? (msx was the massproduct computer) If so, then all MSX manufacturers must have been in bankcrupt VERY SOON and what about msx then...? :´(

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

28-07-2004, 01:21

It's romantic and yet it isn't. The ideas behind MSX2 = More fun, less parts. Right from the start, Nishi wanted the MSX to have as little parts as possible, as less parts = cheaper computer. Besides, Yamaha designed some parts specifically for the MSX2, which should reduce certain licensing costs. I'm not saying it would have been possible to produce MSX2's for the price of MSX1s in 1983, if Yamaha had finished their development by then, but the machines would not have costed $50.000 either.

By dhau

Paragon (1557)

dhau's picture

28-07-2004, 16:44

MSX-1 was quite adequate for 1983-1985. Wildly popular ZX Spectrum 48 had less juice under the hood, yet managed to get great sales and was supported with professionally made games up until 1993.

ASCII should've jumped to a real 16 bit CPU (not the silly souped up R800) in 1985. Amiga, Atari ST, X68000 did this and enjoyed great success. And they should've jumped to 32-bit CPU in 1991.

MSX-2 was less progressive for 1985 then MSX-1 in 1983. It was born dead.

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

28-07-2004, 16:50

uhm, IMHO the R800 is a lot more than a 'silly souped up' processor. A LOT more Wink

Page 1/5
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5