More proof of MSX in space

Page 2/3
1 | | 3

By ro

Guardian (4123)

ro's picture

26-06-2004, 22:02

then just mail the darn pict to MRC (info_at_msx.org I quess), me (info_at_thefuzz.nl) or anybody who has the ability to host anything.

By ro

Guardian (4123)

ro's picture

26-06-2004, 23:52

now thaz just pure briliant! (oh, together with Holanda winning from Zweden during Penalties!)

By POISONIC

Paladin (1012)

POISONIC's picture

27-06-2004, 00:04

hehe lolz

By [D-Tail]

Ascended (8233)

[D-Tail]'s picture

27-06-2004, 03:02

2 * climax == ?! Tongue

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

wolf_'s picture

27-06-2004, 20:01

now, I haven't seen a Sony 900 yet before.. but compared to the slim Philips 8280, it surely look like a huge brute Smile Exactly what were the differences between the Sony and the Philips?

By ro

Guardian (4123)

ro's picture

27-06-2004, 20:04

Sony had slim MSX too, wolf. I remember my precious sony 700-D...

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

wolf_'s picture

27-06-2004, 20:33

yeah.. but that wasn't a digitiser -duh- Smile

my point is: Philips made a slim MSX with a digitiser, Sony made a huge MSX with a digitiser.. from the photo I'd say "the size of 2 MSX'es" so, why the difference?

By Argon

Paragon (1085)

Argon's picture

27-06-2004, 20:41

Hehe... it wasn't THAT huge Smile
I used to have a 900 model(sold it not so long ago), it wasn't much bigger than my 700 model.

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

wolf_'s picture

27-06-2004, 20:50

uuuuuh ? when I look at the picture, I see a typical 700 model, some 2 inches of 'nothing' above it.. and then a part with some knobs... that makes it twice the size of a 700, or 8280 for that matter Smile

Or is the picture wrong ? Smile

Page 2/3
1 | | 3