Who or what 'killed' the MSX?

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

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

12-09-2003, 17:52

A turbo R was and is slower then a 286 at 12 MHz, really...
No way. Maybe if you only look at the raw CPU power, that might be true (but even then I'm not convinced, 286 was really slow!), but there are more components in a computer system and overall turboR is much faster than that, easily comparing to a 468SX25.

It's a fast MSX but it was just not up to the competition in 1992 anymoreMSX turboR was released in 1990, 2 years earlier. PC's weren't that advanced yet.

I think the usage of an 8-bit processor, albeit a fast one, in the turbo R was the biggest one. An ideal MSX3 would have had a new 16 bit CPU and a V9990. But it seems that there was just not enough budget for R&D in those days anymore in the MSX consortium. R800 IS 16 bit. *sigh* I'm not having this discussion again.
I agree the V9990 should've been included in the turboR, that was a mistake indeed... But think of the extra costs that would've given.

If MSX turboR was made 2 years earlier, and released as MSX3 (in stead of the MSX2+), it probably would've had a positive influence on the life of MSX, but it was too late and MSX was already dying.

There are all kinds of things in the turboR that could've been better... But by the time MSX turboR was released, the amount of MSX software was already declining rapidly. MSX turboR not being 'good enough' had very little to do with the death of MSX.

By jalu

Master (156)

jalu's picture

12-09-2003, 18:14

>>A turbo R was and is slower then a 286 at 12 MHz, really...<<
No way. Maybe if you only look at the raw CPU power, that might be true (but even then I'm not convinced, 286 was really slow!), but there are more components in a computer system and overall turboR is much faster than that, easily comparing to a 468SX25.

I was referring to raw CPU power, for instance, a 286 could run a MOD-player at way higher mixing frequencies than any turboR MOD player ever could...

>><

No, but the competition were all *real* 16 bit systems with a 68000 CPU...


<

That is a question which depends on how you would define a 16 bit CPU. And if an R800 is considered a 16 bit CPU, then it's major competitors were all to be considered 32 bits, especially the M68000 CPU...


I agree the V9990 should've been included in the turboR, that was a mistake indeed... But think of the extra costs that would've given.

If MSX turboR was made 2 years earlier, and released as MSX3 (in stead of the MSX2+), it probably would've had a positive influence on the life of MSX, but it was too late and MSX was already dying.

There are all kinds of things in the turboR that could've been better... But by the time MSX turboR was released, the amount of MSX software was already declining rapidly. MSX turboR not being 'good enough' had very little to do with the death of MSX.

Well, if it would have made a real technological leap ahead, it could have. But MSX turboR was just by far not advanced enough to be serious competition to the Atari's, Amiga's, x68000's and Macs of the time.

By J-War

Champion (412)

J-War's picture

12-09-2003, 18:44

D00DS I'VE FOUND OUT WHAT KILLED THE MSX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to many sources around the web, there are rumours it was the Floppy Disk Reader invention which killed the MSX !!!

OMG !

If only they had only released nms 8220 Smile)))

By Niles

Hero (545)

Niles's picture

12-09-2003, 19:17

And I would like to know what kind of contract did ASCII with Microsoft. Maybe it was stated clearly that MSX couldn't be sold in the US...

I can bet for that... I guess some "break into european market" for both of them -Matsushita and Microsoft-

Ermm the Atari ST (1985), the Amiga500 (1987) and the Sega Megadrive (1988) all surpassed the '85 MSX2 in terms of graphic capabilities. If you meant that it wasn't before the early 90s before the IBM PC surpassed the MSX2 you are right...but MSX2 wasn't technically superior in its own time. If any of the other systems I mentioned had the same ease of use, and would have invited self-development as well as MSX did I would have switched.

absolutelly agree

No way. Maybe if you only look at the raw CPU power, that might be true (but even then I'm not convinced, 286 was really slow!), but there are more components in a computer system and overall turboR is much faster than that, easily comparing to a 468SX25.

...but comparisons have to be done without dedicated hardware, otherwise, consoles like PS2 or Gamecube are like a Pentium IV at 2 GHz, but this isn't true

D00DS I'VE FOUND OUT WHAT KILLED THE MSX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to many sources around the web, there are rumours it was the Floppy Disk Reader invention which killed the MSX !!!

Tongue LOL

By jalu

Master (156)

jalu's picture

12-09-2003, 21:09


...but comparisons have to be done without dedicated hardware, otherwise, consoles like PS2 or Gamecube are like a Pentium IV at 2 GHz, but this isn't true

And not even that goes for the turboR: it does not really have that much dedicated chips either. It's architecture is quite (x86-)PC-like in a way: most processing power rests in the CPU.

Mind you, I am not saying the turboR is a bad system, on the contrary, it's open and clean architecture makes it one of the best homecomputers ever built, way better then it's more powerfull competitors with their very clumsy architecture. Way more capable of running stable(!) software than any Amiga 500... But it was just too late to save the MSX standard and it was outdated when it was introduced. It would have made a nice MSX3 if it would have been introduced worldwidely in 1988...

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

12-09-2003, 21:11

>>Ermm the Atari ST (1985), the Amiga500 (1987) and the Sega Megadrive (1988) all surpassed the '85 MSX2 in terms of graphic capabilities. If you meant that it wasn't before the early 90s before the IBM PC surpassed the MSX2 you are right...but MSX2 wasn't technically superior in its own time. If any of the other systems I mentioned had the same ease of use, and would have invited self-development as well as MSX did I would have switched.<<

absolutelly agree
Besides the Atari ST, all those listed were 2 years or more later than MSX2. Apples and oranges.

...but comparisons have to be done without dedicated hardware, otherwise, consoles like PS2 or Gamecube are like a Pentium IV at 2 GHz, but this isn't true
Bullshit. The combination with the MSX VDP is exactly what makes it so powerful!
A Pentium IV at 2 GHz will slow down to a crawl on an old ISA VGA card.

By jalu

Master (156)

jalu's picture

12-09-2003, 21:21


Bullshit. The combination with the MSX VDP is exactly what makes it so powerful!
A Pentium IV at 2 GHz will slow down to a crawl on an old ISA VGA card.

Yeah, as the V9958 is the major slowdown of the turboR Wink

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

12-09-2003, 23:28

True Tongue

By Niles

Hero (545)

Niles's picture

13-09-2003, 17:35

Bullshit. The combination with the MSX VDP is exactly what makes it so powerful!
A Pentium IV at 2 GHz will slow down to a crawl on an old ISA VGA card.

Yeah, for that reason exists GeForce 4

mind you insist comparing MSX "powered" machines (tMSX+V9999+Moonsound etc...) with some kind of "ISA VGA Pentium IV" O_o ... perhaps my old gameboy with an ATI Radeon 9800 could beat your tMSX Evil Evil

... it's a joke it's a joke man... Tongue Tongue LOL!

nevermind... we are in 2003, and today many cheap PC runs much better than the best (and expensive) tMSX you can find. But I'm still enjoying them Wink

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

13-09-2003, 18:00

mind you insist comparing MSX "powered" machines (tMSX+V9999+Moonsound etc...) with some kind of "ISA VGA Pentium IV" O_o
Maybe you should joke less and read better!
You were the one who brought up the Pentium IV in the first place. And I never compared any MSX with a ISA VGA Pentium IV.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you want to compare a MSX with another computer, you should do it as a whole. Otherwise you're just comparing seperate computer chips. (Z80 vs 80x86, V9938 vs VGA)

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