why a so stupid mistake?

Page 3/10
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

By PingPong

Prophet (3193)

PingPong's picture

05-10-2017, 18:16

yzi wrote:

Why would anyone think it was a "mistake" to select the already existing and known TMS 9918 instead of waiting an unknown period of time for a new chip, when the goal is to get lots of manufacturers to produce very different but compatible products on the new emerging home computer market? In Japan in the beginning of the 1980s, when this effort is being led by a person who is far from being a chip designer? I think the 9918 decision fits the goals and valuations very well.

If the goal was to saturate market, then it's clear that the winner is c64. 11M vs 5M of msx sold.
And they created their custom chips, and achieved the result.
It's a fact.
So i think the goal on msx is missed a lot. mainly because of the only weakly part msx1 had over c64. the tms vdp.
- sound wise there are IMHO not much differences in pratical use. the real step forward in synthesys is FM, for me SID is only a slightly better sound generator than AY. But in pratical game use does not matter so much. both have 3 channels and noise generation, it's enough for gaming of '80.

- cpu wise, z80 is superior to 6510.
- from the available memory point of view ( and expandibility) msx is superior to c64
- the compatibility between brands and standardization of hw and sw is a BIG factor that make msx better than every mono brand competitor of the age......
- MSX-BASIC is slow, but completed

----

By PingPong

Prophet (3193)

PingPong's picture

05-10-2017, 18:25

hit9918 wrote:

another topic would be to list things that could have been done
and order the list by how much cost it is

things are what i pointed out.
and cost is fair because we never asked for a blitter like amiga, or 1024x768 true color gfx.
all the actual tms but:
8 sprites/scanline (even monochromatic): a minimal reasonable amount of number (i know there are timing and complexity constraint)
hw scroll like c64 vic-II. It's NOT an exclusive nor an extremely complex thing to achieve. similar logic is the same already implemented in the 'early clock' bit of sprites ;-). Vertically is a matter to add a CONSTANT value to every y scanline counter. most video controller of the era ALREADY have this. Of course we also need a border masking feature. (trivial)
a plus: the incredible waste of chip memory needed to implement a single bit per plane setting zooming or unzoomed sprite size... (logic is ALREADY HERE)

SEGA electronics saw right. it's tms derivative is what i asked (and more). Gfx quality is the proof.

By hamlet

Scribe (2231)

hamlet's picture

05-10-2017, 18:37

Don´t compare different cpu types and different purposes of the machines. The C64 was designed as a gamers machine, there was one company who didn´t had to mess around with other to create a standart. MSX was build as a link to HiFi and video equip, not as a gaming device. The MSX wasn´t the quickest cats at her best time, but still ok for it´s time. Easy to get and cheap to build. 5 million sold devices is really a big number, I heard even Apples II series wasn´t sold more. We get what we´ve got, build upon ancestors like the SVI318/328 and Colleco system, it was very competitive at its time.
The major difference to the C64 is the SID2 chip, which was a milestone with its free to program ADSR waves.
IMHO the technic was ok, the marketing and the high price at launch was the problems.

By yzi

Champion (440)

yzi's picture

05-10-2017, 18:43

MSX1 must be pretty close to a maximal achievable result that can be had when a Japanese businessman and Microsoft create a multi-vendor 8-bit home computer standard that's released in 1983. I just cannot imagine how that group of people could have made a decision to not release anything until they have a video chip with more sprites per line and smooth scrolling, or whatever.

What comes to PSG vs SID, the difference is like "enough for a committee's requirement specification" vs "awe-inspiring". I've listened to so-called chiptunes for decades and I'm quite fed up with the PSG already. Only on Atari ST where they can at least do PWM with audio-rate interrupts it sounds listenable as music. But give me SID tunes any day, it's actual synthesizer music.

By Pencioner

Paladin (858)

Pencioner's picture

05-10-2017, 18:48

We may speak forever but this is a history after all Smile
Let's say, if at the moment someone introduce cardtridge with SID2 and VIC-II now - probably some of curious people will be interested. But it is already past the time to have a lot of software/games for new devices (for example, there's only a few for GFX9000 now) so it will be just a dusty toy after time, imho. We have what we have. Let's use it Smile

By hit9918

Prophet (2832)

hit9918's picture

05-10-2017, 18:57

@PingPong, MSX2 colorsprites, ok what could one have done different?
the TMS has 32 extra byte Y DMA. and C64 cannot do nemesis, so MSX must keep TMS Big smile
so I argue that when C64 has 40 bytes nametable buffer onchip RAM (!!!) to solve some weakness
then the 9938 could have 32 bytes onchip RAM for sprite Y DMA
this gives 4 more bytes for every sprite
8 sprites a 8 colors

things are not "troubled by msx1 compatibility"
everything goes when one spends the transistors

By hit9918

Prophet (2832)

hit9918's picture

05-10-2017, 19:07

however there is another story.
in last minute the 9938 became double wide RAM for screen 7 screen 8.
but all the other modi and sprites did not get doubled the bandwidth.

By hit9918

Prophet (2832)

hit9918's picture

05-10-2017, 20:06

and one important thing missing here
ever since the MSX1 scroll, my respect of C64 dropped much
and those 8 sprites. never did nemesis knightmare zanac.
and always the fatpixels.
MSX is beauty.

no MSX no nemesis, I DENY that the C64 is better.

By PingPong

Prophet (3193)

PingPong's picture

05-10-2017, 20:28

yzi wrote:

MSX1 must be pretty close to a maximal achievable result that can be had when a Japanese businessman and Microsoft create a multi-vendor 8-bit home computer standard that's released in 1983.

maybe, but nothing changes, TMS is a shitty video chip not comparable with the overall level of the entire system.

Quote:

What comes to PSG vs SID, the difference is like "enough for a committee's requirement specification" vs "awe-inspiring". I've listened to so-called chiptunes for decades and I'm quite fed up with the PSG already. Only on Atari ST where they can at least do PWM with audio-rate interrupts it sounds listenable as music. But give me SID tunes any day, it's actual synthesizer music.

As said, sid sound different from psg, but as the psg there is a monotony in what you get.
And for me, the real step forward is not sid subtractive synthesis it's FM one.
you may argue that sid sound better than psg even on atari st.
you may argue you like sid tunes instead of psg tunes.
but the kind of effects and strument fidelity you can get from those chip is somewhat limited. (maybe better on SID, but always limited)
so, we are comparing two kind of sedan car saying which one is better. But they are both sedan.

instead comparing sid/psg with OPx FM chips by yamaha makes the formers to appear 'croacking' like a toad vs a tweeting bird. That's the difference. that's the reason i consider msx not so disadvantaged vs c64.
for me it was a more important factor the number of different channels. Three are not so much . but both chips have the same possibilities under the aspect of individual channels

By PingPong

Prophet (3193)

PingPong's picture

05-10-2017, 20:33

hit9918 wrote:

@PingPong, MSX2 colorsprites, ok what could one have done different?

by entrirely redesign the sprite system to be incompatibile with msx1 one.

Quote:

things are not "troubled by msx1 compatibility"
everything goes when one spends the transistors

but having a complete sprite system was probably to expensive in terms of transistors.
Not to count the need to change the memory bandwidth allocation logic.
Not a trivial task.
So the only viable option was the max degree of compatibility with TMS.
And if think carefully there is almost no difference between tms & v9938 way of manage sprites. the only difference is how you generate the color sat byte . on TMS depends on plane number, on v9938 depends on planenumber+scanline sprite offset. A very cheap COMPATIBLE / SHITTY solution

Page 3/10
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
My MSX profile