Wiki editing discussion

Page 84/90
77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89

By Parn

Hero (607)

Parn's picture

18-09-2020, 19:47

I'm a bit doubtful that SCC means "Sound Createive Controler". Big smile

By PAC

Guardian (5881)

PAC's picture

18-09-2020, 20:06

Obviously without typo... LOL!

By Parn

Hero (607)

Parn's picture

18-09-2020, 22:03

Hehe. Of course I'm just kidding, but I wonder how did they come up with that. Did they see it written that way somewhere? Even the other Japanese person in the thread seemed to be surprised by it. I always thought Konami never bothered explaining the meaning of the acronym SCC, but the MSX-Wiki says it was mentioned in a Konami Software Club newsletter.

By Grauw

Ascended (9342)

Grauw's picture

19-09-2020, 03:44

In Katakana ti is spelled like te + small i. So the mistake to write tei instead of ti is understandable.

By sdsnatcher73

Paragon (1147)

sdsnatcher73's picture

19-09-2020, 07:11

We’ll never know if the acronym or the name came first. It may have become SCC during design phase (s might even have been simple at the time, as in design wise and cost target). It is then very human to come up with a cool name that matches the acronym. Which is what the MSX community did and asked of Konami. Such a cool name may not have existed within Konami which could explain their response at the time.

Regarding that photo, we cannot be sure when those stickers were added. This may very well be a regular production cart with the case removed and the owner adding the stickers with the cool name he heard. The rom has the RC751 printed on it so I doubt it is a pre-production development cart.

Of course it still may be the “official” name but we cannot know for sure and personally I think the chances are against this.

By gdx

Prophet (3753)

gdx's picture

19-09-2020, 11:24

What we do know is that it is a 2 in 1 chip: Sound generator and Rom mapper controller. We also know that Konami marked “SCC-I” on other very different chips (in NES cartridge).

By Briqunullus

Master (179)

Briqunullus's picture

19-09-2020, 15:14

A few weeks ago I discovered there have been two versions of command.com 1.11. A have added a reference to this on the MSX-DOS 1 wiki page without textual explanation. I think I should improve on that, but I'm struggling a bit.

To me the best solution seems to give them distinct names, like 1.11 (Hal-F) and 1.11 (Tim Paterson). Then add an extra entry in the table to separate them out. However, what to do with the computers and devices listed in the table?

I'm tempted to think the bugged version was distributed by Philips only. But I don't have any prove of this. Also, I have no idea whether Philips have ever corrected their error. I only know my original Philips MSX-DOS disk contains command 1.11 (Hal-F) and this version is very widespread.

And of course I would need to add textual context to this. I have screenshots showcasing the bug. Is it safe to include external images (like putting them on msx.pics) to the wiki?

By Manuel

Ascended (16974)

Manuel's picture

19-09-2020, 15:54

Why not upload the image to the Wiki and use that?

By Briqunullus

Master (179)

Briqunullus's picture

19-09-2020, 16:18

So the wiki and the forum treat images differently? I will need to have a look at that. Smile

By Briqunullus

Master (179)

Briqunullus's picture

19-09-2020, 22:48

Added screenshots to the MSX-DOS 1 wiki page showing the concatenation bug. The question remains, should we break up the table and use separate entries for these two versions? Or should we leave it as it is?

Page 84/90
77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89