Give the One Chip MSX a new name challenge [suggestions]

Page 40/42
33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | | 41 | 42

By Tanni

Hero (556)

Tanni's picture

04-08-2005, 18:22

Do you think every side of the OCM box will be of equal length?

I don't think that the OCM will be an MSX3. I rather think of it as an experiment. If it succeeds, maybe there will be an MSX3 based on the experiences made with it.

By Leo

Paragon (1236)

Leo's picture

04-08-2005, 18:28

But I am optimistic .. thats why I think MSX3 is OK .

By arnold_m

Master (173)

arnold_m's picture

04-08-2005, 22:16

HYPE-msx : Hardware-based Yet Partial Emulator of msx

By POISONIC

Paladin (1012)

POISONIC's picture

04-08-2005, 22:45

name: X5
X is MSX
5=fifth generation

like:
msx1,msx2,msx2+,msx turbo R,1chip msx

By Latok

msx guru (3870)

Latok's picture

04-08-2005, 23:14

Do you think every side of the OCM box will be of equal length?

I don't think that the OCM will be an MSX3. I rather think of it as an experiment. If it succeeds, maybe there will be an MSX3 based on the experiences made with it.

Tanni, actually, in MSX MAGAZINE 3, there's an article which proves you are right. There is a timeline in which is stated they first want to do MSX1, MSX2, MSX2+ and turboR and after that, they want to make a proper 'MSX3'.

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

04-08-2005, 23:23

Euhm, you might as well have pointed to Kazuhiko Nishi's MSX World 2005 lecture. ;)

By Tanni

Hero (556)

Tanni's picture

05-08-2005, 10:32

Do you think every side of the OCM box will be of equal length?

I don't think that the OCM will be an MSX3. I rather think of it as an experiment. If it succeeds, maybe there will be an MSX3 based on the experiences made with it.

Tanni, actually, in MSX MAGAZINE 3, there's an article which proves you are right. There is a timeline in which is stated they first want to do MSX1, MSX2, MSX2+ and turboR and after that, they want to make a proper 'MSX3'.
Yes, Latok, that's the only way to go! The MSX3 must be a real computer, not just a box without keyboard, etc. The OCM goes the right way, but is still far away form a real MSX3. It must include the ability to reconfigure the system at runtime as feature of the system that can be called by BIOS. There's lots of work to be done to achieve this, I think. The MSX3 must be something like a ''quantum leap'' in reconfigurable homecomputing. Having no patience now can lead to conceptual errors that probably makes the project fail. So I don't understand the nagging about the MSX2 code and the cable. We've waited so long for the MSX-Revival that at least me can still wait some additional weeks or months! Maybe it would be good to get rid of the deadline of August 20th. I think the OCM will be produced anyway, regardless if there are 5000 preorders up to that date. So better doing good instead of doing quick and dirty because of a silly self-given deadline.

By Tanni

Hero (556)

Tanni's picture

05-08-2005, 10:36

Tanni, actually, in MSX MAGAZINE 3, there's an article which proves you are right. There is a timeline in which is stated they first want to do MSX1, MSX2, MSX2+ and turboR and after that, they want to make a proper 'MSX3'.
And, Latok, remember the sketch I drawed on the blackboard in Bussum last year!

By Leo

Paragon (1236)

Leo's picture

05-08-2005, 11:15

Well you assume re-configuration on the fly of the MSX should
be a feature added to MSX3 specs.
In that case I believe this feature will be dependent on the fpga type.
And I doubt we want to be dependent on the fpga, because we will
have the same problem latter like discontinuance in the hardware...
I dont see the MSX3 as a 'MSX revenge' in which MSX would proove it surpass nowaday systems architecture concepts.
I see it more like all what I ever wanted to bring the MSX spirit further ahead:
more colors , more resolution , more sounds , faster processor, even easier easy programation , keep direct access to hardware ressource by the program...

By Tanni

Hero (556)

Tanni's picture

05-08-2005, 12:16

Well you assume re-configuration on the fly of the MSX should
be a feature added to MSX3 specs.

Yes! With upcoming runtime reconfigurable platform-FPGAs, this is the future. MSX is a relatively small system, it can be realized in today's FPGAs. Thats our chance! If you would want to realize a current PC in one single FPGA, I think, today, thats not possible, because current FPGAs are still too small and too slow. Or, the other way round, PCs are to capacious!

In that case I believe this feature will be dependent on the fpga type.
And I doubt we want to be dependent on the fpga, because we will
have the same problem latter like discontinuance in the hardware...

Yes, it depends on the FPGA type. But because the sourcecode of the system is written in VHDL, which is independend from the FPGA type and even indepentend form wheather the system is implemented by FPGA or by ASIC, this dependency dosn't matter. For another FPGA type, you just need to recompile and resynthesize the sourcecode.

The FPGA must be runtime reconfigurable. It must be partly runtime reconfiugurabe, too. One part holds the core of the system, and there must be some kind of space administration to know which logic cells and wireing ressources are free. Maybe there will be a real processor besides the FPGA to do the administration.

The central point is to have a VHDL synthesis tool on the system. This tool should not only know about the current FPGA type, but also about the current place and route information. So, if the system knows about its configuration, that means out of which cores it consists and where they are exactly placed and by which wireing ressources they are exactly connected, then the tool can add new functionality at runtime. It can partly reconfigure the system. I don't know if such systems are already running, and if so, I think they're only for investigation purposes. MSX and the MSX commiunity could be a part of such investigations. As MSX started, investigations of the possibility of software wasn't finished, but it still is in progress today! With the OCM, we're starting to investigate the possibilities of FPGAs for system design! For MSX3, we can lean form the OCM!

Note, I'm talking about a possible MSX3. I think they'll base it on an 16- or 32-bit Z80 successor, realized in an FPGA with sufficient logic cells and sufficient block memory space. Note also, that we talk about platform FPGAs here, not just FPGAs. Todays FPGAs are capable to hold an entire computer system, consisting of several processors, memory, I/O, etc. Former FPGA were to small for doing so!

I dont see the MSX3 as a 'MSX revenge' in which MSX would proove it surpass nowaday systems architecture concepts.

As I said a few lines above, reconfigurable hardware using platform FPGAs is the future. MSX has the chance to be part of this future, because it is a relativly small system, so it can be implemented in a current platform FPGA. Homecomputer enthousiasts of other systems than MSX may also want to use FPGA to develop their systems ...

(Buggles: As of today you might been rideing the engines of future ...)

If we have this chance, why not taking it. Do you think the mammels have thought about 'revenche' after the dead of the dinosaurs and therefore not taken the chance?

I see it more like all what I ever wanted to bring the MSX spirit further ahead:
more colors , more resolution , more sounds , faster processor, even easier easy programation , keep direct access to hardware ressource by the program...

This spirit is also included in ''MSX FPGA spirit'': You can have more colours, more resolution, more sounds, faster processor, and direct access to the (emulated) hardware by the program. With the dream I provided, the program also can have access to the hardware itself, which now is the FPGA. The ease of programming software is kept, because the existing programs will be still running, just the feature of ''progarmming'' hardware, i.e. writing VHDL extensions of the system or entirely new systems, is added. But this opens an entirely new world of computing! Thats great!

Page 40/42
33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | | 41 | 42