What have you in mind to do with OCM ?

Page 12/19
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

By Hydlide

Master (171)

Hydlide's picture

13-12-2006, 16:07

just chiming in from a user perspective, not a developer, so shoot me if I'm talking nonsense.

IMO, there's no real need for 100% compatibility in an "MSX3". You can always flop back to the "default" MSX2.
Id' like to see:
- real performance gain, say a relative speed of 20-30x native Z80 (66MHz sounds good)
- faster VDP (also about 20-30x current 9938/58 VDPs)
- screen modes.. here's the nice bit. For "future proofness" a resolution options of 480p (maybe 576p for PAL?) and depending on performance maybe 720p (although this may be too much?)
- 16 bit colors (ok, maybe 24 or 32, but only if it's not eating to much slot space in FPGA)
- internet capability! i want to check websites, email with my OCM (this is of course also s/w related, but the h/w should be prepared as well)
- SymbOS collaboration! make this beauty the default environment for the next MSX!

wrt performance, I'd prefer focus on raw performance than technical features like multi-planes.

anyway, from a (stupid?) user perspective Smile

edit:
Bazix, D4E, and MSX Association should define a standard for the next MSX. It will then up to the developers to develop this. imho this would be the only real, visionary step to a new standard for MSX Smile

By Tanni

Hero (556)

Tanni's picture

13-12-2006, 17:16

Sounds quite good, Hydlide! We need fresh opinions here.

Bazix, D4E, and MSX Association should define a standard for the next MSX. It will then up to the developers to develop this. imho this would be the only real, visionary step to a new standard for MSX Smile

I would like the MSX users define the standard for the next MSX systems by themselves. There must be discussions on that issue, and it will take some time. We need not come up with that in a few month. It also will become ''difficult'' to define such a standard when hardware can be changed by reconfigurating the system.

It's clear that there will not be ONE standard anymore, at least not in the classical sense of the word standard. What we need is a standard to administrate standards.

The next MSX is the OCM. To my opinion, it's an intermediate product to test the capabilities of FPGAs. A future MSX3 standard should not based on the OCM. It's too restrictive. New FPGA devices will have more CLBs, will be runtime reconfigurable, even in parts. So, an MSX3 standard should also be independend form the actual FPGA platform used.

An MSX3 need not be compatible with MSX standards lower than MSX3, as long as it is possible to achieve this compatibility by demand, either envoked by the user or by an application program or game. I would like this to be called MSX1-, MSX2-, MSX2+-, MSX tR-, or OCM-coherent respectively, according to cache coherency: Coherency is consitency on demand. So, an MSX3 system is MSX1 coherent if the MSX3 can be reconfigured to behave like an MSX1 by demand. An MSX2 computer is always compatibel with an MSX1 machine, but an MSX1 coherent MSX3 computer would not be always MSX1 compatible, possibly never.

Was ZX81 compatible to the ZX80? Was ZX spectrum compatible to the ZX81, and most important, was Sinclair QL compatible to the ZX spectrum?

With FPGA, we are able to maintain compatibility without the need of being compatible all the time.

By ivke2006

Expert (74)

ivke2006's picture

13-12-2006, 17:20

Hydlide: you are not talking nonsens at all.

- VDP+CPU speed gain should be indeed 20-30x
- Implemeting HD resolutions is a very good idea!
- SymbOS should be the standard for the next gen MSX!

But the MOST IMPORTANT part is that Bazix, D4E, and MSX Association defines (with input from the msx scene) a new MSX standard and also defines the needed development phases/steps. They should also define several teams like VDP development team, CPU development team, etc..each theam should have PM/leaddeveloper and developers. If someone want to participate he can contact then a PM.

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9918)

wolf_'s picture

13-12-2006, 17:44

Apart from the, say, 'game'-related things hydlide mentioned, I'd like to take these ones apart:


- internet capability! i want to check websites, email with my OCM (this is of course also s/w related, but the h/w should be prepared as well)
- SymbOS collaboration! make this beauty the default environment for the next MSX!

They're somewhat related I think, but in the first place it's about that internet point alone. It's just that I know internet from running inside a browser, and this browser has these GUI looks which SymbOS also has.

I ask myself: why browse/email the net with the OCM? I can imagine multiplayer-games over the net. But browsing/mailing? And it's not whether the OCM is capable enough (no doubt it will, esp. when taking SymbOS into account), but whether ppl really want to do their Office stuff on their OCM, rather than on their PC/Mac.

My point is mainly about whether people want to proof something "look, my MSX can browse the net" vs doing something that 'will be used'... Uhm, I mean: if a coder can choose between making a browser/emailclient, or make a game.. by all means: do the game! Rather a game to play than PC-software to pimp around.. Tongue (all imho)

3ct

By dvik

Prophet (2200)

dvik's picture

13-12-2006, 17:50

I ask myself: why browse/email the net with the OCM?
The OCM could be the brain or terminal in your home entertainment system. In both cases its nice with a TCP/IP stack and Internet so you can browse for TV programs for example. Also it is nice if you have a PC server with all your apps that can be easily ftp'd into the OCM.

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9918)

wolf_'s picture

13-12-2006, 18:13

could be .. but will be? How many people *will* do it like this if it would be available?

By Tanni

Hero (556)

Tanni's picture

13-12-2006, 18:46

The OCM could be the core of a cheep, lightweight, mobile system with wireless internet access . . .

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9918)

wolf_'s picture

13-12-2006, 18:53

Like my notebook, so to say ^_^

By Tanni

Hero (556)

Tanni's picture

13-12-2006, 18:57

Was your notebook that cheep?

By Tanni

Hero (556)

Tanni's picture

13-12-2006, 18:58

And is it that lightweight?

Page 12/19
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17