TNI announces 萌SX

TNI announces 萌SX

by snout on 05-05-2016, 23:03
Topic: MSX Revival
Tags: 萌SX, TNI
Languages:

Celebrating their 25th anniversary, TNI have announced what they call their magnum opus: 萌SX (IPA: [mo.es.ɛks] kana: もえスエックス). It is a research and development project for the next generation of MSX.

A lot of the specifications appear to already be set in stone, namely a 32bit CPU designed by TNI, compatible with Z80/R800 and a VDP that is an enhanced hybrid of V9958 and V9990. The MSX system software is to receive a complete overhaul, including a fast MSX-BASIC and modern multi-tasking MSX-DOS. Backwards compatibility is guaranteed as much as possible, although for the sake of progress some of it may be sacrificed.

In order to make this project a reality, TNI is looking for talented C++ or Z80 coders, artists and designers for game development and support in either moral or financial form. We will keep reporting about this project as further news becomes available.

Relevant news: 萌SX announcement on TNI's 25th anniversary page

Comments (59)

By Lord_Zett

Paladin (807)

Lord_Zett's picture

06-05-2016, 04:02

pfff 25 years. damn long time. party time where is the beer?

By black hawk

Expert (77)

black hawk's picture

06-05-2016, 10:48

WOW ... looks like a giant project ...

By raymond

Champion (367)

raymond's picture

06-05-2016, 11:38

Sounds good! Is there already something to show?

By ren

Paragon (1196)

ren's picture

06-05-2016, 13:42

Interesting... (But) how about a discussion forum/platform for this? Or a collab environment by means of e.g. Phabricator?

By flyguille

Prophet (3029)

flyguille's picture

06-05-2016, 16:20

Another marathonic endless project GuyveR800?, I wonder about some details....

By example, if the cpu WILL actually have a 32bit data bus, and the memory will read/write about 4 bytes per tick. I thinks it is the best way.

So the compatibility can be, if the MSB is just zero, it runs a z80 100% compatibile opcode. And 8 bit code will waste 3 bytes of each 4.

But, if the MSB <> 0, that one will be the z80 opcode, just using the same opcodes, but there is 3 bytes for parameters, now the actual 8bit parameters can be 16bit, and the 16bits parameter (nn) nn, can be 32bit (counting the two steps), being the first 16bits parameter for by example, a normal ld c, nn, can be ld csc, nnnn, where the last c same 8bit register.

It is a bit wasting, and not improvement in the ticks per instruction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other way
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shifting opcode, 8 bit databus, it also is a waste of time.

by example

pick a useless instruction, like ld b,b. This will broke the 100% of compatibility

but if (iirc ld b,b is $80).

$80 opcode params

This will extend the params to double sized registers. When working with that shift opcode, all flags must be connected to the MSB in operations of 16 and 32bits.

But as 8bit databus, it will double the cost in time. in both ways we can still work with the known opcodes, and it don't feels like it is not MSX.

So, which one this project will pick?

By tvalenca

Paladin (728)

tvalenca's picture

06-05-2016, 17:23

Other possible way is to define a sequence of opcodes that switches the processor between "Legacy" and "Native" modes. This is how Hitachi did on 6309, Intel did on x68 family (when changing from Real mode) and lately AMD did on x68-64 (32-64 bit modes)

By diederick76

Expert (101)

diederick76's picture

06-05-2016, 17:30

Like this site, TNI's does not render well on devices with small screens.

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

07-05-2016, 00:49

A small nitpick about this newpost: They are looking for developers/support in general (for any generation MSX/different types of projects), not for this new system exclusively.

By rolandve

Expert (113)

rolandve's picture

07-05-2016, 21:43

A new MSX would be so cool. I would support both in $ and in moral and hours. However I have doubts.
My reasons to doubt:
- designing a 32 bits processor is a lot of work;
- any MSX video chip is completely obsolete, you want HDMI and true color;
- audio (not mentioned) has progressed so much that even the best MSX audio card is obsolete;
- multitasking MSX-DOS3? Who cares about multitasking?;
- MSX-Basic was nice, but the way implemented it sucks. Better integrate a C(++) interpretor;
- backward compatibility: not being able to run Metal Gear 2 disqualifies for the name MSX;
- MSX probably can't be used because of copy rights;
- they talk about a research project. No results guaranteed;
- what is this machine supposed to do? (Internet? Text processing? Games?)

The architecture of MSX must be re-thought for a new purpose. For me, MSX is having fun with Legacy games.
So, I will follow developments Smile

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9760)

wolf_'s picture

07-05-2016, 23:00

You need this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhh_GeBPOhs

As in: people who create content. So, question is: what would such people actually want? What can they manage? You can give a Cray supercomputer to the FlierpyFlierpy Indian tribe from the rainforest, and that'll make as much sense as giving a modern PC to someone who prefers to make MSX1 games (and not MSX2, 2+, tR, G9k, Moonsound, 1cM). See, there's a whole flock o' people who like primitive sprites, tiles and noises. For them it's retro, style, and it reminds them of when they were young and got their first MSX. You could add all kinda of videochips, audio, 32 bit processors and heaven knows what, but eventually you'll end up with a PC. I wonder whether these people want that. Maybe they do, I simply wouldn't know.

So, what would people want to do with such a system? Games? Possibly. Demos? Possibly. In such cases (full-screen games/demos) you don't need multi-tasking anyway. But, word processors? E-Mail tools? Spreadsheets? Databases? Internet browsers? I dunno, probably not.

Something to compare it with. I wonder, how many people use SymbOS? I mean, I'll be the first one to say it's the best OS/GUI-system on MSX ever, and truly a milestone for an 8-bit system, engineered by a single person. But how do people use it? If not, you end up with something done merely to prove it can be done, and little more than that.

If anyone's about to make a new MSX, my tips are:

  • A range of Z80 CPUs, so that you can dedicate audio, gfx etc. to them. See, our current ultimate chips (G9k, Moonsound) are just a tad more meaty in their possibilities, so they could need more CPU to get every last drop of potential from it.
  • An interrupt generator that ticks consistently anywhere on this planet. No tempo crap with music @ 50/60 Hz anymore.
  • What annoys me is the PSG vs SCC/FM balance that's a bit off with certain models, so have that fixed too.
  • Playing music during disk loading.

See, it's not even all that much, but these have been kind of the 'bugs' in the MSX.

By rolandve

Expert (113)

rolandve's picture

08-05-2016, 10:03

@Wolf, "a range of Z80 CPUs". Do you mean to give MSX co-processors for specific hardware? Do they need to be Z80's? or is any type of processor ok?

What I have been thinking about is, making a processor that does more "generic" more often used routines, like MMX was on Intel processors, for example a chip that can:
- copy a memory segment from ram to vram or v.v.
- do memory management
- Perhaps some assembly routines that now require lots of instructions (I thought Z80 division is decreasing until the remainder is smaller than the value)
- play music on psg/scc(+)/fm/audio/moon by simply uploading the audio files to the chip memory and start.

Like the amiga had co-processors for a lot of tasks (I/O, Audio, Graphics). The more intelligence you put in this "Z80" daughterboard, the better, because it keeps you Z80 free for the more "intelligent" work.

From a hardware perspective, it might be possible but some work on the motherboard will be required. Putting another chip on the bus, talking with the memories while the Z80 does its work. I imagine this to be a device with an I/O address, write some values to it and the work happens. This way: all old stuff works because the old stuff is still where it is expected.

Just letting my imagination do the work here Smile

By DanySoft

Champion (430)

DanySoft's picture

08-05-2016, 17:20

note:
The TNIASM by 0.x version does not support macros!
In this case, I do not really care about this compiler for MSX.
I greeting and SJASM is supported with macro.

By PAC

Guardian (5139)

PAC's picture

08-05-2016, 17:46

It is not my intention to criticise this project or other, don't get me wrong, but as usual many MSX projects from different groups with different specs and goals. There is no a clear idea of what MSX community wants/needs. It's not a problem of knowledge but organization.

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

08-05-2016, 22:20

DanySoft wrote:

note:
The TNIASM by 0.x version does not support macros!
In this case, I do not really care about this compiler for MSX.
I greeting and SJASM is supported with macro.

that is because 0.x is no longer being developed.

TNIASM v1.0 support macros and its pretty good

https://www.msx.org/forum/msx-talk/development/looking-for-t...

Also this news post is not about tniASM, its about a new msx standard

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

08-05-2016, 22:27

PAC wrote:

It is not my intention to criticise this project or other, don't get me wrong, but as usual many MSX projects from different groups with different specs and goals. There is no a clear idea of what MSX community wants/needs. It's not a problem of knowledge but organization.

That is because nobody has the same wishes for a new msx. Like many different topics here on mrc already mentioned, some think a turbo r + moonsound+gfx9000 is the ultimate msx, some want a device that looks like a pc out of the year 2000, while some dont want anything new at all.

Tbh from all the new MSX "follow ups", I think this one may be the most promising. If you look at the various specs, this one actually caters to what many ppl want:

- Faster basic (look at the recent renewed interest in Basic 'n (turbo/kun/bla))
- Combined v9958/v9990
- Faster CPU
- Multitasking is very nice, look at symbos popularity!

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9760)

wolf_'s picture

09-05-2016, 00:01

syn wrote:

- Multitasking is very nice, look at symbos popularity!

Do tell! Really, what do people do with it? (this is a serious question)

Regardless of its Win95-looks, in use it reminds me of my Windows 3.11 days. It just sat there on my HD while everything I ever used back then (486DX2 days) was DOS, and Norton Commander was my file manager. To me it was a tad silly to first boot Win3.11 from DOS, only to click a DOS-icon and go to DOS again. So, Win3.11 ended up largely unused.

While you may think this belongs into another thread, it does belong here because of its relation to multi-tasking. Typically, someone uses an MSX for one task at a time. A game, or a demo. So, you'd have to wonder whether you need an OS that supports multi-tasking. So, again: prior to designing all this new stuff, perhaps one should ask MSX-users what they intend to use it for.

I agree on the faster CPU (or multiple cores/co-processors), the 9958/9990 combi. The BASIC would be nice for the BASIC fanatics, although fast could refer to things being compiled, or to the way it works (or perhaps both). If the line numbers could be wiped, block-constructions added, local variables, and the whole thing running with a proper IDE, then it'd be something.

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

09-05-2016, 01:04

Well, I was just pointing out people like multitasking, not praising symbos itself (since I have never used it so I can't be the judge of that).

But the advantages of multitasking are pretty obvious imo. Having a multi-tasking DOS3 means you can run many already existing software at the same time and switching fast in between. For example, how about not having to exit your music editor just because you have to do some file management, or need to edit a sample. Or take a quick look at another sc5 picture while drawing without having to save/exit/reset. This is also a huge difference compared to symbos where you can only run software specifically written for it (instead of native MSX software).

Perhaps you need to experience it first. Like a mobile phone, or mobile internet. I didn't see the point in having those at first either Wink

Btw imo multiple z80's would not be that great. Harder to code for, harder to design. I'd say one of the reasons people are still using msx in 2016 is its rather simplistic approach. But I am not an expert coder so maybe im wrong here.

By flyguille

Prophet (3029)

flyguille's picture

09-05-2016, 01:33

syn wrote:

Well, I was just pointing out people like multitasking, not praising symbos itself (since I have never used it so I can't be the judge of that).

But the advantages of multitasking are pretty obvious imo. Having a multi-tasking DOS3 means you can run many already existing software at the same time and switching fast in between. For example, how about not having to exit your music editor just because you have to do some file management, or need to edit a sample. Or take a quick look at another sc5 picture while drawing without having to save/exit/reset. This is also a huge difference compared to symbos where you can only run software specifically written for it (instead of native MSX software).

Perhaps you need to experience it first. Like a mobile phone, or mobile internet. I didn't see the point in having those at first either Wink

Btw imo multiple z80's would not be that great. Harder to code for, harder to design. I'd say one of the reasons people are still using msx in 2016 is its rather simplistic approach. But I am not an expert coder so maybe im wrong here.

switching tasks without the help of the app itself (like having a render event) is not possible, but the hardware can has "surfaces", where all the vdp i/o impacts, so virtualizing the memory and registers pool for the VDP into a major memory bank, the MSXBIOS can switch the vdp to show one bank or another, in real msx it is not possible because we haven't access to switch the vdp's register pool. But it is doable.

Ofcourse also is the software solution with extra feature help, like do the vdp registers really readable, and let the faster cpu backup/restore all the vram and register bank to the ram. Which is the same effect.

But, it is not just about VDPs, it is about sound, cartridges, everything, it will be hard to implement it, except if any single chip that we use often is virtualized in the circuit behaviour description (what coding in VHDL is , describing the behaviour of the machine, then the compiler create the related circuit from that behaviour description).

So, if everything fits in some large fpga or serveral of them, no needs to plugs carts, except for .... ROMs games and file I/O.

Just when switching from one task to another it will glitch the video/sound just a click, but that is a minor thing, todays monitors resync very fast the vertical, it will be like changing the channel in a TV.

By Lord_Zett

Paladin (807)

Lord_Zett's picture

09-05-2016, 05:44

multi tasking would be great for msx stuff. and how the make it possible i dont know. but as long as its easy in basic.

By edoz

Prophet (2156)

edoz's picture

09-05-2016, 10:21

wolf_ wrote:
syn wrote:

- Multitasking is very nice, look at symbos popularity!

Do tell! Really, what do people do with it? (this is a serious question)

I do Wink I use it almost daily Wink And i love to support it! The multitasking is very usefully. Especially when it becomes to networking support. Next to that it is very easy to create a application for it. It's like rapid development. In a couple of hours you can make a chat program which is fully working. That's just crazy.

I mean the code to send something is just like this:

Function SendSomething(mystring)
	If mystring>"" Then 
		Net.TCP.Send(mystring + "|")
	EndIf

EndF

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9760)

wolf_'s picture

09-05-2016, 10:21

syn wrote:

Well, I was just pointing out people like multitasking, not praising symbos itself (since I have never used it so I can't be the judge of that).

I mentioned SymbOS because that's a multi tasking OS, and it's obviously an office/desktop environment. That's not the same as running Nemesis 3 in thread 1, Moonblaster in thread 2 and Unknown Reality in thread 3. So, whether you'd need multitasking mainly depends on whether you need a Windows-style desktop for MSX, with dito applications. Personally I wouldn't ever use Office-type applications on an MSX anymore. In the 80's this was different, the MSX was our main/everything-computer.

Quote:

But the advantages of multitasking are pretty obvious imo. Having a multi-tasking DOS3 means you can run many already existing software at the same time and switching fast in between. For example, how about not having to exit your music editor just because you have to do some file management, or need to edit a sample. Or take a quick look at another sc5 picture while drawing without having to save/exit/reset.

You really feel your life is only complete when you can switch from a music editor to a file manager, a picture viewer or a sample editor? These examples really make no sense at all. :-) We can all boo at PC's, but these PC-things do exactly the things you mention. We don't need multi-tasking (which, as Fly points out, isn't all that easy for generic software), we do multi-computing!

Quote:

Perhaps you need to experience it first. Like a mobile phone, or mobile internet. I didn't see the point in having those at first either Wink

For most people the point is money. All these new things cost money, and before it hits the mainstream, the gizmoboys bought the first few series, causing a massive pricedrop.

By edoz

Prophet (2156)

edoz's picture

09-05-2016, 10:47

wolf_ wrote:

I mentioned SymbOS because that's a multi tasking OS, and it's obviously an office/desktop environment. That's not the same as running Nemesis 3 in thread 1, Moonblaster in thread 2 and Unknown Reality in thread 3. So, whether you'd need multitasking mainly depends on whether you need a Windows-style desktop for MSX, with dito applications. Personally I wouldn't ever use Office-type applications on an MSX anymore. In the 80's this was different, the MSX was our main/everything-computer.

At this stage it is not. But when the graphic library is done for SymbOS it would be possible to make fullscreen games or programs. Multi-tasking is not only about running 2 applications but also for game development. I did battleship as a network game and the Multi-Tasking was very usefully for that. As i didn't care about the network traffic while doing other things. Of course in the end the z80 can only do one task at a time but you can use all the free CPU time to do other thing.

So i can see the benefit for a multitasking dos system Wink

By ren

Paragon (1196)

ren's picture

09-05-2016, 12:18

PAC wrote:

It is not my intention to criticise this project or other, don't get me wrong, but as usual many MSX projects from different groups with different specs and goals. There is no a clear idea of what MSX community wants/needs. It's not a problem of knowledge but organization.

What I'd really like to see is an open (source) project. ATM, publicly, it's a news post, an e-mail address & IRC channel I guess. It seems they already made some decisions?
Not sure if they want to keep it behind closed doors (so to say), but I think/feel the most awesome thing to do is to make this a community thing/effort. (Of course there should be some lead(ing roles) as well.)

If they're really aiming for the next gen (of) MSX, I guess it would make sense to get a lot of people involved (anyone who cares essentially (and has some sense regarding the subject/matter I guess Wink))

Related, this is interesting perhaps?

By Lord_Zett

Paladin (807)

Lord_Zett's picture

09-05-2016, 12:33

ren wrote:

If they're really aiming for the next gen (of) MSX, I guess it would make sense to get a lot of people involved (anyone who cares essentially (and has some sense regarding the subject/matter I guess Wink))

true

and maybe symbios got the possible start for some parts of next genmsx

By Lord_Zett

Paladin (807)

Lord_Zett's picture

09-05-2016, 13:57

and any extention on basic is cool!

By flyguille

Prophet (3029)

flyguille's picture

09-05-2016, 16:30

edoz wrote:
wolf_ wrote:

I mentioned SymbOS because that's a multi tasking OS, and it's obviously an office/desktop environment. That's not the same as running Nemesis 3 in thread 1, Moonblaster in thread 2 and Unknown Reality in thread 3. So, whether you'd need multitasking mainly depends on whether you need a Windows-style desktop for MSX, with dito applications. Personally I wouldn't ever use Office-type applications on an MSX anymore. In the 80's this was different, the MSX was our main/everything-computer.

At this stage it is not. But when the graphic library is done for SymbOS it would be possible to make fullscreen games or programs. Multi-tasking is not only about running 2 applications but also for game development. I did battleship as a network game and the Multi-Tasking was very usefully for that. As i didn't care about the network traffic while doing other things. Of course in the end the z80 can only do one task at a time but you can use all the free CPU time to do other thing.

So i can see the benefit for a multitasking dos system Wink

But that is the problem of SymbOS, it is not MSX.

What TNI team mean with DOS3 is that you can program following the actual MSX standard hardware/software and have multitasking at the same time, so it will be MSX with multitasking.

That is the main cause why the results of symbOS is limited about adoption by the comunity.

By rolandve

Expert (113)

rolandve's picture

09-05-2016, 19:34

Multitasking comes at a price.It often requires more memory (some primitive forms of memory management are required if you don't want applications to overwrite each others data) etc. Both these things: memory and speed are not abundantly available in MSX systems. When I look at Uzix, mostly the slowness of the system jumps out. With a 32 Bit system that will not be an issue though.

TNI probably has a plan and an idea and they go forward. Lets see what happens.

By diederick76

Expert (101)

diederick76's picture

09-05-2016, 19:59

I can't help thinking that I already own a computer that can execute multiple msx programmes at the same time: my Linux machine. But if they come up with a better BASIC, A cross between MSX-BASIC and de ZX Spectrum's Beta BASiC would be awesome. Beta BASIC had local variables, functions (no return statement, but you could pass variables by reference if you wished), advanced tracing, and much more modern stuff.

By Lord_Zett

Paladin (807)

Lord_Zett's picture

09-05-2016, 20:12

a better basic with split scroll. zoom rotate maybe split screen?

By pitpan

Prophet (3131)

pitpan's picture

09-05-2016, 20:27

There's nothing such as the sweet smell of vapour in a monday morning.

By rolandve

Expert (113)

rolandve's picture

09-05-2016, 20:39

MSX basic is heavily limited by the limitations of the machine. Slow speed, limited memory, lousy debugging capabilities (" syntax error at line 130" -> list 130...)

A new basic can overcome these limitations, if you want to accept some incompatibilities, like MSX2 with 128KB+ memory only. For example: Basic is no longer integrated in a rom but its an executable on disk. 128 KB memory or more is available so a real editor allowing for good structured programming with decent functions and subs can be used. Code can be compiled before use. etc. When this basic compiler supports #include or linking libraries, any assembly routine can be used. It won't be a speed monster (even if you have a 7 Mhz machine) but your code will run way faster and perhaps: more people will dip there feet in the pool called programming.

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

09-05-2016, 23:22

pitpan wrote:

There's nothing such as the sweet smell of vapour in a monday morning.

you seem to have a very sensitive nose then Wink

To call something vaporware merely a few days after its announcement is just not right....

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

09-05-2016, 23:27

wolf_ wrote:

You really feel your life is only complete when you can switch from a music editor to a file manager, a picture viewer or a sample editor? These examples really make no sense at all. :-) We can all boo at PC's, but these PC-things do exactly the things you mention. We don't need multi-tasking (which, as Fly points out, isn't all that easy for generic software), we do multi-computing!

What does my life's completeness have to do with anything? You asked for examples and I gave them. And I dont think my examples are nonsense. Multitasking is multitasking, the same for any system. I am puzzled why you think it is irrelevant for a MSX but great for a PC? If only because a PC can do it better, well we may as well throw away our msx because PC does 99,9999% of the things better anyway Wink

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9760)

wolf_'s picture

10-05-2016, 07:34

syn wrote:

Multitasking is multitasking, the same for any system. I am puzzled why you think it is irrelevant for a MSX but great for a PC?

1) Because I see an MSX more as a one-task machine. A game, a demo etc. fullscreen, and not both at the same time.

2) Because I don't see an MSX as an office machine anymore, and that's about the only purpose I see for real multi-tasking, where it may be practical to have two windowed text editors etc.

Anyway, what I wanted to point out is to find out what people would be expecting to do with a new MSX. I'm merely stating that a term like multi-tasking may sound great 'n cool, but that in my opinion only few would really do something useful with it. Often the idea is nicer than what it works like in practice.

Actually, perhaps it'd be handy to define what we're talking about. Are we talking task-switching (stuff remains idle until you switch to it) or multi-tasking (multiple processes run at the same time)?

By tvalenca

Paladin (728)

tvalenca's picture

10-05-2016, 21:45

Task switching may be something useful on MSX. This means: You can put the program you're running on hold, then open another program to do something else, to finally get back to what you're doing first. Maybe syn's example to Multitasking is the best example to Task switching:

syn wrote:

But the advantages of multitasking are pretty obvious imo. Having a multi-tasking DOS3 means you can run many already existing software at the same time and switching fast in between. For example, how about not having to exit your music editor just because you have to do some file management, or need to edit a sample. Or take a quick look at another sc5 picture while drawing without having to save/exit/reset.

The most interesting is, This could be done with Memory mapper and a little padronization.

By Prodatron

Paragon (1788)

Prodatron's picture

11-05-2016, 15:19

If you use your machine mainly for playing games and watching demos multitasking isn't really needed.
But for "working" with it it is really useful already on systems like the MSX. Syn already gave a good example. Only because you didn't use it before on the MSX doesn't mean that you wouldn't like and need it.
Other typical examples:
- running a music player in the background
- unZipping files
- writing some texts in a texteditor
- still have the possibilities for doing other stuff inbetween without the need to stop any of these tasks
As EdoZ mentioned, when it comes to networking not having multitasking is really boring. Somehow multitasking is a requirement of networking. You can...
- run your Samba server in the background
- download stuff with WGET or whatever
- have your messenger/chat(s) open
- and do anything else you want
All these tasks can already be done fine with an MSX today, and I am sure people would appreciate it if they can run several of them at the same time.

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

11-05-2016, 15:57

I was thinking, if symbOS works under this new multitasking dos3, that would be pretty neat. You could run native msx software together with symbOS!

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9760)

wolf_'s picture

11-05-2016, 17:53

Prodatron wrote:

If you use your machine mainly for playing games and watching demos multitasking isn't really needed.
But for "working" with it it is really useful already on systems like the MSX.

That's what's interesting to find out first then. Do we run games/demos, or do we actually work (office-type work) with an MSX, anno 2016? And your other typical examples would fit office-type - for lack of a better term. I would initiate an MRC-poll for that!

Do note though, contrary to what you may think, I'm not against such a system at all. It's just that it'd be a shame if large chunks of horsepower would go unused because it simply doesn't interest the majority of people. Horses for courses. And I think MSX is a game/demo horse, not an office horse anymore. But hey... Wink

By Manuel

Ascended (15457)

Manuel's picture

11-05-2016, 22:35

syn: you can't just run an OS on another OS without some kind of virtual machine idea...

SymbOS doesn't run under DOS.... it's a completely different OS on itself.

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

11-05-2016, 23:45

yeah i took a too quick look at symbos, I read MSX dos so I thought it runs under dos but its just the installer/setup.

By edoz

Prophet (2156)

edoz's picture

13-05-2016, 08:29

Does the CPU also have a protected mode? For multitasking this would be a cool feature.

By Erwin Brasil

Supporter (5)

Erwin Brasil's picture

17-05-2016, 06:23

Next Vaporware

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

17-05-2016, 18:09

Erwin Brasil wrote:

Next Vaporware

Based on what are you saying this is vaporware? Over the years the creators have released a slow but steady stream of various kinds of software, so there is really no reason to believe this will not see the light of day....

By Daemos

Paragon (1669)

Daemos's picture

17-05-2016, 19:54

I think I understand that the word vapoware is being trown alot against this post. This project is quite something big we are talking about. I do however have trust in some of the people behind this project. As far as I know there is a lot of skill doing stuff at TNI, something that should not be underestimated.

I seriously wish the best to the people at TNI for taking this huge effort. If it completes: awesome! If it turns out to be vaporware: at least someone seriously tried.

Big projects are hard projects but I love big projects and they all have my moral support and in the far future my time and (crappy) coding skills.

We must not forget that big projects eventually spawn smaller projects. Even if they fail to complete it is never in vein.

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

17-05-2016, 22:04

Its a lot of effort but not impossible as some think. Besides, from what I gather, this is also a sort of consolidation of various other projects so a lot of work was already done in the past.

By msxski

Resident (54)

msxski's picture

18-05-2016, 04:00

Aim lower and crowfund a minor upgraded machine like this: http://www.specnext.com/

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

18-05-2016, 06:12

Let's not immediately pass a new initiative off as vapor, guys. It's a well-known fact that the TNI people are extremely knowledgable about MSX. Give some things a chance. We'll see, okay?

By Daemos

Paragon (1669)

Daemos's picture

18-05-2016, 13:36

Well said John.

By tfh

Paragon (1732)

tfh's picture

05-05-2017, 12:10

Are there any updates about this project? It seems quite interesting... I wonder how the progress is compared to for example the Vrobit.

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

09-05-2017, 12:39

Maybe it is not really clear but the goal of this project is not to release new hardware. Instead it aims to create a new MSX standard. Ofcourse new hardware (in the shape of a new msx computer or 1ChipMSX/Zemmix Neo type device) could be released in due time in cooperation with a MSX hardware manufacturer or with the help of crowdfunding.

Regarding the progress: The focus right now (the thing the developers are working on atm) is to improve the current system software (for example the Basic or BIOS). Once that is done, the new hardware functionalities will be implemented (in FPGA).

By ren

Paragon (1196)

ren's picture

09-05-2017, 13:33

Is there a public web (WWW) place that reports on / keeps track of this progress?

By tfh

Paragon (1732)

tfh's picture

09-05-2017, 14:17

@Syn: Thanks for the update! Smile We'll have to be patience a bit more Smile

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

09-05-2017, 16:00

@ren: there is no active blog/status tracker or anything, your best bet is join the IRC chat at #msxdev on rizon (if you are using the webclient, try Firefox, Chrome seems to have problems connecting lately)

@tfh no problem :D

By OeiOeiVogeltje

Paragon (1270)

OeiOeiVogeltje's picture

05-05-2018, 16:51

and?
anything happen?

By iamweasel2

Hero (516)

iamweasel2's picture

05-05-2019, 01:12

Is it dead, Jim?

By syn

Paragon (1915)

syn's picture

05-05-2019, 10:12

They are still working on it. I'll ask them about it later on for more info

By Manuel

Ascended (15457)

Manuel's picture

05-05-2019, 10:53

Some information here: https://youtu.be/tx5uxSrE7iA

By iamweasel2

Hero (516)

iamweasel2's picture

05-05-2019, 16:43

Manuel wrote:

Some information here: https://youtu.be/tx5uxSrE7iA

Really nice interview, thanks Manuel.

It is a really nice project, and the fact that is is designed to be used in currently FPGA MSX computers (even if it needs bigger fpga like MSXSM) makes it adoption a lot easier.

I'm just concerned that it seems to be a lot of work for just one guy (even if this one is a talented guy like Lesparre). Enhancing BIOS, DOS and Basic while designing a new computer is too much work. I hope some other talented people can join him.

By Manuel

Ascended (15457)

Manuel's picture

05-05-2019, 18:21

Yes, he also said himself he can use some help. Especially regarding the hardware part.

To be honest: to me this concept is the best so far to make a new MSX computer. The 100% compatibility is very much what I would also like to see in such a thing. Just a new affordable machine that can replace any real MSX and still run all software as if it was such a real MSX. And then add extra possibilities.