What I think an MSX 3 Should be ?

Страница 22/24
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | | 23 | 24

By zPasi

Champion (499)

Аватар пользователя zPasi

25-11-2015, 13:48

JaviLM wrote:

Irrelevant. Cost is not a factor when determining whether two platforms are close related or not. If we were to follow that rule, the IchigoJam would be an even better platform, right?

Cost is as good a factor than any. The MSX was (mostly) a home computer, not professional hi-tech equipment.

I'm not following you. Should new MSX computers be built or not? And if, should any MSX3 specification be defined or not?

I think yes and no. Sure, if someone wants to build MSX computers, great! And no, there cannot be no more MSX generations. There is no need. And no-one is maintaining the standard any more.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

Аватар пользователя anonymous

25-11-2015, 14:09

zPasi wrote:

Cost is as good a factor than any. The MSX was (mostly) a home computer, not professional hi-tech equipment.

Not a factor relevant to the "MSX-ness" of the machine.

zPasi wrote:

I'm not following you. Should new MSX computers be built or not?

That's not what the thread is about.

zPasi wrote:

And if, should any MSX3 specification be defined or not?

IF the MSX Association / MSX Licensing Corporation develop a new MSX generation, then obviously a specification will be made. But it will be done by a team who have experience doing that kind of task, not by random people off the Internet throwing random buzzwords in a hat.

zPasi wrote:

And no, there cannot be no more MSX generations. There is no need.

On this we disagree. I do see a need for a machine like the MSX nowadays. Have you tried developing a game (or any GUI application) for any modern platform lately? You'll have to learn the basics of a few APIs and development environments before you even manage to create a view on the screen and put something in it. These aren't the friendliest environments for new users who want to learn to program.

The reason why the IchigoJam is so tremendously popular in Japan is that there are many, many people who want to learn to program and are put back by the unapproachability of more complex modern systems. ASCII Weekly even compares it to the MSX! Its simplicity is its strength.

So yes, I do see a need for a new MSX, but one based on simple, discrete components that can be easily tinkered with and as approachable as MSX BASIC has always been.

By syn

Prophet (2113)

Аватар пользователя syn

25-11-2015, 15:02

A short reply on this post

warau wrote:

I can't understand those projects based on software emulators (OpenMSX, RPI2, etc.) or hardware emulators (FPGA) just to try to fake non-MSX machines with lots of scrambled chips and overclocked features...
Why do you need a 2.2GHz MSX? You already have a PC for that. Creating such a Frankestein is like creating a 2048 minutes long cassette tape.

MSX is just what it is and nothing else.

and this one

zPasi wrote:
AxelStone wrote:

Totally agree, there is no way a MSX3 could be designed.

Absolutely. What would be the point designing MSX3? The idea of MSX always was to design the best possible affordable home computer, that comply the standard. What would that be today? A powerful PC that when desired, runs the old MSX classic games and software on an emulator? We already have that!

The point is to move forward while not totally abandoning msx. Why don't you want progress? I mean look at it this way, what is left in the MSX scene: A group of people who like to play 8 bit games and some who like to develop software. Better specs would make coding more accessable (faster/easier results), for example imagine basic games running at comparible speed/smoothness of asm games on a normal z80! Or simply stuff like more colors/sprites. Win/win for both type of MSX'ers imho.

zPasi wrote:
AxelStone wrote:

The idea is develop a new computer based on Rpi2 but with all MSX hardware extensions: cartridge slots, joy ports, etc. It should run as MSX turbo R via emulation and has a native mode, the MSX-VR mode, for new developments.

I support the idea. Raspberry PI has all the power required to the job, and more. The only things missing are cartridge slots, joy ports and such. And an attractive casing. It can be build!

And analog video out! Composite would be good. I'm not joking! I even kept my old 14" CRT colour TV for using with my retro computers!

While I am interested in that msxvr project I really dont think basing a new MSX standard on a RPi running an emulator is a good idea. For one this always bring latency (you have OS AND the emulator to thank for that). Plus if you are using a rpi2 purely as an msx emulator-only platform you are totally wasting its potential since it could probably run some 3d games at decent framerate (Compared to for example an FPGA where you are actually using it to the fullest). Javi's car analogy makes perfect sense.

offtopic: where did you find that MSX-VR is a RPi2? I cant seem to find it in the google translated english.

By RetroTechie

Paragon (1563)

Аватар пользователя RetroTechie

25-11-2015, 14:52

zPasi wrote:

Should new MSX computers be built or not?

Yes please. Our old ones are dying. Crying Like houses or cars, at some point it's easier to build new than keep repairing the old ones.

Quote:

And if, should any MSX3 specification be defined or not?

No point, imho. Standards are set by numbers built.

If you build a single specimen, that's not a standard no matter how nice an officially-supported specification document is drawn up.

On the other hand, if you build a 1000+, it will be a standard of sorts even if you don't bother to release a spec sheet. That holds true even if what's implemented is a moving target like in the case of FPGA-based machines.

"MSX" to me these days is big 'grab bag' Smile2 of components / hardware features, of which you can select a set, which glued together supports some cross-section of MSX software. If (for example) you want to stick a new boot logo on that: fine. But that's just cosmetics. What matters is the software that runs on it.

JaviLM wrote:

I do see a need for a machine like the MSX nowadays. Have you tried developing a game (or any GUI application) for any modern platform lately? You'll have to learn the basics of a few APIs and development environments before you even manage to create a view on the screen and put something in it. These aren't the friendliest environments for new users who want to learn to program.

Arduino for the blinking LEDs folks. Raspberry Pi / BeagleBone / ... for the power users & GUI folks. Everything else is nice to have, but doesn't add much in the way of supporting that educational goal you pointed out. Note: I happen to agree with that. But again: standards <-> numbers built. Which translates to community, documentation, support, availability, pricing, etc, etc.

By zPasi

Champion (499)

Аватар пользователя zPasi

25-11-2015, 15:07

JaviLM wrote:

IF the MSX Association / MSX Licensing Corporation develop a new MSX generation, then obviously a specification will be made.

They never will, so end of story.

Quote:

On this we disagree. I do see a need for a machine like the MSX nowadays. Have you tried developing a game (or any GUI application) for any modern platform lately? You'll have to learn the basics of a few APIs and development environments before you even manage to create a view on the screen and put something in it. These aren't the friendliest environments for new users who want to learn to program.

Actually I have. I have even succeeded doing that a few times Smile

And there are a lot of more or less friendly programming tools / IDEs available to choose from. That may be the problem, there are so many.

Quote:

So yes, I do see a need for a new MSX, but one based on simple, discrete components that can be easily tinkered with and as approachable as MSX BASIC has always been.

Raspberry PI is that new MSX. They even use it in schools. Or Arduino is that, it's even simpler, because you don't have many languages to choose from.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

Аватар пользователя anonymous

25-11-2015, 17:51

syn wrote:

offtopic: where did you find that MSX-VR is a RPi2? I cant seem to find it in the google translated english.

This post in his blog. The Raspberry Pi is connected to the display via the RCA cables, and the filming starts after launching the emulator.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

Аватар пользователя anonymous

25-11-2015, 18:01

RetroTechie wrote:
Quote:

And if, should any MSX3 specification be defined or not?

No point, imho. Standards are set by numbers built.

No. Standards are set by international industry associations such as ISO and the IEEE.

RetroTechie wrote:

If you build a single specimen, that's not a standard no matter how nice an officially-supported specification document is drawn up.

You're confusing the terms "standard" and "specification".

RetroTechie wrote:

On the other hand, if you build a 1000+, it will be a standard of sorts even if you don't bother to release a spec sheet. That holds true even if what's implemented is a moving target like in the case of FPGA-based machines.

If you build 1000+ without licensing it, instead of having a standard of sorts what you'll have will be a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement from Microsoft and the MSX Licensing Corporation, plus possibly others such as Panasonic if you copy their case or logic boards. If you license it from the MSXLC then you still don't have a say over the MSX specification. Yes, you can machine different from the spec you've been licensed, but you're not defining what "MSX" is or means.

RetroTechie wrote:

Arduino for the blinking LEDs folks. Raspberry Pi / BeagleBone / ... for the power users & GUI folks. Everything else is nice to have, but doesn't add much in the way of supporting that educational goal you pointed out.

I almost completely agree.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

Аватар пользователя anonymous

25-11-2015, 18:04

zPasi wrote:
JaviLM wrote:

IF the MSX Association / MSX Licensing Corporation develop a new MSX generation, then obviously a specification will be made.

They never will, so end of story.

We don't know about that. It seems that retro machines are becoming more and more popular lately. We don't know what's going to happen in the future. However, I'm not optimist about seeing a new batch of MSX machines being produced.

Quote:

And there are a lot of more or less friendly programming tools / IDEs available to choose from. That may be the problem, there are so many.

I completely agree. Sometimes choosing the programming language or an API is one of the most annoying parts of the project.

Quote:

Raspberry PI is that new MSX.

No, it's not. But I understand what you mean.

By megatron

Resident (41)

Аватар пользователя megatron

26-04-2016, 10:50

So is Anyone actually building a 'Real' MSX replacement machine (MSX 3) from real hardware ??

By tvalenca

Paladin (747)

Аватар пользователя tvalenca

26-04-2016, 22:41

no.

Страница 22/24
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | | 23 | 24