Quote:

Guyve, did you mean those problems, that msx-1 machine code program which works on one msx-1, don´t work on another manufacturer´s msx-1, like Operation Wolf didn´t load on my Toshiba hx-10, but in the shop it loaded on spectravideo svi-728 ...

No, I did not mean that.
Programs that don't work on some MSX machines, but do work on others just don't follow the standard.

Especially a lot of British software had this problem (hardcoded slot for RAM, in stead of detection). There's even some British software that sets the joystick I/O pins wrong, possibly blowing up your MSX by shortcut!!

well, we need to be honest, MSX1 is a head painful. I remember how my games mas for msx1 don't work in anothers msx, because the SLOTTING/SUBSLOTTING, is a head painful, overal in msx machines where the 64k RAM are spreaded by all slots. That Sucks...

To program for MSX2 is diferent, because his got mapper, you can be sure that the whole ram is on an unique SLOT/SUBSLOT.

I made a lot of things for MSX1 like a graphic suit that nobody know, why? . It work in SLOT 1 only. A GOOD one, not those little shits.

Quote:

To program for MSX2 is diferent, because his got mapper, you can be sure that the whole ram is on an unique SLOT/SUBSLOT.

Say that to Sony HB-F500 owners!

Quote:

Ofcourse there are external diskdrives for MSX1, and there may even be some MSX1 models with built-in diskdrive, but they are all (sometimes extremely) rare. I've been looking for a 720K external diskdrive for years, and I've not found one.

You're looking in the wrong country
Here almost all drives are external, and the only machine having internal drive is an MSX-1.

Quote:

Kiitos Nyyrikki but that pressing SHIFT down while booting and then POKE -1,(15-PEEK(-1)\16)*17 didn´t help on certain original cassette games... Livewire´s Alpha Blaster and Congo won´t load and Ocean´s Donkey Kong has same problem too... They load very well on msx-1. Gremlin Graphics´ games load as they should thought and Jet Set Willy too! I guess that "Vanhassa vara parempi" ! ( translated from finnish: "Old good MSX-1 is still better! " ) hehheh

No, ei se nyt todellakaan siit oo kiinni! (translation: I don't agree) Last thing to try without touching debugger is to put external memory expancion to either slot 1 or 2. I think, that 90% of the problems are caused by wrong kind of RAM detection, 9.99% is caused by illegal BIOS calls and 0.01% is caused by difference between MSX1 and MSX2 hardware.

If it is caused by the first mentioned reasons, then it propably doesn't work on all MSX1 computers either. If it is caused by last reason, then the programmer has thrown manuals away and generated his code by testing. (I can't see why using the undocumented video mode on MSX1 could even help)

What ever the reason is, it is caused by total disintrest of the standard.

well, thanks for answers!

ignoring the standard is really nasty and stupid thing!

I guess that

a) 80´s msx-1 programmers didn´t understand that their programming style causes that their prog won´t work on all msx

b) all programmers propably didn´t had good / at all "inner mind of msx" manuals

c) and after programs were published, and problems started, programmers and software houses ignored whole thing... and continued like everything´s OK !

by the way... if you hadn´t guessed it by now after reading my answers, there IS revival now..

Quote:

b) all programmers propably didn´t had good / at all "inner mind of msx" manuals

I wish ASCII had released more detailed info on MSX architecture. Needless to say this post will get (a bit?) off-topic to the original thread though...

For example, there is little known about how (which registers have which info) and when certain hooks are called and what to save in order to keep other things working as expected. The most used hooks are the two standard interrupt hooks for device interrupt handling and VDP timing, to hook music handling on.

Everything we know (and is published) about the MSX architecture is in most cases trial-and-error based information.

Expecting a bunch of hard-evidenced counter-remarks here.

Quote:

If you mean software, good software is good software no matter was it made for MSX1 or MSX2. I think, best solution is to make software, that can support also better hardware. I mean MSX1 games, that can use MSX2 pallette, if that is available or Space Manbow type of support for MSX2+

yes, as I said, I like to see more games for MSX-1.

And I have samelike thoughts too when it comes to software which supports also better hardware.

If they can do msx-1 cartridge game which supports msx-2, then one can do diskette/cassette for msx-1 limitations which supports msx-2 too, I guess.

Quote:

a) 80´s msx-1 programmers didn´t understand that their programming style causes that their prog won´t work on all msx b) all programmers propably didn´t had good / at all "inner mind of msx" manuals c) and after programs were published, and problems started, programmers and software houses ignored whole thing... and continued like everything´s OK !

I guess you could change the name with PC...

Most progs don't work on all PC's
no-one actually understands the Cpu of intel
and program filled with bugs are spread on a daily bases these days



Cheerz!

ASCII published the MSX TECHNICAL DATABOOK, and it is pretty complete and accurate. I have two copies, one of them a rarity, published by SONY. System architecture is discussed in depth along its 340+ pages.

Where did you get them?

One from the U.S. (found in eBay). The other, from the Netherlands, found in a "buy and sell" page (not MSX related). I had been looking for them for years, and then, in the same week, I got two copies!

I will scan it and put on-line, but I do not know when. Very busy with Karoshi's entries to MSXdev'04.

Please scan them soon, I'll provide OCR / proofreading services

I am as far from an "active MSX user" as a regular MRC visitor can be, but there are some thoughts I would like to share about this "revival" topic.

Like many people noted, the MSX is still a device ahead of its time: a unified productivity / entertainment platform, simple to use and develop, backed by vendor-independent standards. The closest thing we have nowadays are smartphones and PDA's, but they still lack interoperability, as each vendor designs its own, impenetrable hardware specs and proprietary development environments. As a result, the developer base, which is already relatively small, gets fragmented among far too many choices.

And there is the bloat factor: mobile developers come mostly from the PC world, where we are used to standing on top of huge, hardware-abstracting tool stacks. On the other hand, MSX developers are (if I got it right) used to coding "low-level", fast little apps. Such a community is a great advantage to devices with limited resources, which mobile gadgets still are.

I just hope ASCII will not follow japanese eletronics market "tradition" of holding on to closed specs like their life depended on it. In a world of crescent pressure for open standards, such a move could prove fatal. It's widely known that PC history was decided on favor of the IBM standard because anyone could build a compatible device, without spending a penny on royalties. MSX could do the same for this dawning era of mobile/wearable computing -- if it doesn't, someone else will do, sooner or later.

That said, how come there are no specs for the new generation MSX out yet? If it's just a matter of ASCII still not having enough money to produce it, they could at least let the developer base know what is coming. If the community was allowed to build and play with "toy" implementations of the new standards, (original, not just retro-compatible) software would be availble for it right on release.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, xperroni! I think you are completely right about MSX still being ahead of its time on several points. Thankfully, when Nishi announced the one chip MSX plans in 2001 he stated he aimed for an 'open' platform, encourating the users to not only passively use the system, but also to develop anything they want themselves. I think a computer that encourages creativity in a way the MSX did and still does even today can always become succesfull. Alas, there are other factors that make things slightly more difficult.

As for the specifications not being known already, I think Nishi tried to explain that in 2001 as well. Nishi is taking quite an 80s approach to developing the one chip MSX. Instead of co-operating with big companies who want an exclusive deal and short-term results he wants to create something very good first, and then license it to multiple companies (like MSX in the 80s).

Apart from that, it takes a lot of time before the funds are there to actually create the first real prototypes. If he would be setting the specs now and creating the prototype in 6 months, he would only limit himself by aiming for specs of 'today', instead of 'tomorrow'. I think the right time to set (and announce) the specs for the one chip MSX is when you are about ready to create the first prototypes. That way the one chip MSX can become as up-to-date as possible. Of course, when there is any info on specs (even rumours), we'll report about it on our frontpage