everything has to evolve.
but you have to got a finish.
like msx1 the could go direct to msx2.
but the say first msx1 and then work fearther for msx2.

so i mean don't want to work on 10 parts at the same time but go for a gaol and then look fearther.

like msx1 then msx2 then msx2+ then tr.

try to creat a hole product not parts and upgrate.

i hope you undersand me now.

I can't put it different becours of my pour english

Someday there are ppl who will regret they didn't order the OCM.
Two days left to make a decision, don't forget.

Quote:

everything has to evolve. but you have to got a finish. like msx1 the could go direct to msx2. but the say first msx1 and then work fearther for msx2. so i mean don't want to work on 10 parts at the same time but go for a gaol and then look fearther. like msx1 then msx2 then msx2+ then tr. try to creat a hole product not parts and upgrate. i hope you undersand me now.

I just wanted you to think about why they didn't do it in the way you think is the right one!

it's a bigger and more daring step to take

I ordered one the very same day that Bazix began to take pre-orders.

me too...........

u know I have 4 msx at home , some are better than others ,
I dont need a very strong reason to buy OCM...

I have two turbo r and three msx more... but I like new hardware for msx platform. I have ordered one chip msx. I like the msx feeling!

I've evaluated my options (that is, mainly money ) at first hand. But as time went by, I simply decided to order one ^_^

You know, the limited offer thing

Oh, and one more thing (zett, Tanni, here you are ):

Quote:

like msx1 then msx2 then msx2+ then tr. try to creat a hole product not parts and upgrate.

These two lines simply hold 3 contradictions. 'Try to create a whole product, not parts or upgrades' (<-- I think that's what you mean, correct me if you don't). It is said that MSX1 was released before MSX2 because the videochip wasn't quite ready. At the moment I'm too lazy to investigate who said this, but I believe it was you (zett) in this very same thread.
In that respect, MSX2 could be seen as an upgrade of MSX1.
The same issue with the MSX2+ vs. MSX2. The only thing what makes it an MSX2+, is again the videochip (OK, and another bootlogo & BASIC, but you'll get the picture).

Another upgrade is the turboR. Why didn't they call it MSX3? I mean, there's this new, fantastic processor, boat-loads of memory, and yet... (no cassette port, hehehe, just kidding ^_^)

Although all systems mentioned above (MSX, MSX2, MSX2+, MSX turboR) are relatively small upgrades from eachother, they are seen as four different standards, each one extending its predecessor.

In a sense of 'a complete product': I believe the board with the FPGA chip, the casing around it and the whole stuff (and not the actual programming of the FPGA) makes up for the complete product. The software isn't a part of that. And when you say the software would be a part of it: so be it. MSX (MSX1) was 'a complete product' as well in 1983, so why not in a new casing in 2005? Moreover, it can be extended to MSX2 (heck, maybe they even do that upgrade @ the ASCII vaults ) rather easily, so it is again a complete product.

Hell yeah, whatevah!

Quote:

I look at it like this. a product don't matter what hobby or pro. is finished when you kan put it on a shelf in da shop. a product white casing info boxed.

You also can put the OCM in a shelf in some kind of shop! A it was said, the OCM will come in a casing and also with additional info. And, as they send it by postal service, it's also in a box! Conclusion: The OCM is a finished product!

I guess we will have some news by tomorrow or next monday ( i hope )

Quote:

Oh, and one more thing (zett, Tanni, here you are ): Quote: like msx1 then msx2 then msx2+ then tr. try to creat a hole product not parts and upgrate. These two lines simply hold 3 contradictions. 'Try to create a whole product, not parts or upgrades' (<-- I think that's what you mean, correct me if you don't). It is said that MSX1 was released before MSX2 because the videochip wasn't quite ready. At the moment I'm too lazy to investigate who said this, but I believe it was you (zett) in this very same thread. In that respect, MSX2 could be seen as an upgrade of MSX1. The same issue with the MSX2+ vs. MSX2. The only thing what makes it an MSX2+, is again the videochip (OK, and another bootlogo & BASIC, but you'll get the picture).

Yes, [D-Tail], you've got what I mean! Things like computer systems will never be finished, so you can't expect to get ''the final version'' off the shelf. If there would be a final version, than the system, here MSX, would be dead. (By the way: I think, MSX never was dead! Maybe we should consider the ten years of ''abandonment'' as ''hibernation'', which means winter sleep.)

Quote:

Although all systems mentioned above (MSX, MSX2, MSX2+, MSX turboR) are relatively small upgrades from eachother, they are seen as four different standards, each one extending its predecessor.

I consider MSX as just on standard with four ''levels of development'' indicated by the version number or the R of the Turbo R.

Quote:

In a sense of 'a complete product': I believe the board with the FPGA chip, the casing around it and the whole stuff (and not the actual programming of the FPGA) makes up for the complete product.

Yes, I totally agree! It depends on how you define 'complete'. Maybe zett meant a 'usable' or 'conveniently usable' or an 'as I am used to' usable product. In that sense, you can consider the OCM as 'incomplete', because of the lack of a keyboard. Kay Nishi not just want the OCM for retrogaming, but also for educational use concerning reconfigurable hardware, which will be the future.

To wake up from hibernation may be a somewhat harder process than just waking up after a night of ordinary sleep. Back in 1983, it was easy to sell hight amounts of 8 bit computers. Now, if MSX is to be ''revived'' or awakened form hibernation, we can't expect that there will be a huge demand for that system on the worldwide market. If revival should be a success anyway, it must go on very carefully, step by step, for not to loose too much money if one step fails. Therefore, for the time being, we must be confident with not so convenient to use new hardware. We must be patient, because there are so much interesting possibilities for further development, that it would be a mistake to already offer a ''finished'' product.

Tanni, I think you just mentioned what the MSX Revival is all about, certainly when you mention the step-by-step, one step at a time approach

Snout, could you please change the 'MSX Revival' newstopic in 'MSX De-hibernation'?

I think the concept is brilliant. They give a programmable FPGA device to the community and they are just going to see what the community will come up with. The only fear I have is that there are not enough VHDL coders to make it happen. IF it succeeds though, it will be the first computersystem which really derives from the combined forces of users. That's just awesome.

I remember somewhere MTH asked a question about under what license sourcecodes will become available and stuff. I also would like this question to be answered, it's important to know for the further development of the true new MSX computer.

I'm thrilled, really am

Quote:

Tanni, I think you just mentioned what the MSX Revival is all about, certainly when you mention the step-by-step, one step at a time approach

Yes, I remember I've written something about that in another threat! Or did you mean that concerning my previous post?