also, the keyboard of the common zx sucks lice...

He's not comparing MSX to the old Sinclair, I understood he's comparing MSX to Sinclair QL. I agree with him, Sinclair QL is indeed 3 or 4 times more powerful than MSX-1.

Back in the eighties when spectrum and MSX -systems were on the market, most of the HOMECOMPUTER buyers choose their system by which games were available for it. Few people actually thought about the graphic, sound or memory capabilities.
Then, there was kids who loved to program with the basic.

MSX had better quality games (more konami titles available, which alone proves my point ) and MSX had the best basic available. So; MSX was/is better.

Here in finland only C64 was considered "cooler" than MSX, because there was a HUGE amount of games available for it. But still MSX had far more exciting basic programming.

So, Id say:

MSX 2 pts.
C64 1,5 pts.
Speccy 0,5 pts (half points because I think there was some usable software availble for it).

ricbit: IIRC, he says that the Sinclair QL is 20x more powerful than the ZX Spectrum and that the ZX Spectrum is 2 or 3 times more powerful than the MSX. The latter is clearly nonsense.
The QL does have a 7.something MHz 68008 CPU though, so CPU wise, Sinclair is right: the QL is much more powerful. But the ZX Spectrum has the same CPU and CPU speed than MSX and is otherwise a lot more crappy, so I don't agree with him there, like most people.

Quote:

ricbit: IIRC, he says that the Sinclair QL is 20x more powerful than the ZX Spectrum and that the ZX Spectrum is 2 or 3 times more powerful than the MSX. The latter is clearly nonsense. .

The QL is quicker, yes, but not SO QUICKER, even an old machine as the SAM coupe' with z80 at 6mhz is not so slow than QL. The reasons are.

The (as usual) cheap processor 8 bit databus (If motorola also produced a 68000 with 4bit databus that cost 1 $ less than 68008 they surely choosed it, sacryfing anithing to cheapness (for they) !)

The hardware to witch the 68000 is connected.

Quote:

Here in finland only C64 was considered "cooler" than MSX, because there was a HUGE amount of games available for it. But still MSX had far more exciting basic programming.

Yes, c64 was a great machine; it's flexibility in sprite management made it unmachable for years. The SID was also the top for 8 bit soundchip.

The only thing the Spectrum had for itself was its price. It was one of the cheapest computer around (same story for the ZX81 some years before).

It also had a lot of success in the UK because people tend to buy the "local" machine and in other countries because it's design was so primitive it was easy to clone it. Technically it didn't have anything good. Graphic, sound, keyboard, even the basic or memory management were utter crap. With that said, you got to have some respect for what some democrew and game companies got out of such a primitive machine. What they managed to do with it is a true piece of hacking history (ever saw Buggy Boy on the Spectrum ?).

MSX had less success even though they certainly were far better. They were too expensive (remember the price of a MSX1 in 1984?) and were marketted by a bunch of douchebags with more experience in selling microwave hovens than computers, outside Japan anyway.

Far away from me criticizing the speccy. As for c64, msx i MUST be pleasing to these machines. Without these very limited machines and the interest they give me on the old (and dear) days, actually i could not be a it professional. So MAX respect to some old ladies that drive and accompanied me in the first steps in the computer world!

Working with limited specs is a dying art, yeah..

I doubt today's code-studies let you code in asm on a 80's cpu and 64kb ram just to drill 'n shape you..

This video made my day:

I was pining to see an antiquated marketing video featuring an old fart talking bullshit to sell more of his crap.

And I have.

I will go asleep a happy bunny ^_^

Each country has its history in personal computing.

In Spain four 8-bit systems/computers were very popular: Spectrum, Amstrad, Commodore and MSX. The ZX Spectrum was the most sold here simply because it was the cheapest computer and had the largest library of software. MSX was probably the second system most sold despite its bad situation after 1988. A lot of games were ported from Spectrum to MSX only to be sold in Spain (and were not sold anywhere else!).

What computers/systems were the most sold/popular in your country?

About the ZX Spectrum in particular I like its large library of software. I don't like its graphical capabilities (a lot of games were almost monochrome) and the keyboard (even in +2 and +3 it was quite uncomfortable).

Motorola is n00b, Zilog is b00b... Which concludes my technical analisys of the matter

spectrum wasn't popular in the uk due to national pride or crap like that, it was the most popular due to the price, it was the cheapest thing available helped of course by not being shy about using partly defect ram chips, the next thing up in price was the c64, everything else was just too costly in comparison which is significant considering how financially broken in general the uk was in the early 80's.

The spectrum was a crap design using, it was a marginal improvement on the zx81, that's about it. The only spectrums that were built properly were by amstrad after they bought the brand. And amstrad was hardly the bastion of high end manufacturing.

And msx didn't sell well in the uk due to the extreme price tag and despite being reduced drastically from the end of '85 it was simply too late, "everyone" had the spectrum or c64 and the power of inertia just carried them on.

Of course, genius (oh look, he's in mensa!) experts talking out of their (_X_) about how crap their competitors were on the alleged computer information show that was "micro live" wouldn't much help the situation. Watching that show generally you'd think only a bbc computer existed on the whole planet. Of course, it demonstrates an often repeated thing, talk crap with enough authority and everything you say is true.

So in conclusion, I would like to say "poo".

Quote:

So in conclusion, I would like to say "poo".

I'm assuming you meant to say p00p...

no, I'm officially saing poo