Quote:

Yes, Dumas. I know. But will it be available in large quantities?

Dumas... you are talking about the writter? I am starting to be a bit skeptical about it...

Has anybody looked into hq2x or a similar filter thing though I'm not sure it would be possible. This would improve the look of all games, without adding features that aren't already there

Hmmm... it would be great if (an improved) Obsonet could be reproduced, as both USBorne and 512kB extra RAM aren't really useful for the OCM. Those are great for ordinary MSX2s, but not really necessarry for the OCM.

Quote:

Is there any reason why SD/MMC slot is not enough as external storage ?

Currently you could have a lot of Gb of "MSX loadable stuff"... you can use one or more SD/MMC cards but, I prefer have all together in a single drive well organized plus MSX stuff for PC, MSX magazine scans and so on...

yes, it's a matter of preferences

Quote:

Hmmm... it would be great if (an improved) Obsonet could be reproduced,

I agree here.

Quote:

Hydlide, December 13 2006, 19:54: @Tanni: Quote: I would like the MSX users define the standard for the next MSX systems by themselves. There must be discussions on that issue, and it will take some time. We need not come up with that in a few month. It also will become ''difficult'' to define such a standard when hardware can be changed by reconfigurating the system. of course i meant users should have input. BUT, and this is a biggie: eventually someone will need to make a decision. From professional experience i know that if everyone keeps discussing, there will be no end. I think Bazix/D4E/MSXAssoc should be the parties to decide, okay, enough, this is what we will do. I was talking to ivke2006 and talked about a sub-sub notebook powered by OCM .. a lightweight terminal for all kind of stuff.. Develop a decent USB stack and endless possibilities: wifi, bluetooth, etc anyway, all I'm saying we should be open to possibilities, and not hold on to the old MSX standards too tightly. If that's going to be the case, then I'll have wasted 250 euros by buying the OCM and I'd rather use an emulator instead of "the real thing".

I agree with you, Hydlide. There shouldn't be endless discussions. At some point in time, there must be a decission made by BAZIX/D4D/MSX A. By the way, is there anybody from MSX Association here in this forum?

Your thoughts about the sub-sub notebook powered by OCM and the lightwight terminal for all kind of stuff sounds very good to me. Thats the way MSX should proceed. There also could be others of course, i.e. we should be open to all possibilities to keep MSX alive, in any form. Therefore, we need not hold on to the classical standards too tightly, because with FPGA based devices, we always can go back to the classical configuration.

Quote:

dvik, December 13 2006, 20:05: Quote: If that's going to be the case, then I'll have wasted 250 euros by buying the OCM and I'd rather use an emulator instead of "the real thing". You bring up a good point. The OCM has a lot of potential and is a nice platform for different devices. I think its a quite big chance that we'll soon loose the 'M' in OCM if we go too far from the old MSX standards. Its not really anything bad in developing the VHDL and get the most out of the hardware. The OCM hardware could probably be used as a OCC64 or OCS without any problem, and of course it can be used for something more powerful. But my fear is that the only MSX thing left in the OCM will be the cartridge slot. But if we can get other scenes to use the OCM hw, like spectrum and c64 or just as a custom vhdl platform, then production and sales could increase significantly which would reduce the price of the OCM which would benifit MSXers who would like to run the plain old boring MSX2 vhdl dvik,

MSX was one of the most flexible and most extensible homecomputer systems, if not the most. It was designed to be so. If there is a MSX philosophy at all, than it's that. With FPGA and VHDL, flexibility and extensibility extends to the hardware which now becomes configuable. Then, this would be covered by the MSX philosophy, too, doesn't it? As I have already mentioned earlier, FPGA is a design style. From the users point of view, one need not bother about the way the functionality of the chips is implemented. What counts to maintain the compatibility is that at least most of the existing MSX software will work on future MSX devices, even if the chip is totally different inside. Even in classical homecomputer times, there were some incompatible MSX stuff as far as I have heard.

So I can imagine a totally different MSX architecture based on runtime reconfigurable FPGA which detects if the software to be run is MSX1, MSX2, etc. and does some appropriate reconfiguration before executing it.

Has somebody already contacted other scenes to also use the OCM for their systems? This also was discussed here some time ago, as far as I remember.

Quote:

wolf_, December 13 2006, 20:57: tanni: my notebook can do a lot more than this OCM, and I already have one, and more people will have one (as desktop replacement for instance). So from the perspective of already having a notebook, an OCM for office tasks seems a bit like a waste of time. Look, as far as I see computers, I think today's PC's are the office machines and the workhorses. In the 80's your MSX was also the office machine, but those days are over. I see the 'MSX' (both the old ones as well as the OCM) as a retro machine for games, and perhaps demos. On PC it's less 'done' to do real retro games because ppl could discard you as n00b if you don't make the most 1337 shooter at 1600x1200 res with all details on.. "Electronic Arts marketing" so to say ^_^ On a retromachine you don't need an excuse to do retro stuff, the thing *is* retro.. so you'll do what the machine's good at. Which doesn't render SymbOS useless btw, tho I'd never use it for office tasks, it's still an extra de luxe filemanager. So, what I'd personally would like the OCM to become is flexible gameconsole for retrogames.., those games you don't dare to pimp with on PC/PS2|3/M$X360 etc. In fact, something G9k'ish VHDL code with fast memorymappable 'vram' and decent audio VHDL, and done we be! Let's call these extentions: G9k MK2 and Starsound. Then with boosted Z80 speed what more do we need?

wolf_, I have a notebook, too!

Most likely, Hydelide didn't have office applications in mind, and I don't have it either. MSX was never an office machine, none of the homecomputers really was. Maybe the early Apple machines, but were they really homecomputers in the sense of a ZX81, a ZX spectrum, a C64 or an MSX?

The term ''retro'' is not well choosen, it has a negative touch. Better to say classical homecomputers, classical games, etc. (sounds more like 'classical latin').

So, if you mentally get rid of the term ''retro'' in concern with homecomputers, you propably will think more forward on the issue. If you can extend the OCM VHDL code, than it will be done, even beyond your proposals.

Quote:

Hydlide, December 13 2006, 20:59: @dvik: ... but the hesitation is more or less founded in the same feelings: afraid to lose touch with the "old" architecture. i think this is not necessarily the case, even if you implement lots of new features. but if we want to go ahead, maybe some sacrifices must be made, I think. and again, it's always possible to fallback to the original MSX version of course (which still needs some tweaking anyway). the real question is: should OCM remain a geek only product which eventually will fade away apart from hardcore users, or should it become (at least try!) to get some marketshare, maybe function as a basis for other developments as well, and attract NEW users, not just the MSX diehards/fanboys/girls. Look at the v-tech computers.. simple, but fun.. and on a platform that's VERY outdated. Really, this was an opportunity missed by Nishi when he worked on the OCMv1.. if he (and MSXAA etc) would've looked further than just MSX compatibility, people would have an OCM instead of a v-tech. (ok, I'm dramatizing, but you get the point, I hope). I'd prefer to have the OCM become a relative "mainstream" device (okay, it'll always be a niche), where developers could work on new software/extensions and even make some money from it. it doesn't need to be overtaking the PS/Wii/Xbox, but a smallish niche should be possible..

Maybe they fear to loose touch with the familiar architecture. But it also can be interesting to develop a new one. I totally agree with you!

Quote:

dvik, December 13 2006, 21:18: It reminds me of my compiler class at university. They invented their own simple CPU and computer language to make the class easier. Noone in the world would be interested in their CPU or language. Creating a new spec for a retro machine intended to just run retro like games sound a bit strange to be honest. There are plenty of existing retro platforms that are a generation or two newer than MSX so there is no need at all to reinvent a similar system. I think that if the OCM will evolve into something MSX3'ish with a higher spec than TR, it needs to provide something new, ...

In a compiler class, your're going to learn to build a compiler. This is best by practicing it. A real all purpose processor and a real all purpose programming language would be to complex and to complicated to be the subject of study, and you only need to get acquainted with the basic principles. Later, in a company, you will be doing new things based on that basic principles, very likely. With the OCM and hardware description it'll be just the same.

Quote:

Alex, December 13 2006, 23:54: I'm definitely not against defining an entirely new computer into the OCM with a faster CPU and a VDP with less rendering modes but with direct vram access by the CPU and with a blazingly fast command engine. I'm eventually willing to join such a project. If we get enough people to join this project and to agree on a common standard, we may even get the blessing from MSX Association and that they declare this new design a MSX3 or something like that. After all, only MSX Association can officially declare what is an MSX and what not; they own the MSX trademark. Keep in mind that to make such a new MSX usefull, we must not only have a bunch of people that implement the VHDL part but there must also be volunteers who want to work on the operating system and on applications. This is a huge undertaking. Obviously, we could decide to keep the CPU compatible with the Z80 so that it will be relatively easy to port SymbOS. That would already give a big jump-start with respect to the OS and applications. But it would also make life difficult on the long run as the 64k address limit would stay in place and would still require paging tricks or some kind of virtual memory approach to be able to manage the memory. On the other hand, it is also possible to be more ambitios, define a completely new 32-bit CPU and port a minimalistic linux system (e.g. some embedded linux flavor) to it. All options are still open.

I agree with that!

Quote:

[D-Tail], December 14 2006, 07:24: Maybe even MSX (and the OCM) should move towards the mobile area. I like the idea of carrying my MSX around everywhere

Yes, I like that idea, too! With OCM having access to the internet, it's also easier to download new configurations. For carring the OCM around, there must be a new casing with space for the batteries, etc.

Quote:

MSX was one of the most flexible and most extensible homecomputer systems, if not the most. It was designed to be so. If there is a MSX philosophy at all, than it's that. With FPGA and VHDL, flexibility and extensibility extends to the hardware which now becomes configuable.

This is a ENOOOORMOUS stretch The philosophy is maybe a small part of what the MSX is, but you can't say that just because something is flexible its MSX. A rubberband is very flexible but I wouldn't call that an MSX, would you?
MSX defined as an open quite flexible standard but it has well specified boundaries, see my earlier posts. You can implement an MSX in VHDL but VHDL is _not_ MSX or vice versa.

Your reasoning about philosophy does not make any sense at all. My guess is that you are a lawyer. They are pretty good at stretching the truth

Due to lack of time I haven't joined in the discussion here, but I have been reading the thread. In my opinion, the wishful thinking level is a bit too high.

I don't see the definition of a new msx standard as something that will happen. No organisation is going to blindly define a new standard without controlling the creating of it. And since "they" don't have an army of vhdl coders on the payroll, there is no way to enforce anything. Personally, I'm not at all concerned about this because I firmly believe that "defining" a new standard is an exercise in pointlessness. Standards were defined within the limits of hardware capabilities at a certain time, and a vision of how things should work together. Today all these limits are so far beyond anything that would resemble msx, that any definition would be arbitrary and have no real point to it. However, there is one limit that has now been defined: the ocm hardware itself. To me, this is the boundary to work in, not some unfounded ideas.

Related to this is the discussion about what should or should not be done. To me, this is also futile. Anything vhdl that may be written in the future is done so by people who are trying to have fun in their spare time. This automatically means that they will be doing what they will find the most fun to do. This is uncontrollable by definition. I consider myself to be someone that will be learning vhdl and have fun with ocm. I have some small ideas of what I want to accomplish. Anything more will come to me as I'm trying to gain knowledge about vhdl design. But I'm sure that I'm not going to restrict myself because someone else wants the development of functionality to stay within the capabilities of the current msx. I will do what I feel like doing, and I suspect that will be the same for other developers as well.

Also, apart from the ESE Artist Factory vhdl designers, there is little to no experience in vhdl design. I think it will take years for people to become experienced enough to actually be able to do the more complex projects. I hope this will eventually lead to some interesting things. If that is indeed the case, this could be taken as the basis for a "new system". At that point, the software problem that Alex mentioned still has to be overcome. To be honest, I think that the work that needs to be done to combine vhdl projects into a new system with the appropriate software is nothing less than staggering. It may happen, but it will take a good long while.

The success of any alternative development on the ocm is going to be people that will put in the time to actually learn about vhdl design. I suspect that one or two hours is not really going to cut it. Getting a significant number of people to become proficient will be a challenge in itself. I think that that should be the primary focus for now. After all, without active developers there is nothing.

Edwin, you're right that its the limits of the vhdl hardware that defines what is possible with the OCM and what is not. But although it is possible to do almost anything I wouldn't call a C64 VHDL implementation running on the OCM for MSX. It is a tricky question though. But of course its nice to see other things than an MSX2 emulation running on the OCM. But I wouldn't call that MSX and I think that's a big part of what's been discussed here. Most is about what potential features would make sense to put on the OCM and still keep the MSX feeling of it.

You're right about that without developers its nothing. Ideas alone doesn't make the OCM useful

Quote:

Due to lack of time I haven't joined in the discussion here, but I have been reading the thread. In my opinion, the wishful thinking level is a bit too high. I don't see the definition of a new msx standard as something that will happen. No organisation is going to blindly define a new standard without controlling the creating of it. And since "they" don't have an army of vhdl coders on the payroll, there is no way to enforce anything. Personally, I'm not at all concerned about this because I firmly believe that "defining" a new standard is an exercise in pointlessness. Standards were defined within the limits of hardware capabilities at a certain time, and a vision of how things should work together. Today all these limits are so far beyond anything that would resemble msx, that any definition would be arbitrary and have no real point to it. However, there is one limit that has now been defined: the ocm hardware itself. To me, this is the boundary to work in, not some unfounded ideas. Related to this is the discussion about what should or should not be done. To me, this is also futile. Anything vhdl that may be written in the future is done so by people who are trying to have fun in their spare time. This automatically means that they will be doing what they will find the most fun to do. This is uncontrollable by definition. I consider myself to be someone that will be learning vhdl and have fun with ocm. I have some small ideas of what I want to accomplish. Anything more will come to me as I'm trying to gain knowledge about vhdl design. But I'm sure that I'm not going to restrict myself because someone else wants the development of functionality to stay within the capabilities of the current msx. I will do what I feel like doing, and I suspect that will be the same for other developers as well. Also, apart from the ESE Artist Factory vhdl designers, there is little to no experience in vhdl design. I think it will take years for people to become experienced enough to actually be able to do the more complex projects. I hope this will eventually lead to some interesting things. If that is indeed the case, this could be taken as the basis for a "new system". At that point, the software problem that Alex mentioned still has to be overcome. To be honest, I think that the work that needs to be done to combine vhdl projects into a new system with the appropriate software is nothing less than staggering. It may happen, but it will take a good long while. The success of any alternative development on the ocm is going to be people that will put in the time to actually learn about vhdl design. I suspect that one or two hours is not really going to cut it. Getting a significant number of people to become proficient will be a challenge in itself. I think that that should be the primary focus for now. After all, without active developers there is nothing.

I understand your point, Edwin. Of course I do. But talking like this makes the 1chipMSX nothing more than a modern computer with a hardware MSX2 emulation. I think that's 'dangerous'. IF we want to keep the device MSX-ish, we should keep talking and acting as if we're creating an MSX3. Something good should come out of that eventually

Quote:

Quote: MSX was one of the most flexible and most extensible homecomputer systems, if not the most. It was designed to be so. If there is a MSX philosophy at all, than it's that. With FPGA and VHDL, flexibility and extensibility extends to the hardware which now becomes configuable. This is a ENOOOORMOUS stretch The philosophy is maybe a small part of what the MSX is, but you can't say that just because something is flexible its MSX. A rubberband is very flexible but I wouldn't call that an MSX, would you? MSX defined as an open quite flexible standard but it has well specified boundaries, see my earlier posts. You can implement an MSX in VHDL but VHDL is _not_ MSX or vice versa. Your reasoning about philosophy does not make any sense at all. My guess is that you are a lawyer. They are pretty good at stretching the truth

Did I say that? According to www.leo.org, the terms flexible and extensible mean -- besides others -- anpassungsfähig and erweiterbar. Of course, this was and still is within well defined boundaries.

This when is an MSX not an MSX conversation is a little weird imho. If it says MSX on the box and was put together by people calling it MSX then that's what it is, and even if you turn it into a spaceship that's what it will remain. Is an Apple anything other than an apple because they've changed processors again. Is my PC a C64 becuase I run an C64 emulator. The thing is defined by who made it, not what is subsequently done with it.
Will there ever be a MSX3 standard? No I don't think so. The bottom line will be is that people will eventually push the hardware as far as it can go, and whatever they achieve will be running on an msx

Quote:

Is my PC a C64 becuase I run an C64 emulator.

Is the Altera an MSX because you run an MSX configuration on it?

In pre-FPGA, a combination of chips made a machine, in this FPGA-age these chips are open.. hence, an FPGA machine is nothing and has the potential to be everything.

Quote:

Quote: Is my PC a C64 becuase I run an C64 emulator. Is the Altera an MSX because you run an MSX configuration on it? In pre-FPGA, a combination of chips made a machine, in this FPGA-age these chips are open.. hence, an FPGA machine is nothing and has the potential to be everything.

The Altera is a component, albeit a major component, but components aren't the whole product. The box says MSX therefore that's what it is imo. Okay I can understand the software/hardware on chip thing emulation confuses things, but from my point of view you could have no backward compatibility with old msx, even not emulate z80 etc and it would still be MSX because that's what the makers have called it. And I say this as a cpc coder who has never owned an msx so I don't have a particular point to make.

Quote:

The Altera is a component, albeit a major component, but components aren't the whole product. The box says MSX therefore that's what it is imo. Okay I can understand the software/hardware on chip thing emulation confuses things, but from my point of view you could have no backward compatibility with old msx, even not emulate z80 etc and it would still be MSX because that's what the makers have called it.

I fully agree. Future extensions for the OCM shouldn't be necessarily compatible with previous MSX generations. Remember that you can always load whatever (and whenever) you want on the OCM: compatible -or not- MSX extensions. For instance MSX Association could be in charge of MSX compatible extensions while other groups of developers could try to push the OCM to its limits developing non MSX compatible VHDL implementations.