IMO it's both real and an emulator

I want to use my VW Beetle (also can be applied to a Mini Cooper) example again.

VW Beetle enthusiast: "That new car's not a beetle, it's a an attempt to look like it!"

VW Beetle manufacturer: "It bares the VW brand, it's designed after the original, and it's named a beetle - it IS one!"

I'd say they're both right. But because the POV's differ, they're never going to agree


As for PC's, compare a new one with one from 1983 ...they're both PC's. Same with that OTHER VW car, the Golf.
However, a difference is is that there were models in between, that were based off each other. In the case of the Beetle and the Mini Cooper, there's been a huge gap, then a new (and quite different) version. This is similar to the OCM.

To me, the difference between 'hardware emulation' and 'software emulation' is more than big enough to call the OCM a real MSX and a phone/console/PC running an emulator on a host-OS to mimic an MSX - accurate as it is - not. Instant and full MSX action on boot, no drivers/background tasks/compatibility bogus bugging me (on my PC the blueMSX menu is dead slow, for instance, while fMSX was pure lockup horror on my previous PC), works instantly with cartridges (no GR required) and on TV (no VGA with TV-out required)/monitor and no noisy PC PSU/cooling bugging me whilst playing Nemesis

what does that make an Atari Flashback 2 in your opinion?
Just wondering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Flashback_2
(a bit of a read, skip the info about the first version, which is more NES than it is Atari )
in short, the flashback 2 is a one chip design of the 2600, but lacks a cartridge port (allthough it can be easily added back).

(Also, http://www.atarimuseum.com/fb2hacks/ )

so does msx2 emulate msx1 then ?
or the turbo r the 2+ ?

Of course! And every single MSX is indeed a lame SVI328 emulator

And the Z80 itself is a cheap intel 8080 emulator... No way!

But if we are considering the 1CM, it is a PC-wannabe with (some) MSX compatibility.

For the same money you can buy a good console and look for a decent MSX emulator. Or go for a real MSX at eBay.

if it's a pc wannabe then it has some pretty lousy specs hahaha.
Seriously, I don't see what's so emulated about bringing the entire hardware
down to 1 chip. Guess if they'd done this when the first msx was released,
we wouldn't have had this discussion either.
Maybe the fact that the OCM is not dedicated and can be rewritten (as opposed
to normal msx) makes it emulated or so...
As for compatability, msx2 isn't fully msx1 compatible either.
Does that make an msx2 not an msx ?

then again what do I know

I don't think the OCM is an MSX because that what makes it an MSX is completely separable from the hardware device. Of course, that only doesn't make it an MSX1, 2, 2+ or turboR. You could argue that it is an MSX by itself running a simulation of an MSX2. It does have an MSX logo after all. Of course, it's a rather weak argument as long as the MSX2 simulation is the only thing running on it. I'll go with "no MSX" for now.

The fact that emulation and the whole retro hype brought the attention back to old gameconsoles
can be largely attributed to the fact that pc's got to the point that they could smoothly run emu's.
Now before MAME was around nobody bothered (apart from hardcore users).
So in that aspect, we're to thank emulators for the global rediscovery of 8 /16 bit consoles.
Without that, surely no hardware 2600 , c64 or msx would have seen the light of day again.

then again, there's no future for old machines if you don't make the jump to todays standards.
including CF memory is such a change in standard I guess.
makes it a lot easier to work with a pc, same with my amiga. I used to do backups to my pc
with a x-modem cable which took ages. Thank heavens for PCMCIA>CF adaptors ^_^
Keeping it up to date with current technology expands the lifetime of your machine.

So, what if no-one knew it's an Altera which can be reprogrammed, what if MSXA just made a box with one chip inside, calling it MSX-Engine2, would that be acceptable as MSX then?

and out of curiosity, would it be possible to make a device running bluemsx only on 1 single chip ?
or openmsx, fmsx etc ?

Then I would call it MSX Player.

OCM is a "reconfigurable MSX2 of XXI Century". I don't mind what is inside the box, I just know OCM run all MSX stuff the same as in my old MSX computers. So, for me... yes, it is.

I'd say this hardware device can only be considered being an 'MSX' when it's configured with a VHDL-code which is certified by the institution which holds the MSX copyrights: MSX Association. All other (homebrew) VHDL-modifications will result in lack of identity of the device. Lack of identity leads to constant discussions such as this one and in the end, I expect it would make the '1chipMSX' only a footnote in MSX history: the result of a period, which is being referred to as the 'MSX Revival'. I fiercely hope the MSX authorities will understand the importance of identity in order to let the 1chipMSX be a lot more than just this footnote.
The device is great, the VHDL-concept is great, but its strong point 'reconfigurable' is also its greatest risk.

Then we'll be stuck with the V9938. The rest of the chips wasn't uniquely MSX. So, the identification is: slow blockbased gfx.

However, this V9938 was only the 2nd generation of MSX videochips.. does the GFX9k belong to the MSX identify? If yes, where does it end? Is it MSX when gfx stay blockbased and slow?

Quote:

and out of curiosity, would it be possible to make a device running bluemsx only on 1 single chip ? or openmsx, fmsx etc ?

I thought I'd bring this up too. It is indeed possible already or at least almost. There is a one chip java virtual machine that I think you can buy (I've only seen a working prototype). On that virtual machine you could run a java MSX emulator and then you have a one chip MSX emulator. Such a device would, if implemented well, potentially look and feel exactly like the OCM. It wouldn't even have a host os. So would such a device be a real MSX or an emulator?