Quote:

I don't think that msx-a will even care a rats ass about anyone's updated code... same with the gp2x, people have written way better videoplayers then they have. do they listen ? nope.... do they implement improvements ? nope... it would undermine their skills if they would omit homebrew code and release it as their own. So, they stick to their own "visionary" outdated stuff, while the scene makes the truely great stuff. but, since they are the ones who pay for the production, it's their call to do whatever they want with it. I don't expect any corporate business in this field to implement scener's code. specially not korean (gp2x) and japanese (msx)... Why would japan listen to what happens in europe or outside of japan anyway ? They do it for their own market mainly...

And ^ that, deary Tok, is the thing I'm slightly worried about.

I'm afraid it's like this: they offer the platform, you play with it, but don't bother us.
we'll update it every now and then, but we won't implement any ideas you have
(or we claim we did).
which for some reason seems to be the case with every newly released platform:
you bought it, we claim to bring you oodles of updates, but it never seems to be the case.

Quote:

Easy answer: because in the active MSX scene, MSX Association and their representatives abroad haven't earned enough authority yet. If Sony or Philips would have released this device calling it a 1chipMSX, everyone would cheer in awe.

Quote:

I'm not so sure about this MSX3 thing. Honestly I don't believe that an MSX3 would get much attention at all. Only a very few developers would find it interesting. I know about three or so on MRC that champion MSX3 but its an unrealistic dream. If it had happened in the early 90's it would have been a different thing, but why try to step back 15 years and continue developing something that obviously wasn't good enough to compete. I think its far more important to improve the current MSX2 OCM so that it mimics a real MSX as closely as possible. Ideally it would get so good that it could be a reference platform for developing games. Not only would this be good for developers, it would also make it possible to actually brand it as a real MSX and noone would question it.

I fully agree with these two comments.

i'll say it once more: the OCM == (new) MSX.... it says so on the box...

VHDL == part of new MSX standard (OCMSX), Altera == part of OCMSX standard, claiming the OCM is sometihng it's not (only an emualted MSX2) is to dumb to even listen to, the OCM is even packaged with a VHDL development kit... how much more clues do you need...

well yeah what should msx3 be ? better msx ?

I mean... a ps1 is already better, so is a pc... what should an msx 3 be then ?
It's already there anyway, so how do you define better ? I mean... gfx9000 ?
moonsound ? should it be between state of the art and 8 bit nostalgia ?
msx 3 should have been some logical progression after msx turbo R I guess,
but what on earth would you like to prove with it now ?
if you want something better, it's called a pc... or a mac....


I can however see the point in the OCM, since it will be customizable
to what people want from their msx, customize it the way you like it.
Also it's quite future proof, since it's not a closed system.


fact is: there is an official new msx product... guess you should be
very happy that it is even realized. Don't think you can expect
anything on such a scale coming from an obsolete 80's computer ever again

@multi: I agree that from a branding point of view, the OCM is an MSX because MSX-A said so. But that does NOT, and I say it once more, NOT mean that the OCM isn't a hardware emulator trying to mimic the old MSX2 machines. Regardless of what you say, it is a hardware thingie that emulates an MSX2. There is also no new standard for modern MSX machines. The OCM has a nice specification but it is not a standard. MSX2 for example had a standard and companies were free to do whatever they wanted hardware wise as long as it met the standard. You could perhaps say that the OCM (tries to) conform to the MSX2 standard but it did not create a new standard.

So you need to understand that there is a difference between branding and design. I don't disagree that MSX-A brand the OCM as an MSX. As you said, it says clearly on the box and only a blind person could disagree on that. But when it comes to the actual device and its design its a different thing. Just because MSX-A calls it an MSX doesn't mean that it is not emulation. How hard is it to understand????

as for msx-a's plans with it, you could drop hally from vorc a mail... he works there so maybe he knows
actually d4 enterprises though....

hally at vorc dot org

nope it's a MSX that implements backward compatability via hardware simulation, you can't deny that VHDL is part of the package even. this is the OCMSX standard and it includes VHDL

for a c64 it looks pretty blue though

also, out of curiosity, since it's manufactured by just 1 company.... would panasonic or sony be allowed to make their version of it too, as long as they stick to the standard ? I thought the interchangeability was one of the msx'es main features.

Quote:

nope it's a MSX that implements backward compatability via hardware simulation, you can't deny that VHDL is part of the package even. this is the OCMSX standard and it includes VHDL

Hmm. That's exactly what I'm saying. I think part of this thread is discussing whether its a real (which obviously has a lot of different meanings) MSX or if its emulated. I'm saying that from a branding perspective its real and from a hw/sw point of view its simulating/emulating an MSX in VHDL.

Quote:

also, out of curiosity, since it's manufactured by just 1 company.... would panasonic or sony be allowed to make their version of it too, as long as they stick to the standard ? I thought the interchangeability was one of the msx'es main features.

The OCM is not a standard or did I miss something? Afaik the OCM is just a device made by MSX-A and as with similar devices it has a nice specification describing what it is as well as open source for the VHDL. I don't think MSX-A did a well documented standard that other companies need to comply to if they also want to make an OCM and call it MSX. I really don't think MSX-A has time or money to run a standardization organization that approves or denies third party implmementations.

Btw, It seems a bit strange if MSX-A actually wrote a standard for something that tries to mimic MSX2, which already is standardized.

thanks for the explanation dvik so ehmmm, how did that go then when msx was manufactured by more companies ?
You could apply for the rights to manufacure msx-es ?

so we are clear it's not a real MSX2 because it was already a real OCMSX, now next on the list is the emulation part. it emulates an MSX2 just like an Pentium cpu emulates and 8086 cpu in emulation mode. is the pentium cpu real or not? of course it's real... is it an 8086? nope of course not it was already an pentium cpu... is it an x86 intel cpu, yes it is...

so for the OCMSX we can clearly say the following:
1 OCM = OC MSX (true)
2 OCM = MSX2 (false)
3 OCM = MSX (true)
and finally
4 OCM = Real (true)

as long as you keep your mind clear and not try to make the OCM something it's not then things are really simple i guess...

IMHO defining ocm an "hardware emulator" is not correct, try to explain my pow with an example.

MSX technical databook states in which conditions and terms a signal must be asserted to satisfy MSX standard.

Let's consider a slot select signal: it must be asserted when some conditions are met eg. A15 = 1 and A14 = 1 and MREQ = 1 and so on...

Slot select signal assertion may be achieved with a simple IC, with a PAL or a more sofisticated FPGA, it doesn't matter which hardware will be used: until signal is asserted according the MSX standard then signal is MSX.

From this pow no MSX computer is identical to another but they all follow the standard so they ARE MSX.

If you open a turboR there is not a Z80 LSI but Z80 is embedded somewhere and is surely implemented differently from Z80 inside an old MSX1 but this doesn't mean that turboR is not an MSX.

Ocm can be a multi-purpose platform but this is a value, not an aberration