About OCM not being a hardware emulator :

If I write a VHDL code that mimics an Apple II behaviour and install it on OCM, I will be able to use Apple II software on OCM. My OCM running a VHDL code that mimics a different architeture and running software developed for other line of computers still will be recognized as a MSX computer? If that ever happens (Apple II VHDL on OCM) can I say that, since a OCM that runs apple II software still is a MSX, a classic Apple II computer should be considered from now on a sort of MSX as well?

Ok, shall I reveal the answer then?

Do you know why developers would want to experiment with the OCM (improving it) rather than do something that makes sense with a PC or PS(1/2/3) or whatever mighty powerful console?

- this is a scene in which ppl know eachother, and prefer to operate as a group.

- in this scene you can actually mean something, as opposed to the PC/console scene where you are just one out of millions e.g. you are a nobody.

- in this scene it's easy for someone to do a lot of different things, on PC/console the qualitybar is a lot higher so one needs more dedicated people for stuff like games. Compare: I'm sure every coder (minus Edwin) can draw some gametiles that make a bit of sense. And because MSX games are not overly complex, an artist might be able to contribute some code, even if it's only in the form of an editor. Try this on PC/console and you're honed away, for you need to have 3d-skills in 3dsMax/Maya etc. and are required to have a full-blown studio for epic scores in audio format. All this makes it relativily easy for an MSX'er (as the products aren't as large-scale as on PC/console) to produce something in a small team, or even as an individual.

So, those who want to create stuff on an OCM rather than on a PC/console might want this OCM to be at least a bit more powerful than the original MSX'es.

Quote:

About OCM not being a hardware emulator : If I write a VHDL code that mimics an Apple II behaviour and install it on OCM, I will be able to use Apple II software on OCM. My OCM running a VHDL code that mimics a different architeture and running software developed for other line of computers still will be recognized as a MSX computer? If that ever happens (Apple II VHDL on OCM) can I say that, since a OCM that runs apple II software still is a MSX, a classic Apple II computer should be considered from now on a sort of MSX as well?

Yes, the new MSX is a device especially created for the user base that kept it alive: Emulation Fans/Developers. So the new MSX is the ultimate emulation device. if you emulate an apple on the OCMSX emulation/simulation device it is an apple emulated on a OCMSX. the apple itself did not become a MSX, but the OCMSX did become something a lot of us dreamed/hoped for. the OCM took MSX in a direction the user base took before, and i have to admit that Nishi is a great designer and visionair to let MSX evolve this way. he really looked and listened to all we did and embraced our vision. i personally can't think of any computer designer who is more suitable to design my dream system!

Quote:

Quote: About OCM not being a hardware emulator : If I write a VHDL code that mimics an Apple II behaviour and install it on OCM, I will be able to use Apple II software on OCM. My OCM running a VHDL code that mimics a different architeture and running software developed for other line of computers still will be recognized as a MSX computer? If that ever happens (Apple II VHDL on OCM) can I say that, since a OCM that runs apple II software still is a MSX, a classic Apple II computer should be considered from now on a sort of MSX as well? Yes, the new MSX is a device especially created for the user base that kept it alive: Emulation Fans/Developers. So the new MSX is the ultimate emulation device. if you emulate an apple on the OCMSX emulation/simulation device it is an apple emulated on a OCMSX. the apple itself did not become a MSX, but the OCMSX did become something a lot of us dreamed/hoped for. the OCM took MSX in a direction the user base took before, and i have to admit that Nishi is a great designer and visionair to let MSX evolve this way. he really looked and listened to all we did and embraced our vision. i personally can't think of any computer designer who is more suitable to design my dream system!

If that's the idea, giving us a VHDL device in which we can load everything we want, then I don't want to be an OCM user. That's sad, man. It's even worse than plugging in the latest videocard or cpu in your desktop PC. It would mean no identity at all. That sucks.
And about loading an Apple II. MSX Association will never do such a thing, so it's not a realistic thought. Maybe YOU or THE SCENE can load an Apple II inside the OCM. That would have nothing to do with MSX, though. I've said it before and I want to say it again: MSX needs identity and only an authority can give this device identity. And protect its identity.

To clearify, I'm not against scene VHDL alterations. In fact, they can be very cool! But there MUST be a solid OCM VHDL bases, released by MSX Association. To preserve the device its identity.

Ok, if the new MSX (or should we say the new MSX standard, since MSX was always about standards that could be followed by any company) is this ultimate emulation device, does that mean the old standard that defined MSX in the past is no longer valid? I always thought that new versions of MSX should comply to the previous standards (Ok, I know this was violated in the past, but never a standard was completed removed and a new one took its place).

I am happy with this new OCM, so I ordered 3 of em (one for Ramones). As I've read, I have his same doubts/fears that he has posted here. In fact, it is just about compatibility. Ok, OCM can be a new standard, but then, if you say "I code this game for MSX1 and use its logo" but you are using this OCM as the main test, this game won't be working in each MSX1 computer.

Isn't it important? I think it is. As Ramones said, a similar problem happened with games in the last MSXDEV Contest, not being MSX1 compatible even if the contest was for MSX1 games. It is just because people did not test their games in a real MSX1 machine, but in MSX2 or emulators.

But of course, we can create "bad coded MSX games without following the standard" which will work with emus and OneChipMSX. Will we put just MSX1Chip logo in the stickers of our next games? Or "emu" compliant?

Unfortunately I don't think the OCM can be used as a reference machine when developing MSX1 software.
Fortunately it seems like people are working on improving it so hopefully it will become a good reference system.

Besides, even when the OCM is improved, it will emulate an MSX2 so you'd still need to have an MSX1 or two to test your msxdev entries.

Quote:

Ok, if the new MSX (or should we say the new MSX standard, since MSX was always about standards that could be followed by any company) is this ultimate emulation device, does that mean the old standard that defined MSX in the past is no longer valid? I always thought that new versions of MSX should comply to the previous standards (Ok, I know this was violated in the past, but never a standard was completed removed and a new one took its place).

of course the MSX1, MSX2, MSX2+ & MSX TR standards are still valid. they always will. the funny thing is that the OCM is such a big expantion of the MSX standard that it is mind blowing. some call this expantion of the standard a lack of identity, personally i don't agree on that though. the OCM standard does not remove the MSX standard, is is actually backward compatible. it is just a huge outside of the box expansion to the standard.

someone said it before here, what would we need a MSX for with a new video card or a new sound card? this is in my oppinion the only way you can make a new MSX device with the MSX idea behind it and expand it in all directions in such a way that it does not become a lame PC clone.

@snout: Can you add some clearification to whether the OCM is a standard or not. I'm sure you are the best person to answer this.
I would guess that the OCM tries to comply to the existing MSX2 standard and who knows, there will be and MSX3 in the future that it will comply to. But the OCM itself is no standard, right? If it is I'd like to get a copy of it if possible.
I'm not trying to be picky or something but I think its important to have the terminology clear.

Burn your 16+ year old machines and replace them with a bunch of standard-alike compliant OCMs

There's a lot of nonsense in both directions in this thread. I guess that this is usual when we are dealing with feelings rather than facts. For me, despite all the reasons you can provide, the OCM is not a real MSX. And I think that this is the problem for most people: I does not look like an MSX, it does not provide the same feeling than a heavier, strong looking or even bulky, original MSX computer does provide.

I need all *the other things* that the Altera cannot provide. Besides the fact that I strongly suspect that 100% guaranteed compatibility is *always* a myth.

Again, this is my opinion. But here, as far as feelings are involved, do not try to rationalice it, because you won't be able to do it.

And please, do not think that I am against the OCM just for the lack of cassette support: I've seen one of the prototypes loading from tape different cassette games at one of the BCN User Meetings.

Quote:

For me, OCM is not a real MSX. And I think that this is the problem for most people: I does not look like an MSX, it does not provide the same feeling than a heavier, strong looking or even bulky, original MSX computer does provide.

Well, at least for me, this is a cool aspect. I liked the idea of a small device, that I can take anywhere I want. And the transparent case makes it (again, to me at least) really beautiful.

Quote:

I need all *the other things* that the Altera cannot provide. Besides the fact that I strongly suspect that 100% guaranteed compatibility is *always* a myth.

This is my main concern. There are people always saying that, most of the things you want OCM to do, you can add yourself by changing the VHDL. And one of these things seem to be full compatibility with MSX. I don't understand why it has to be my job to do what the company that sells the OCM should provide out of the box. To me, this is the same as if Sunrise had released IDE without a BIOS and softwares like FDISK. I can imagine what the readme file would look like: "Hey, you got your IDE! Congratulations! Of course, you can't right now plug a HD and a CDROM because first you need to code a BIOS for it. But once you do it, you will be able to use whatever IDE device you want! The hardware is fully functional, so all you have to do is code the tools you need and you're done! ". Even if I find cool to learn VHDL to write my own extensions, I don't think its my job to do that. I'm a customer, I should only have to learn VHDL if I do want to add new things, not because the product has bugs/missing stuff in order to work as it should.

Quote:

Quote: I need all *the other things* that the Altera cannot provide. Besides the fact that I strongly suspect that 100% guaranteed compatibility is *always* a myth. This is my main concern. There are people always saying that, most of the things you want OCM to do, you can add yourself by changing the VHDL. And one of these things seem to be full compatibility with MSX. I don't understand why it has to be my job to do what the company that sells the OCM should provide out of the box. To me, this is the same as if Sunrise had released IDE without a BIOS and softwares like FDISK. I can imagine what the readme file would look like: "Hey, you got your IDE! Congratulations! Of course, you can't right now plug a HD and a CDROM because first you need to code a BIOS for it. But once you do it, you will be able to use whatever IDE device you want! The hardware is fully functional, so all you have to do is code the tools you need and you're done! ". Even if I find cool to learn VHDL to write my own extensions, I don't think its my job to do that. I'm a customer, I should only have to learn VHDL if I do want to add new things, not because the product has bugs/missing stuff in order to work as it should.

Well, we do accept it from many other products. Firefox comes with security flaws that need to be upgraded, operating systems having bugs that you get automated updates for, etc etc.

what is the difference with an OCM that you get upgrades for? only difference is that MSXA / Bazix do not claim the OCM's default config is flawless... now we start going upset they are honest?

as i remember it correct there are quite some linux distributions that are dependant on the user community for upgrades & fixes. those are also sold by commercial companies even (much more commercial then MSXA & Bazix). so clearly it was normal to sell stuff that the users have to fix... just take a look at Suse for instance and tell me Novell does not develop on it together with the open source community like MSXA wants to develop on the OCM together with the user base.

---

in the end i guess it is all just reflecting the resistance against progression. like it was said before, some people like that they are important in the MSX community. in the MSX community you can gain fame by making a simple tile game, by making an expansion card that runs on 3.5 mhz, etc. So if it looks like the whole stable old MSX thing is going to be shaken up a lil and new things will come it means directly that some people could loose status. all of a sudden you need to know VHDL, all of a sudden the hardware expansions might not work anymore, or they might become programmable extensions even (yikes), and the worst of all: someone (MSXA + Nishi) showed they still have the power over MSX that some people thought they had. isn't that a cold shower situation?

i think if you really love MSX you should embrace the new MSX baby of the family! and i don't mean you have to buy the baby yourself if you didn't feel you wanted it, but you should accept it to be what it is and not try to make it a bastard...

It is amazing people can be negative about the device itself, indeed. It is very retro, it has strong connections with MSX. You wonder what's the problem here?! Quite sad to see these negative feelings all come down to controversy, envy and doubt..... There simply isn't another reason to dislike the thing.

Quote:

in the end i guess it is all just reflecting the resistance against progression.

This is a little bit true in the MSX comunity. I got some negative feedback in the beginning of blueMSX but there were a lot of positive feedback as well. I don't think there are many people that are against progression and I think most MSXers would love to see an OCM that is fully compatible with MSX2/+/TR. The problem is that it is quite far from fully compatible atm.
If OCM VHDL development gain popularity I think it will become a sub culture for some old MSXers and newcomers. I don't think there will be anyone loosing status because of it and VHDL will most likely not be a big thing on the MSX scene. Hopefully it can attract some more good developers so the OCM can improve quicker. I think most MSXers will use the OCM to play with, not develop VHDL for.

Quote:

It is amazing people can be negative about the device itself, indeed. It is very retro, it has strong connections with MSX. You wonder what's the problem here?! Quite sad to see these negative feelings all come down to controversy, envy and doubt..... There simply isn't another reason to dislike the thing.

I think most negative reactions is not about the device itself. If the OCM becomes 100% compatible with MSX2 (or other) I don't think anyone would be negative. Apart from a nice form factor, the OCM has several nice features that improves MSXing, but from a developers point of view it simply isn't accurate enough atm. I really hope this will change and I'm sure many people will help with that effort.