> I have MSX Audio *and* Moonsound and I'm not rolling in money... (((((-:
That's nice...
>But I think even if only one board is made, a few people will buy it.
And that's exactly why only one board should me made, with the few people
buying a new board anyway you had better make sure they all buy the same one!
>(and I really think the main MSX base will
>be for a looooooooooooong time Z80s.)
Depends on what you think is the MAIN MSX base. There are almost
exclusively turboR's in Japan. Lot's of turboR's in holland and the rest is
almost all MSX2. Except some countries where people still use MSX1, but
there seem to be a lot of them.
So does that mean we should only make MSX1 programs? Or only MSX2 programs?
Or???
One should program a program (^_^) for the system that the program NEEDS.
If you're going to do a 3D-shooter, you probably won't do it on MSX1.
Probably not on MSX2 either. You probably would go for turboR and maybe
even Gfx9000! If there was Z380 you'd most definately use that, because you
can create a better program!
> No. But a computer is defined by THREE things: It's bus, it's memory
>management and the basic set of instructions. Generally this
>makes the backward compatibility on some level. And yes, you
>may think on 286/386 as a new computer, since almost everything
>changes a lot inside PC when comparing with XT... (-: Our
>today's PCs are a 386 enhanced with a XT inside it (V86 mode).
So my AMD Athlon system is a new computer and should not be called a PC? It
has a totally different bus than my previous PC. It has many many many more
instructions than my previous PC.
> At least a clear information on how it'll works. It would be nice to
>have an emulator even before the hardware shows up, so we can develop to
>it! (-:
Emulators, especially MSX emulators, aren't perfect. If you develop on a
emulator, you will probably have to rewrite parts of the program or do some
heavy bughunting if you later try it on the real hardware.
Heh, I see proof of this everyday (in the gameboy programming scene).
> This is a subjective matter. (-: BTW, Z180 with ADVRAM will be fast
>enough to develop very good games...
Sure, but Z380 with ADVRAM will be faster yet.
You're still not proving Z180 is a better choice than Z380.
> Besides, some limitations are good to skill the programmers. If we
>have unlimited processament and unlimited memory... the worst program
>will run "usable". An example? M$ Windows... ((((-:
I agree, but I would hardly call the Z380 unlimited.
>hardware using BrMSX. And, even with all incompatibilities, there is not
>a single tool to program ASM better than BrMSX! ((((-: Program ASM using
>BrMSX is almost as easy as program Basic! You can debug step-by-step,
>disasm, change data on memory... something very useful. BTW, BrMSX was
>made for programming, not for playing. (-:
Heh, after debugging/programming with NO$GMB BrMSX always leaves me wanting
more :(
> >so what old software are you so desperate to run at that
> >super-great-speed-that's-much-greater-than-Z380?! WHAT'S THE USE?
>
> On this point of view, what is the use for a new MSX? What is the
>use for the MSX?
No, I meant Z380 isn't much slower than Z180, so its useless to want a Z180
for only a small speed increase while you can have all the extra processor
power of Z380 if you just tap into it!
Besides, I can't think of any program that needs speed and shouldn't need a
rewrite...
You say PMEXT/PMARC. It's old and stupid (rounds off files to 128 bytes).
It's better to use LZH. And writing a LZH compressor/decompressor is as
easy as downloading a C-sourcecode from the internet and compiling a Z380
version. (or a legacy Z80 versions that will still run fast on Z380)
And then you have subdirectory support!
You say UZIX. UZIX is still in development and would benefit greatly (and i
mean GREATLY) from Z380's advanced features. It would be a shame to not
create a seperate Z380 version.
> >But there should, since otherwise every new MSX project is doomed.
>
> This is a sad statement... but it's a statement a lot of us
>will agree.
MSX is all about compromise, if we allow it to evolve into seperate
directions, the essence of MSX is lost.
>Worst than
>two differente new MSXs is NO new MSX... right? (((-:
Heheh, yeah that's true ^_^
> I think everything depends on the implementation. Lets see and compare
>in the future. It's just something significant to talk that Ademir was
>working with Z380 and suddenly changed to Z180. He has several reasons,
>and explained a lot of them to us, two weeks ago, here, in Sao Paulo. But
>I don't think I have the skill to reproduce Ademir's thoughts, because
>I do not understand every aspect of the things he talk about. Most things
>I know that is, but not why.... so, it's better do not mention.
Okay, I can understand that.
> >I will, but there should be at least SOME conformity in the MSX world...
> >Or maybe I'm dreaming?
>
> I don't know... /-: MSX world was never a plain world.
Heheh, I like it :)
> Anyway, I think there will be no difference on programming
>(and on programs) using Z380 or Z180. It'll be almost the same.
>The main difference is that several Z180 programs will be available
>for Z80 users (slower, but they will run) and Z380 programs will
>probably never run on Z80 hardware.
That bullshit. If you program Z180 using MLT opcodes, no Z80 will run it!
If you program Z380 using 4GB linear, 32 bit registers, no Z80 will run it!
The same counts for both processors! It's just that the Z180 doesn't have
much more to offer over a normal Z80, just like R800 did. That's why so
many R800 programs (including my own GEM) run on a Z80.
>But the question is: have we the right
>to change the standard? This is the fact.
Well, ASCII doesn't seem like its upgrading the MSX standard, so why
shouldn't we?
>All programs that run on a normal
>MSX will run with ADVRAM also. (-:
Heh, that's a nice thing to say, but it doesn't work the other way around!
If you want to create cool new soft using ADVRAM, people without it can't
run it! Just like if you create cool new soft running on Z380, people
without it can't run it. And so on...
It's all a little contradictory, is it not?
>it's not just a matter of recompiling. Z380
>opcodes are equal Z80 opcodes, but the ASM is not "that" equal...
As far as I have seen the Z380 manual, the assembly language is still 100%
the same as Z80.
Have you seen official R800 assembly spec's??? NOBODY uses that!
MOVEM [.HL++,.DE++] in stead of LDIR, hah!
On a final note, I'd like to qoute from a message by Pablo Vasques:
>Although Leonard Oliveira will convert my old
>MSX1 to MSX2 and you can expect some GOOD things
>coming from this. I'm not allowed to say more. :]
So upgrading to a new system hightens his productivity? At least he
promises good things.
I'm in the same position, although slightly different, and I think others
are as well. I have here a turboR, Video9000, MoonSound 640kB, but no
reaaaaallly great processor power. When I get a Z380 (and I WILL get a Z380
for sure) I will make a Z380 GEM, and I will probably make lots of other
stuff! Coz Z380 is cool!
*yawn* I'm tired, I'm probably talking nonsense again, and nobody probably
cares about these messages... I think we're about done talking anyway,
since we seem to agree on many things. The only difference is: I want a new
MSX, you want a faster MSX.
Greetz,
Patriek
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and put "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes) in
the body (not the subject) of the message.
Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More information on MSX can be found in the following places:
The MSX faq: http://www.faq.msxnet.org/
The MSX newsgroup: comp.sys.msx
The MSX IRC channel: #MSX on Undernet
****
