] > ] I must have missed the boat here. What's
] > ] SME3? What's its target platform?
]
] OUCH! Because of my terrible stupidity I had forgotten that I indeed already
] have a description of SME3 in the MSX-Music section of the FAQ... I don't
] remember if Alex wrote this, but I do think so..
Jose Angel Morente wrote:
> What about writing a REAL music SEQUENCER.
> No tracker-style nor similar bullshit.
What do you mean by a sequencer? I don't think
tracker-style programs are bullshit. Many of
them are even used for professional works. My
first contact with PC music was with a se-
quen
> music as well. (At least I did a few years ago ^^;) I've had several ideas
> over the last few years and you know, I may even decide to write the
> perfect music composing tool! :)
What about writing a REAL music SEQUENCER. No tracker-style nor similar
bullshit.
For example, the sequencer inc
> ] I must have missed the boat here. What's
> ] SME3? What's its target platform?
OUCH! Because of my terrible stupidity I had forgotten that I indeed already
have a description of SME3 in the MSX-Music section of the FAQ... I don't
remember if Alex wrote this, but I do think so... SO Alex: I
] Alex Wulms wrote:
] > ] And don't say that's not feasible. RicBit
] > ] told me it's feasible, and if he say so... :)
] > It is feasible indeed. SME 3 currently supports: PSG, 4 SCCs, MSX-Music and 2
]
] I must have missed the boat here. What's
] SME3? What's its target platform?
MSX2 with at
] Anyway, this program could have been great. Unfortunately there is a drawback:
] if you support all musical devices, what do you want to do as composer?
] - make 4 different versions with the same program, adapted to the capabilities
] of the chips? (too much work)
] - make one version that us
> Alex Wulms wrote:
> > ] And don't say that's not feasible. RicBit
> > ] told me it's feasible, and if he say so... :)
> > It is feasible indeed. SME 3 currently supports: PSG, 4 SCCs, MSX-Music and
2
>
> I must have missed the boat here. What's
> SME3? What's its target platform? Where
> can I
Alex Wulms wrote:
> ] And don't say that's not feasible. RicBit
> ] told me it's feasible, and if he say so... :)
> It is feasible indeed. SME 3 currently supports: PSG, 4 SCCs, MSX-Music and 2
I must have missed the boat here. What's
SME3? What's its target platform? Where
can I find it?
> MSX-
]] be rewarding to him. Maybe I'll never know
] if there's more people like me, who dream
] of a music composing tool with support to
] PSG, SCC, MSX-Music, MSX-Audio, Moonsound
] and some other hypothetical music hardware...
]
] And don't say that's not feasible. RicBit
] told me it's feasible,
Pablo Vasques Bravo-Villalba wrote:
>I'm not a programmer, and of course I can't
>push my personal software shortage to any
>program; my dream tool doesn't exist and I
>honestly can't say if a programmer devoted
>time, sweat and sleep to a project like mine
>(considering I'd hardly help him) it wo
Siebe Berveling wrote:
> >My computer is a MSX1 with 3 1/2" drive, a
> >MegaRAM, an FM expansion and nothing else!
> >(unless you count in the Gradiente TA-1) :P
(...)
> This is a lovely example of the average MSX user.
> I believe all MSX developing should be done for these people.
I agree compl
Patriek Lesparre wrote:
> 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 produc
> > So lets use PIII, it is able to run at least 4 (four) 8 bit
> > instructions at a cicle... (-:
> Some sense at last! Let's use a PIII. We can then use normal
> PC hardware - everything standard and relatively cheap.
> New software can be developed easily - lost of development
> tools availabl
Ricardo Bittencourt Vidigal Leitao wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Laurens Holst wrote:
>
> > The Z80 is quite simple, constructed very logical... I think that if you
> > know how to program PLD's it shouldn't be too hard to make... But why??? It
> > is still available!!!
>
> Perhaps... bec
] Heh, why don't new games have PSG support anymore? Now I can't enjoy music
] on a standard MSX2! BWAH!
That is entirely my fault. I made SME3 too complicated, so everybody started
to use music programs that only supported fm-pac and music-module in stead of
a music program that supported ever
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:21:46 +0200, Siebe Berveling wrote:
>> The ACE002 doesn't need to be placed inside a PC case. It has, actually,
>>a board of 15x15cm. You can put it inside a PC keyboard!
>Explain, Daniel, explain!!
>Untill now, I had the idea that ACE002 was just a starting project.
(((
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:46:46 +0200, Laurens Holst wrote:
>Yup. And therefor it's important that the software also runs on a normal
>Z80, and therefor the extended instruction set should hardly be used.
Use them only when extremly needed... (-:
>> The difference is: when we are programming on
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Daniel Jorge Caetano wrote:
> How MSX hardware (specially
> that memory mapped ones) will cope with the 4Gb linear addressing?
You could map the entire slot structure into the 4Gb address space.
Example:
#: .. #: : MSX compatible slot selection
#0001:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:50:28 +0200, Laurens Holst wrote:
>> Heh, that's a nice thing to say, but it doesn't work the other way around!
>I am not enthousiastic about ADVRAM. It's a nice feature, but that's all. It
>isn't backwards compatible, and it won't matter that much in speed increase
>I thin
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:40:06 +0200, Laurens Holst wrote:
>If those are >64kB, then simply execute a real reset instead of a faked one
>which sets back all registers.
I think it's possible (-:
>Do you understand how the switchback works??? I'll explain it again...
>Assume there is a BIOS-r
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:30:46 +0200, Laurens Holst wrote:
>By the way, about the instruction remapping... How can the difference
>between data and instructions be made??? Is there a seperate signal for
>instruction fetch on the Z180??? On the eZ80, it could easily be changed...
>But I don't know a
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Laurens Holst wrote:
> The Z80 is quite simple, constructed very logical... I think that if you
> know how to program PLD's it shouldn't be too hard to make... But why??? It
> is still available!!!
Perhaps... because you can add new opcodes? :)
The ACE002 ha
>> > You once told that Ademir is about to make a V99*8 compatible VDP using
>a
>> > PLD, right?
>> > So, i guess it should also be possible to make a Z80 compatible
>processor
>> > using a PLD, right too?.
>>
>> Both are true but that's a lot of work.
>
>The Z80 is quite simple, constructed ver
> > You once told that Ademir is about to make a V99*8 compatible VDP using
a
> > PLD, right?
> > So, i guess it should also be possible to make a Z80 compatible
processor
> > using a PLD, right too?.
>
> Both are true but that's a lot of work.
The Z80 is quite simple, constructed very logical...
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Siebe Berveling wrote:
> Untill now, I had the idea that ACE002 was just a starting project.
> But when you tell me it fits on a 15x15cm board i can't help thinking that
> it already exists ...
Everyone saw the fist prototype in MSX Rio meeting of 1999.
I thi
> >since we seem to agree on many things. The only difference is: I want a
new
> >MSX, you want a faster MSX.
>
>
> And you seem to be the only one around here ;-) Are there some more ??
Wouldn't it be nice to have both? I'd like a new MSX that has new
capabilities but is also compatible AND fast
> The ACE002 doesn't need to be placed inside a PC case. It has, actually,
>a board of 15x15cm. You can put it inside a PC keyboard!
Explain, Daniel, explain!!
Untill now, I had the idea that ACE002 was just a starting project.
But when you tell me it fits on a 15x15cm board i can't help thinki
>*yawn* I'm tired, I'm probably talking nonsense again, and nobody probably
>cares about these messages...
Well, i do .. I like this 'fantasizing' on MSX improvement!
>since we seem to agree on many things. The only difference is: I want a new
>MSX, you want a faster MSX.
And you seem to be t
> >>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!
>
> It's just a matter that I'll hardly buy a faster MSX that wi
> > >Z180 nah... Only Z380, and to a less extent eZ80, allows great speedups
> > >when run in 'full' mode. The Z180 just doesn't have a lot of nice
speedy
> > >opcodes!
> > >In other words there's only a minimal difference between programming
Z180
> > >in legacy code or in full Z180 assembly.
> >
> >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!
I am not enthousiastic about ADVRAM. It's a nice feature, but that's all. It
isn't backwards compatible, and it won't matter that much in speed
>>Come on, it should be REALLY easy hardware- and software-wise to implement
>>a circuit that will reset just the Z380 in order to switch to legacy mode.
>>It's a non-issue.
>
> It's not a hardware matter. It's a software also. What to do with the
>registers...? If the Program Counter is above 64
> The difference isn't large IMO:
> Z80 @ 3.57Mhz, 4 T-states/opcode = 1x speed
> Z180 @ 33 Mhz, 3 T-states/opcode = ~9.2x and ~1.3x = ~12x speed
> Z380 @ 14 Mhz, 2 T-states/opcode = 4x and 2x = 8x speed
Well that's quite a difference I think. And when also having the eZ80 in
mind (which is comp
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:29:30 +0200, Patriek Lesparre wrote:
>>Kick something is one thing. Kick EVERYTHING but the name is something
>>a lot different.
>Ofcourse, but not EVERYTHING is kicked, so that's a non-argument.
What was preserved? The Z80 opcodes? Gfx9000? Moonsound? As I remember,
only
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:21:29 +0200, Patriek Lesparre wrote:
>>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!
It's jus
> >Come on, it should be REALLY easy hardware- and software-wise to implement
> >a circuit that will reset just the Z380 in order to switch to legacy mode.
> >It's a non-issue.
>
> It's not a hardware matter. It's a software also. What to do with the
>registers...? If the Program Counter is abov
> 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
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 03:12:31 +0200, Patriek Lesparre wrote:
>The difference isn't large IMO:
>Z80 @ 3.57Mhz, 4 T-states/opcode = 1x speed
>Z180 @ 33 Mhz, 3 T-states/opcode = ~9.2x and ~1.3x = ~12x speed
>Z380 @ 14 Mhz, 2 T-states/opcode = 4x and 2x = 8x speed
>Z380 is 800% the speed of Z80, while
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 03:07:17 +0200, Patriek Lesparre wrote:
>> Sorry, I did not understood your proposal. There is no instruction
>>to switch back to Legacy Mode. The only possible solution is
>>reset the entire processor. And, on MSX architeture, this
>>means a generic MSX reboot. Go to Enhance
Laurens Holst wrote:
>If I remember correctly SLL is handled differently on a R800 than on a Z80.
Yes, that was exactly my point. ;)
>I just don't know the exact difference between them. To me, the Z380 seems
>the best candidate, because AFAIK (in capitals) the Z380 is only a little
>bit slower
> >There is a workaround for this:
> >- If adress (switch_back) = 0 then boot normal
> >- If adress (switch_back) != 0 then get registers from (save_regs), continue
> >with saved PC.
> >Just implement it in the BIOS (or something similar, via the Engine), and
> >you can easily switch back to Z80
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:23:24 +0200, Laurens Holst wrote:
>There is a workaround for this:
>- If adress (switch_back) = 0 then boot normal
>- If adress (switch_back) != 0 then get registers from (save_regs), continue
>with saved PC.
>Just implement it in the BIOS (or something similar, via the Eng
> This a little bit confuse, but trust me:
> a MSX with Enhanced and Legacy mode will be worst than a PC to
> program Legacy apps. Why? Because you will have to program
> the Legacy app using the Enhanced mode (once you want a fast
> development tool). Then, you will have to run the compiled
> a
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:14:29 +0200, Laurens Holst wrote:
>> If you remove the 64K limit you will have not MSX anymore, pe.
>If you keep the 64k limit but add a higher limit in 'enhanced' mode it is
>still MSX. That is what LPE's design does, and the Z180 too (only then the
>new limit is 1 MB inst
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:03:16 +0200, Siebe Berveling wrote:
>This is a lovely example of the average MSX user.
>I believe all MSX developing should be done for these people.
>So I believe that the only practical reason for innovating a new MSX or a
>100% MSX-compatible computer is to give current
> This is a lovely example of the average MSX user.
> I believe all MSX developing should be done for these people.
Yes yes yes!!!
And the ones with better stuff can enjoy the extra speed/features!!!
> So I believe that the only practical reason for innovating a new MSX or a
> 100% MSX-compat
> If you remove the 64K limit you will have not MSX anymore, pe.
If you keep the 64k limit but add a higher limit in 'enhanced' mode it is
still MSX. That is what LPE's design does, and the Z180 too (only then the
new limit is 1 MB instead of 4 GB).
I will (for now) stop contributing to this dis
> Z380 will support old ones just as good as Z180 will. You know, many
> undocumented instructions don't exist on Z180 that are used in Z80
> programs. Does it have IXH/IXL? I know for sure it doesn't have SLL! Sure,
> you say that the amount of programs that's used in is s little, but it
> is
Pablo Vasques Bravo-Villalba wrote:
>My computer is a MSX1 with 3 1/2" drive, a
>MegaRAM, an FM expansion and nothing else!
>(unless you count in the Gradiente TA-1) :P
>
>I don't have Music Module, I don't have Moonsound
>(although I'd love to have one), I don't have
>Memory Mapper, I don't have
Daniel Jorge Caetano wrote:
> In fact, I think the good one will be that we have. (((-:
> The better computer is ours, its not? (((-;
The better computer is not ours, it's his/her!
My computer is a MSX1 with 3 1/2" drive, a
MegaRAM, an FM expansion and nothing else!
(unless you count in the Gra
Daniel Jorge Cateano wrote:
> So lets use PIII, it is able to run at least 4 (four) 8 bit
> instructions at a cicle... (-:
Some sense at last! Let's use a PIII. We can then use normal
PC hardware - everything standard and relatively cheap.
New software can be developed easily - lost of develop
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:22:14 +0900 (KST), Jun-Sung Kim wrote:
> Finally I should write something...
> THE REASONS to CHANGE Z380 to Z180 SHOULD BE EXPLAINED HERE!
Tah bom cara palida, entao nao grita que alguem eh capaz de
falar. Gritando deste jeito, eu nao vou responder... nem em
portugues.
Finally I should write something...
>
> 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 u
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:53:13 +0200, Patriek Lesparre wrote:
>> So lets use PIII, it is able to run at least 4 (four) 8 bit instructions at
>>a cicle... (-:
>x86 sucks. Zx80 rulez. :)
Finally we agree on something!!! (-:
>There is, because if half of the MSX'ers buy a Z180 boar
Daniel Jorge Caetano wrote:
> >>Z180 also has opcodes a lot faster than Z80. But Z380 is NEVER faster than
> >>1 instruction per 2 cycle.
> >Z180 is NEVER faster than 1 instruction per 3 cycle.
>
> So lets use PIII, it is able to run at least 4 (four) 8 bit instructions at
>a cicle... (-:
x86 su
] Daniel Jorge Caetano wrote:
] > >(BTW, I'm not sure what effect ROM/DRAM mode has on R800, does anybody know
] > >that?)
] >
] > I don't know also. I just mentioned because I don't really know if something
] >changes when using DRAM mode.
]
] I think it's more plausible the R800 is SLOWED DOWN
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:50:53 +0200, Patriek Lesparre wrote:
>>Z180 also has opcodes a lot faster than Z80. But Z380 is NEVER faster than
>>1 instruction per 2 cycle.
>Z180 is NEVER faster than 1 instruction per 3 cycle.
So lets use PIII, it is able to run at least 4 (four) 8 bit instructions at
Daniel Jorge Caetano wrote:
> >(BTW, I'm not sure what effect ROM/DRAM mode has on R800, does anybody know
> >that?)
>
> I don't know also. I just mentioned because I don't really know if something
>changes when using DRAM mode.
I think it's more plausible the R800 is SLOWED DOWN in ROM-mode tha
58 matches
Mail list logo
