OK, reading the 'what killed msx'-topic (and what the turbo R should have been ) I started asking myself:

What should have been the MSX2 standard?

I think the following specs would have made it a bit better:

Z80 - maybe 7MHz? - with a bioscall switchable (3.5/7MHz)
128KB RAM minimum
V9938 with hardware scrolling in all directions
PSG and a SCC-like chip
double sided diskdrive
and ofcourse vdp/psg/whatever i/o ports standard.

I know, a rather useless discussion

The MSX2 was perfect when it came out, it's just the relieve which never arrived, in time and place...

By the way, i am pretty sure the Msx would not have died if it was released with the following component :

ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, Pentium 4 with multithreading, 1gb DDR Ram and 160 GB Ultra160 10000 rpm.

Quote:

By the way, i am pretty sure the Msx would not have died if it was released with the following component : ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, Pentium 4 with multithreading, 1gb DDR Ram and 160 GB Ultra160 10000 rpm.

Such a system is very dead without Windows.

Quote:

By the way, i am pretty sure the Msx would not have died if it was released with the following component : ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, Pentium 4 with multithreading, 1gb DDR Ram and 160 GB Ultra160 10000 rpm.

Certainly, but quite excessive for those years... I am convinced that -at least in Spain and I guess the same on the rest of Europe- Commodore Amiga was the enemy and killer of MSX2 machines, so V9938 and a bit faster processor could be enough to fight better with it...

Also a real stereo sound with the best of MSX-AUDIO and MSX-MUSIC would have been an advantage for MSX 2 !

A faster graphics chip with memory-mapped vram, that would have made a huge difference.

MSX2 should have been released in 1983, instead of MSX1. Which was about the intention of Nishi anyway, according to his talk in Tilburg.

If all optional items in the MSX2 data book would have been mandatory (notably memory mapper support and the MSX Audio) and the minimum RAM was 128 KRAM, the MSX2 is functionally comparable with the Atari ST and Amiga. It only lacks CPU power, which could partly have been solved by Sjoerds idea of including the 7MHz Z80.

That would have made a hell of a machine in 1985 (would cost around $2000 )

But I think that we should always keep in mind that what the public knows as MSX2 is in fact THE MSX machine Kazuhiko Nishi imagined. Nishi points out in his Tilburg lecture that he went to Yamaha to have them design both the video and audio processor. Both chips in the MSX1 are not developed by Yamaha (but US semi conductor manufacturers (Texas Instruments)). So the V9938 and the MSX Audio were intended for MSX release.

(manuel was just ahead of me )

Another funny story is that Nishi also visited the group that was developing the Amiga architecture in the early 80s, but that Nishi was not interested in using the Motorola M68000 architecture (probably a cost issue). The Amiga architecture was later stolen and used in the Atari ST (just search for the story in google), so there are 'hidden' connections between the MSX system and its competitors.

A fast videochip, fast enough to update the whole screen at once.

FM-Pac built-in from the very start, and the PSG should have had equal output levels on all systems.

Quote:

Another funny story is that Nishi also visited the group that was developing the Amiga architecture in the early 80s, but that Nishi was not interested in using the Motorola M68000 architecture (probably a cost issue).

A costly mistake, as the Z80 was already outdated in 1983... But then again, the power of MSX was not based upon it's pure technological capabilties but much more around the ideas and ideals behind the system...

Yamaha V9938 is also known as MSX-VIDEO, so that pretty much proves it

Quote:

V9938 with hardware scrolling in all directions

You mean V9958

Quote:

I know, a rather useless discussion

Yeah

Quote:

A fast videochip, fast enough to update the whole screen at once.

in one screen refresh (Vertical Blank) you mean?! sure you do.
I think we (aspecially asm gurus) would love to have a FASTER GFX chip. period. that has always been a bottle neck. And the CPU could have been 7.14 but hell...

Quote:

You mean V9958

No, I meant a v9938 with hardware scolling. No over 10000 color modes. And the scrolling should have been easier on the v9958.

Quote:

A fast videochip, fast enough to update the whole screen at once.

Even the v9990 isn't fast enough to update the whole screen at once.

Quote:

That would have made a hell of a machine in 1985 (would cost around $2000 )

I think a scc is cheaper than an msx-audio, so I proposed something like that. The other computers were expensive also.

Quote:

MSX2 should have been released in 1983, instead of MSX1. Which was about the intention of Nishi anyway, according to his talk in Tilburg.

Then MSX2+ should have been released in 1985 (with msx-audio), and the Turbo R in 1988 (with v9990).