C64 doesn't blow! If one wants to get in to oldskool machine programming in easier way, then c64 is the machine to go for.
There's tons of documents on c64 programming in the net. Lots of users to ask questions, if you get stuck. 6510 is simpler processor to program than z80, I think so.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love MSX too, it was a first comp I got. Nowadays I have 3 msxes, c64, a600, and pc. Only machine I really don't use is the a600.

I think it's more or less like a personal opinion. Everyone codes on the system they're best at. Like me, I still develop in MSX-BASIC/NestorBASIC, although I'm getting accustomed to ASM as well, lately. Furthermore I study about Computer Science, so here we learn things like Java and C++.
Personally I've never learnt something like C64 BASIC or 6810 (or 680x0) assembly, so I don't do that. I don't think it's just like 'one system being better than anything else'. If you feel comfortable in C64 BASIC, so be it.

But it's true actually, there's more C64 documents on the net than MSX stuff. But then again, you'll find enough of both systems to be satisfied with.

Just let your heart decide You're on a MSX forum anyway

I agree about MSX documents are either poor or incomplete. On the MSX Assembly Page we try to get all information as complete as possible.

I think it's kind of weird asking about developing on systems other than MSX on an MSX forum. I started developing in MSX-BASIC but nowadays it's more Z80 Assembly. Also I know Turbo Pascal to fool around with.

I think a beginners-course for assembly would be nice for the MAP.
But who's got the time to create it? or maybe it's possible to use existing courses

Quote:

I have Micro$oft!!! Did microsoft develop MSX BASIC?:?? :S :'( Then the C64 would be a better choice...

Sorry to disappoint you, but AFAIK, M$ was also responsible for C64 BASIC...

I meant that in my opinion, ASM programming is easier on c64, than on msx. C64 basic is pure shit compared to msx basic. In fact it is shit compared to any programming language. Anyway, coding on any 8-bit machine should be done with asm, if wanna do anything nice. Our 20 year old machines aren't so fast, you know...
But, like D-Tail wrote, it's only matter of an opinion. And it's obvious that in this forum almost everyone prefers to msx.

Ok, I think I will go for the MSX or the Amiga... But I don't have a msx, and wanna emulate it. I use nlmsx. But how do I load a program from an inserted disk? something as load is the command, but it gives a disk I/O error :S

And a little question about msx basic. My teacher said msx basic was a special language, C64 basic is a lot more like normal basic, he said... Is that true :S

well, the definition of a 'true' basic is somewhat vague.. since there are many dialects.. however, msx basic is more friendly than the peek/poke basic of the C64 ..

Quote:

And a little question about msx basic. My teacher said msx basic was a special language, C64 basic is a lot more like normal basic, he said... Is that true :S

Nope, it's actually the other way around. C64 is known for having the worst BASIC interpreter ever. The MSX BASIC is actually one of the most complete BASIC versions around. MSX BASIC has commands for just about everything (so no POKE's) which makes it really easy to use.

You should try and order an MSX2 BASIC book on ebay, they cost about a euro. I guess that should be doable If you're Dutch it should be particularly easy since there are always a lot of Dutch books on e-bay. If you're not you could still consider buying a book. Most MSX commands don't really need careful explanation. Just seing the correct syntaxis is usually enough to understand them. To make things even easier, most commands are explained with a little example below.

But anyways... As for your question. With NL MSX you can't go wrong. Just read the manual and online faq to get started there. The disk I/O error is probably because you didn't select a disk image (which is like inserting a virtual disk). Press F6 to 'put a disk in drive A:'. Select any disk image and click on open. To make an empty disk use a program like DiskManager from the maker of RuMSX.

But anyways... I suggest you give it a try. Start with something simple. Then slowly start doing more complex stuff like using graphics in your BASIC programs etc. Later on you can add music with programs like MoonBlaster or use programs like KunBasic for even more speed. Part of the power of MSX Basic is that it's easy to combine BASIC with machine-code so you can use music routines and whatnot on the background while your main BASIC program continues. It's hip, it's fun! Trust me....

Good luck...

Quote:

I have Micro$oft!!! Did microsoft develop MSX BASIC?:?? :S :'( Then the C64 would be a better choice...

At the time, Microsoft were still 'the good guys'...

~Grauw

Err... When were they good guys? I even doubt if they were less evil....

Quote:

Err... When were they good guys? I even doubt if they were less evil....

Imoh the guys from ASCII at the time were the good guys. They kept microsoft in line somehow. Sadly M$ had plans on there own and discided to take the IBM ship aswell (anyone remember the OS/2 warp system!?)

Anyway, as long as it is stable (the opposite of Windoze ) it is good

I remember that I had GEOS (a graphical shell) for my C64 emulator. Is there any graphical shell for the MSX (just for fun )

Quote:

At the time, Microsoft were still 'the good guys'... ~Grauw

Quite a hard to say they have ever been good guys. I still see, that most people think, that BASIC was developped by Micro Soft, but actually BASIC was originally PD software, that M$ ported first to Altair (Using stolen computer time, that actually was quite a expencive at that time.) and then to other computers.

To learn more about M$ I think that this is quite a good page to read: www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

Quote:

And a little question about msx basic. My teacher said msx basic was a special language, C64 basic is a lot more like normal basic, he said... Is that true :S

I think, that your teacher has had quite a weird opinion about what BASIC is. I anyway think, that C64 basic was typical kind of BASIC at that time.

MSX-BASIC was mostly compatible with those more simple BASIC's around at that time. For example if you like to use LET command in front of variable substitution, that is Ok, but it also works without it. The only problem of MSX-BASIC is, that it is slow mostly because of complex variable handling. Today anyway, if speed is a problem, you can always swap to X-BASIC or Nestor Basic, that can mostly execute the same code or at least you don't have to do many modifications.

If you have used GW-BASIC on PC, then you almost know MSX-BASIC. MSX-BASIC has anyway a bit more functionality. If you have used QBASIC or Quick BASIC on PC, you should not have problems either to learn MSX-BASIC.

MSX-BASIC is as far as I know the best "pure" BASIC that has been made. (read non Visual BASIC etc.) It is very logical and you can control sound card, MIDI, Video digitizer etc. without needing to know anything about Assembler. You can't say that on many other platform BASIC's.

Quote:

I remember that I had GEOS (a graphical shell) for my C64 emulator. Is there any graphical shell for the MSX (just for fun )

There are some like WIOS, Phillips Easy, Windows98 or MSX-View, but I must admit, that C64 GEOS is more impressive in many things. Typically people use MultiMente. It is not graphical, but it is quite a nice and fast.

Ok guys,

I just wanna let you know that I have made my choise, I'm going to develop on a MSX2 So, what do you recommend to start? Assembly right away, or just BASIC? Which assembler? Which sites do you recommend?