Is the One Chip MSX a real MSX or not?

Página 2/13
1 | | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Por AuroraMSX

Paragon (1902)

imagem de AuroraMSX

10-02-2007, 10:19

so on the wiki page is says:

Emulation refers to the ability of a program or device to imitate another program or device. (like a ibm clone imitates an ibm pc) Many printers, for example, are designed to emulate Hewlett-Packard LaserJet printers because so much software is written for HP printers. By emulating an HP printer, a printer can work with any software written for a real HP printer. Emulation "tricks" the software into believing that a device is really some other device. (like an ibm clone tricks the software in believing it was running on an ibm pc)
Ah.. So, my Philips NMS-8250 is basically a Canon V20 emulator? oO

is forward compatability possible, do we need a timemachine to make it?
Yes and no :)

is my PC backward compatible or is it emulating?
It's backward compatible because of the built in emulation :P

why has the pentium an emulation mode for backward compatibility?
That's because of the hardware design of the 586. You just wouldn't be able to run old 8- and 16-bit code on the 586 directly if the 586 didn't provide this extra mode.

Por tfh

Prophet (3346)

imagem de tfh

10-02-2007, 10:20

As Nishi explained in several lectures, and the MSX-Engine proves, the whole idea of MSX has always been to reduce the amount of components (and costs), with a single chip as the ideal situation.
Well, first of all, I haven't taken anything from Nishi too seriously anymore the last few years, especially after his Tilburg lecture, his 20-years-too-late-self-thought-of explaination of what MSX stands for, so...
Besides that, integration of parts to reduce the costs has nothing to do with MSX at all, it's a standard business model which already existed way before MSX was ever conceived.
As for the rest: Yes, the OCM is an emulator. Nothing more, nothing less.

Por dvik

Prophet (2200)

imagem de dvik

10-02-2007, 11:12

There is a slight difference: blueMSX and openMSX are not tangible whereas the OCM is a real thing.
I think you're slightly confused by the fact you can touch the OCM. A hardware emulator is always something that looks more like a thing and certainly different from a PC. You can get the same look by taking a cellphone running fMSX, attach a GameReader, put it in a little box and put an MSX sticker on it. I'm sure you agree that the later is not a real MSX although it may look like an OCM.

Por Leonardo Padial

Expert (73)

imagem de Leonardo Padial

10-02-2007, 11:30

Emulation is one more Software concept. Simulation is more Hardware
concept where the external word can see as similar as the real
In this sense the OCM can be one MSX Simulator now, but if the VHDL
is reprogramed as the MSX original chips to level register, this
mean exactly register, exactly timing, an so on, the OCM can be
one Real MSX.
For me the OCM apport mainly one great reduction in size, and
this is important.

Por Samor

Prophet (2174)

imagem de Samor

10-02-2007, 12:13

IMO it's both real and an emulator Tongue

I want to use my VW Beetle (also can be applied to a Mini Cooper) example again.

VW Beetle enthusiast: "That new car's not a beetle, it's a an attempt to look like it!"

VW Beetle manufacturer: "It bares the VW brand, it's designed after the original, and it's named a beetle - it IS one!"

I'd say they're both right. But because the POV's differ, they're never going to agree Wink

As for PC's, compare a new one with one from 1983 ...they're both PC's. Same with that OTHER VW car, the Golf.
However, a difference is is that there were models in between, that were based off each other. In the case of the Beetle and the Mini Cooper, there's been a huge gap, then a new (and quite different) version. This is similar to the OCM.

Por snout

Ascended (15187)

imagem de snout

10-02-2007, 12:31

To me, the difference between 'hardware emulation' and 'software emulation' is more than big enough to call the OCM a real MSX and a phone/console/PC running an emulator on a host-OS to mimic an MSX - accurate as it is - not. Instant and full MSX action on boot, no drivers/background tasks/compatibility bogus bugging me (on my PC the blueMSX menu is dead slow, for instance, while fMSX was pure lockup horror on my previous PC), works instantly with cartridges (no GR required) and on TV (no VGA with TV-out required)/monitor and no noisy PC PSU/cooling bugging me whilst playing Nemesis Tongue

Por Samor

Prophet (2174)

imagem de Samor

10-02-2007, 13:49

what does that make an Atari Flashback 2 in your opinion?
Just wondering Wink
(a bit of a read, skip the info about the first version, which is more NES than it is Atari ;) )
in short, the flashback 2 is a one chip design of the 2600, but lacks a cartridge port (allthough it can be easily added back).

(Also, )

Por poke-1,170

Paragon (1783)

imagem de poke-1,170

10-02-2007, 16:40

so does msx2 emulate msx1 then ?
or the turbo r the 2+ ?

Por pitpan

Prophet (3155)

imagem de pitpan

10-02-2007, 16:49

Of course! And every single MSX is indeed a lame SVI328 emulator LOL!

And the Z80 itself is a cheap intel 8080 emulator... No way!

But if we are considering the 1CM, it is a PC-wannabe with (some) MSX compatibility.

For the same money you can buy a good console and look for a decent MSX emulator. Or go for a real MSX at eBay.

Por poke-1,170

Paragon (1783)

imagem de poke-1,170

10-02-2007, 16:59

if it's a pc wannabe then it has some pretty lousy specs hahaha.
Seriously, I don't see what's so emulated about bringing the entire hardware
down to 1 chip. Guess if they'd done this when the first msx was released,
we wouldn't have had this discussion either.
Maybe the fact that the OCM is not dedicated and can be rewritten (as opposed
to normal msx) makes it emulated or so...
As for compatability, msx2 isn't fully msx1 compatible either.
Does that make an msx2 not an msx ?

then again what do I know Big smile

Página 2/13
1 | | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7