I don't think the OCM is an MSX because that what makes it an MSX is completely separable from the hardware device. Of course, that only doesn't make it an MSX1, 2, 2+ or turboR. You could argue that it is an MSX by itself running a simulation of an MSX2. It does have an MSX logo after all. Of course, it's a rather weak argument as long as the MSX2 simulation is the only thing running on it. I'll go with "no MSX" for now.
The fact that emulation and the whole retro hype brought the attention back to old gameconsoles
can be largely attributed to the fact that pc's got to the point that they could smoothly run emu's.
Now before MAME was around nobody bothered (apart from hardcore users).
So in that aspect, we're to thank emulators for the global rediscovery of 8 /16 bit consoles.
Without that, surely no hardware 2600 , c64 or msx would have seen the light of day again.
then again, there's no future for old machines if you don't make the jump to todays standards.
including CF memory is such a change in standard I guess.
makes it a lot easier to work with a pc, same with my amiga. I used to do backups to my pc
with a x-modem cable which took ages. Thank heavens for PCMCIA>CF adaptors ^_^
Keeping it up to date with current technology expands the lifetime of your machine.
So, what if no-one knew it's an Altera which can be reprogrammed, what if MSXA just made a box with one chip inside, calling it MSX-Engine2, would that be acceptable as MSX then?
OCM is a "reconfigurable MSX2 of XXI Century". I don't mind what is inside the box, I just know OCM run all MSX stuff the same as in my old MSX computers. So, for me... yes, it is.
I'd say this hardware device can only be considered being an 'MSX' when it's configured with a VHDL-code which is certified by the institution which holds the MSX copyrights: MSX Association. All other (homebrew) VHDL-modifications will result in lack of identity of the device. Lack of identity leads to constant discussions such as this one and in the end, I expect it would make the '1chipMSX' only a footnote in MSX history: the result of a period, which is being referred to as the 'MSX Revival'. I fiercely hope the MSX authorities will understand the importance of identity in order to let the 1chipMSX be a lot more than just this footnote.
The device is great, the VHDL-concept is great, but its strong point 'reconfigurable' is also its greatest risk.
Then we'll be stuck with the V9938. The rest of the chips wasn't uniquely MSX. So, the identification is: slow blockbased gfx.
However, this V9938 was only the 2nd generation of MSX videochips.. does the GFX9k belong to the MSX identify? If yes, where does it end? Is it MSX when gfx stay blockbased and slow?
and out of curiosity, would it be possible to make a device running bluemsx only on 1 single chip ?
or openmsx, fmsx etc ?
I thought I'd bring this up too. It is indeed possible already or at least almost. There is a one chip java virtual machine that I think you can buy (I've only seen a working prototype). On that virtual machine you could run a java MSX emulator and then you have a one chip MSX emulator. Such a device would, if implemented well, potentially look and feel exactly like the OCM. It wouldn't even have a host os. So would such a device be a real MSX or an emulator?
Wolf.....If MSX Association releases a VHDL update with a different GPU, I would accept that. I also accept the Playstation 3 being a Playstation. Although there are very different chips inside both devices. You keep talking about the V9938 though. Why?
