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 sucks. Zx80 rulez. :)
>Padial has something using Z380 yet. Ademir
>will work mainly on Z180. So we will have two working enhancements. If
>both of them will be compatible with Z80, programs that run on one will
>run on another. There is no point on the discussion.
There is, because if half of the MSX'ers buy a Z180 board, and half a Z380
board, there's less market for new Z380 programs! If cool new Z380 programs
come out, people who have already bought a Z180 board won't cash out again
and buy a Z380 board as well!
It's like, if you just bought a Music Module, you're not gonna buy a
MoonSound just because it's better and has more possibilities. (Unless you
are rolling in money ;))
> If you remove the 64K limit you will have not MSX anymore, pe.
Is it the LIMITS that define the MSX standard for you?
> >A NEW computer (not MSX-standard) with Z380 inside is STUPID.
>
> Yes? Sorry, but stupid is talk about something we don't know.
Yes it's stupid to talk about something you don't know, but it's a fact the
Z380 is a inferior CPU compared to many other recent CPU's. (And I'm not
talking solely about x86 ones)
The only reason to use it in MSX is that it's Z80 compatible and also MSX
programmers are used to programming in assembly.
> There is at least one good reason to use Z380 as the main processor
>for a new computer: every Z80 programmer knows how to program it (and
>we have several Z80 programmers here) and... most important... if you
>create the computer on the right way, the main processor do almost nothing.
If you take a fast enough processor, a programmer can program in any
machine language he wants, because Z380 (and 6502/65816/68000 whatever) can
be emulated at least as fast as the real CPU would run.
> Computers where the main processor are doing lots of work with graphix,
> sound
>and other jobs are BADLY DESIGNED COMPUTERS. (-: Or... at least, a
>computer very expensive that does a little per buck that you spent on it.
>(Example? Our "lovely" PC).
Oh I agree with you completely, but nevertheless fact is, the faster the
CPU, the faster the computer.
>What's the point on the "new 32 bit slots"? Where are
>the specifications? How can we program and develop for something that is
>being created for more than two years and no one knows how it work to
>program it?
I'm sure when it's finished and widely available the spec's will be known.
Anyway, what spec's are you waiting for?
> On the other hand, to program for ACE002, just program for MSX. It'll run
>on ACE002. And it'll be faster!
But with the current limitations of the MSX hardware/CPU.
For example, nobody's gonna write a game that NEEDS to run on a Z180,
because will not be that many people who own it (especially in the
beginning). Where on the other hand, the Z380 has so much new potential
it's fun exploring it and in that process write a game, without caring who
will play it.
> For program ADVRAM (that means Acesso Direto `a VRAM, or Direct Access
> to VRAM,
>in good english) you have just to use the BrMSX that will be out in a few
>days.
>The specs are ready before the hardware.
So we'll have to use BrMSX including all it's incompatibilities to program
something that we don't even can get in our real MSX's?! What about all the
MSX programmers that don't even have a PC?
Be realistic, having a feature in an emulator without having the feature
available as hardware is not a good reason to use it.
> And we want speed with new and old softwares. And old softwares must run.
so what old software are you so desperate to run at that
super-great-speed-that's-much-greater-than-Z380?! WHAT'S THE USE?
> Great. He developed an accelerated card, not a new MSX. Something like
>this was done in two weekends, but using a Z180 for a serial interface.
Hey, combined with the 32bit slotexpander the Z380 board becomes a
motherboard for a new MSX.
> Great. So use it. Program it. You are free. I droped MSX Phoenix because
>I saw that the only thing that tie us together is the actual MSX. Everyone
>here has different expectations about a new MSX. There is little agreement.
But there should, since otherwise every new MSX project is doomed.
>And everything is solved. For different
>tastes, different solutions.
*sigh* maybe you're right...
but still I see no real reason to use Z380 over Z180, because the speedgain
is not so big and Z380 has so much more advantages.
> Yes, so expandable that becomes a mess, with programs that not run here and
>there because the RAM is in different slots, with dozens of ports used
>to similar hardwares. I like MSX, but it has some nasty "features".
Indeed MSX is not perfect, but ACE002 w/ Z180 isn't gonna clean it up either!
> >Designing a new non-MSX WITH Z380 is stupid, designing an MSX WITHOUT Z380
> >is stupid as well.
>
> I already said to not give an opinion on something you don't know.
I know I haven't been give any good reason to believe a Z180 board is a
better idea than using Z380.
> And why discuss a new hardware? Run and buy the Padial board! He will
>be happy, and you too!
I will, but there should be at least SOME conformity in the MSX world...
Or maybe I'm dreaming?
> BOTHER WITH ASSEMBLY!!!! ?!?!?!
>
> ARGH! Even PC is GREATLY ENHANCED by ASM progrmming ! (compare BrMSX
> with fMSX!)
I was talking about those lazy C-programmers who either outgrown assembly,
or never learned it in the first place.
For me, assembly isn't a bother, in fact it's the only thing (next to
basic) I can really program.
> If I'd be impressed with lots of new instructions I'd be glad to change
> to PC.
>It has lots more of opcodes.
Yes it has a lot of opcodes, it also has very little registers...
> There is no merit on doing a fast program just because it's on a
> ultra-high-fast
>computer. The merit is do as much as possible with we have.
So why limit what you have by using Z180 in stead of Z380?
>The problem is:
>Z80 was never a good processor for V9938 and V9958, per example. Port acess
>to V9938 and V9958 was never a good solution. What to do? Solve these
>problems.
>And that's all. (-:
Z180 isn't gonna solve that, ADVRAM probably is.(I guess that's what you mean)
> >That's exactly what I am NOT doing, and you are!!
>
> No? Who is saying to use the faster processor to have the faster
>machine?
I'm not saying to use the faster processor, you've clearly shown Z180@33Mhz
outruns a Z380@14Mhz on Z80-compatible code. I'm saying one should use the
most CAPABLE processor, regardless of speed.
> I'm not TALKING ABOUT MHZ, BUT ABOUT MIPS! These are something DIFFERENT.
>PE.: G4 at 600Mhz is a lot faster that 850Mhz PIII processor. But if you
>do the calcs, you'll se that if G4 at 600Mhz is X mips and PIII at 850Mhz is
>Y mips, then X > Y.
In that case you prove my point. Z380 is the faster processor at same
clockspeed.
> >There's absolutely NO good reason to use Z180 in stead of Z380 in a future
> >MSX, NONE I tell you.
>
> Thanks to tell me. It's your word against Ademir and Delavy ones.
*sigh*
Have they any good reasons to use Z180? I'd love to hear one...
Patriek
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and put "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes) in
the body (not the subject) of the message.
Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More information on MSX can be found in the following places:
The MSX faq: http://www.faq.msxnet.org/
The MSX newsgroup: comp.sys.msx
The MSX IRC channel: #MSX on Undernet
****
