On Sunday 22 April 2001 10:08, you wrote:
> intent by the way is just a uniform os which runs java code.
> so it's machine-independant.
Intent also has its own virtual machine, AFAIK. It's optimized for
multimedia, which is an area where Java is not strong.
> > Actually I'm more exited about that one-chip idea that the idea that it
> > has something to do with MSX... Respects go to Nishi though... even
> > though he seems to claim that he invented the wheel from time to time.
>
> Bush 'invented' the internet (or was it Gore?). And Gates also 'invented'
> lots of stuff...
That was (wasn't) Gore. I doubt Bush ever invented anything...
> I think it's strange the computer runs on Linux. First, as far as I know
> Linux is a Unix-clone for IBM-compatibles.
It started that way, but today Linux can run on PowerPC, Alpha, Sun Sparc,
embedded devices, even on mainframes (and that's not the full list).
> The one-chip-msx is not an
> IBM-compatible. But I guess the name Linux is more common and more
> 'accessible' to the public than Unix (which sounds even more complex for
> the common user than Linux does).
The average buyer of a device running Linux will probably never notice Linux.
And there is no reason they should, an OS should just do its job quietly.
Note that on Linux the GUI is separated from the OS, unlike Windows.
> Second, Intent can run on it's own, it
> doesn't need another layer like Linux. So why is Linux there? Ah, ofcourse
> I am glad it is there because it's not a JIT, like Intent is, and therefor
> faster. But it's less portable.
Linux code is pretty portable, but at source level, not at binary level like
Java or Intent.
Why Linux? Partially marketing: it attracts programmers, others use it (PS2
devkit). Linux is cheap (no license costs). And there is an increasing amount
of driver support from manufacturers.
> the MSX-player is also a platform on which they can experiment with the
> server-database (or whatever it is called) idea.
They call it "MSX Server".
> > The idea of reconfiguring a chip to act as another chip is great though.
>
> yess! why waste transistors (hence speed and expandability) on old hardware
> if you can _perfectly_ emulate it through software???
FPGA uses a lot of transistors as well. And currently unused FPGA gates
could be considered wasted transistors, but they are necessary to add new
functionality in the future.
Also, Nasu informed us today that manufacturing embedded FPGA at an
affordable price is not possible yet. It may be possible in the future,
Nishi is actually doing research on that at MIT.
> > I doubt "for free" will be true. ASCII will want to make some money using
> > the MSX Server and the company who made the game will probably not
> > license it for free either. It's not sure the MSX Player will accept ROM
> > and DSK images from arbitrary sources.
>
> It's based on fMSX so according to the GNU public licence (or whatever it's
> called) it _must_ be open source. Hence adaptations can easily be made.
fMSX is not under GPL.
Besides, even with GPL licenses, a piece of software can be released under
multiple licenses. Since commercial use is not allowed by the public fMSX
license, ASCII will have to buy a license from Marat. Depending on the
details of that agreement, ASCII may or may not be required to open up
anything.
> > Or if for example the games section on funet won't be
> > closed down after pressure from ASCII.
>
> that might be an issue, yes.
> but instead you will get a huge database featuring those same games.
> only usable in MSX-Player and One Chip MSX though, yes.
> but don't forget the Funet CDs...
I just wanted to indicate the implications this project could have on the MSX
world. Currently no company cares about ROMs on funet, because they don't
lose money on it. But if the games are being sold again, their attitude might
change.
Basically, it depends a lot on how easy it is to use illegal images. Napster
was acted upon by record companies, yet binary newsgroups with MP3s still
thrive. However, binary newsgroups are too hard for many users, while Napster
is easy to use. Copyright holders only care whether the masses are able to
copy their product.
One problem is that it's almost impossible to make a distinction between
illegal images and custom images. What if I want to cheat in some game? I
would want to use the modified ROM image in the MSX Player. Or if I made my
own game, I want to test that ROM image. So MSX Player should accept custom
images, but if it does that, it will also accept illegal images, because it
cannot see the difference.
> > eZ80 or similar chips suffice for most IP enables devices. The one-chip
> > "MSX" is unique because of it's FPGA, but that also makes it more
> > expensive and programming the FPGA is more difficult than programming an
> > ordinary processor. So manufacturers will only use it if they can
> > actually do something useful with the FPGA, like signal processing or
> > emulation or anything else that performs poor on CPUs.
>
> ofcourse there's a basic setup of the FPGA (XGA graphics nishi said for
> example).
XGA-like graphics is a separate block in the design, which is either switched
or overlayed with video output from the FPGA. I don't know why really, it
would seem to be easier if the FPGA would just write it's video output into
the framebuffer of the video chip (like good TV cards do).
> > So I think a few competent programmers (like Tsujikawa) will create FPGA
> > programs, for MSX emulation, for MP3 decoding etc and most applications
> > will use those through a kind of library. I don't expect an average
> > application to reprogram the FPGA.
>
> I think it would be quite impossible. I don't think you can program 'parts
> of' the FPGA, you have to program it as a whole in one go.
It would certainly be possible to program multiple functional blocks into an
FPGA at the same time. Just put all of them at different addresses.
I don't know how an FPGA is reprogrammed, but even if you have to reprogram
everything at once, that's not a real problem: you can just reprogram it with
what was already there with the new function added to it.
Bye,
Maarten
--
For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
