--- Daniel Jorge Caetano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:19:07 -0700 (PDT), "ðiogo"
Sperb Schneider wrote:
Nonsense. With a poorly designed kernel you will
have
a bad performance of any application, even the
better
programmed applications.
Performance shouldn't be a
How could you avoid programs to access memory areas
that don't belong to
them if your MMU is implemented in software? How
could you stop user
programs to overwrite the MMU code and make it work
as the user want?
I thought the kernel used to control the
communication between
--- Alex Wulms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simple: by making a software CPU and a software MMU.
In this way, your
software CPU interpretes the programs in stead of
the Z80.
Ofcourse it will kill performance but it does
work...
Exactly my thoughts... My only concern is that it
works, not
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:49:00 -0700 (PDT), "ðiogo" Sperb Schneider wrote:
Nonsense. With a poorly designed kernel you will
have a bad performance of any application, even the
better programmed applications.
Performance shouldn't be a worry at development
stage.
There are programmers and
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:17:51 -0700 (PDT), "ðiogo" Sperb Schneider wrote:
Ofcourse it will kill performance but it does
work...
Exactly my thoughts... My only concern is that it
works, not performance.
Well, once you build an emulator, EVERYTHING is possible,
since there is enough RAM space.
At 06:53 AM 7/13/00 -0700, you wrote:
I'd be running fast back to MSX if there was a UNIX
like OS available. I've got very excited a while ago
when I've read somewhere that some guys where trying
to develop a Linux version for MSX.
MSX is the best computer ever created, man... It must
be
Even the Portuguese to Portuguese dictionary?
(((-:
I didn't know about such website! What's the URL?
Maybe that Aurelio´s dictionary... =)
Ricardo Jurczyk Pinheiro - ICQ UIN:3635907 - [EMAIL
At 07:21 PM 7/13/00 +0200, you wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
Why are you so sure? For Linux to run, all we need is
a suitable kernel. Linux kernels were originally
intended for i386 machines only, but it has been
ported to PowerPC, i286, Amiga and a few others...
To the people interested, look after ELKS (Embeddable Linux Kernel
System), their goal is to have Linux ported to computers which don´t have
MMU, like 286s, XTs... So the MSX.
ELKS is still far away from 8 bits CPUs...
Do not count with it...
Adriano Camargo
At 10:04 AM 19/07/2000, you wrote:
My opinion is:
A new msx must be developped.
It must be a real home/hobby computer so there will be a marked for in
the demo/hobby scene..
(...)
That's my opinion,
please correct me if you think I'm wrong.
Goddamit, let´s make a deal: Don´t spend
Laurens Holst wrote:
Linux is 32-bit, MSX is 8-bit (actually 16-bit, imho).
Ahem, Linux on dec alpha is one of the best 64 bit unix systems out
there.
Linux uses a very extended memory area, MSX has 64k
If you are talking (IBM-)PC linguo, shouldn't you say :
"The flat memory model of
Bleh, I've stopped running linux, since those fixed drove me mad... kernel
2.4.3.1.4.1.5.9.2.etc... with of course, matching clibs, which caused your
apps to go bezerk if the clib changed... argh!
Nah, start using BeOS! :)
Oh my god!!!
Nah, I tried the Personal edition (500 meg diskimage
Grauw wrote:
Linux uses a very extended memory area, MSX has 64k
If you are talking (IBM-)PC linguo, shouldn't you say :
"The flat memory model of the protected mode."
extended memory is the old 286 way of mapping more then one mega of
memory
I meant this: "Linux gebruikt een zeer
Diego Sperb Schneider wrote:
Linux is not just a kernel.
Hm, IIRC, it's quite the opposite. Linux is *just* the kernel.
All applications, which make the complete system are mostly GNU...
Ag0ny wrote:
I work as the technical director of a big ISP, so I guess I know
what I'm talking
: -Original Message-
: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
: Sent: 17 July 2000 09:35
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: [OFF] Linux (was: Re: About the new MSX: what do users think?)
:
:
: *grin* Time for an update, BTW. 2.2.13 is quite old already
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I work as the technical director of a big ISP, so I guess I know
what I'm talking about.
not necessarily :-P
In this case, I am. :)
ag0ny:~$ uname -a
Linux ag0ny 2.2.13 #10 Sat Jul 1 21:08:33 CEST 2000 i686 unknown
ag0ny~$
*grin*
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:20:15 GMT, Takamichi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had reverse-translated that what-so-called "new MSX" article and
then realized this is typical Japanese refusal sentence, the sort
which, when translated to English, gives positive impression against
intent of the author.
] On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
]
] [about MMU]
] Ok, but I still don't see how it could not be
] implemented in software.
]
] How could you avoid programs to access memory areas that don't belong to
] them if your MMU is implemented in software? How could you stop user
]
] But wait a minute... You said 8086? I believe the Z80
] is also called 8080, right? Does these processors have
] any relation between them?
Yes.
The 8080 was developed by Intel corporation.
After developing the 8080, the boss of Intel had some ideas about how to
develop the successor. One
Why are you so sure? For Linux to run, all we need is
a suitable kernel.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Easy to speak! Damn hard to do! :)
Linux kernels were originally
intended for i386 machines only
Hey! We're talking about Z80 here, too far away from i386! i386
has
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
(Please excuse me for the offtopic)
management, scheduling, etc. It would be a
completely different kernel,
so it wouldn't be Linux.
Linux is not just a kernel. To be sincere, the kernel
is the least important part of the OS. It just
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
Because Linux kernel "way of life" requires a MMU,
something not available at "normal" MSXs.
Ok... But it could be implemented in software,
couldn't? Also, the MSXes are in evolution process...
Couldn't. A MMU ensures that programs
--- Maarten ter Huurne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, "Ðiogo" Sperb Schneider wrote:
Making an MSX port of Linux would only make sense if
Linux programs would
compile on Linux-MSX without thorough modification.
I doubt that is
possible. The 64K address space of the Z80
But wait a minute... You said 8086? I believe the Z80
is also called 8080, right? Does these processors have
any relation between them?
The Zilog Z80 was designed based on Intel's 8080 processor, which was the
processor CP/M was first created for.
It is instruction-upwards-compatible, and
--- ag0ny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
(Please excuse me for the offtopic)
Oh, so now the kernel is the least important part of
the OS? Cool. Then
let's stop development of the kernel and focus on
what's really
important! If you don't know
--- ag0ny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
Couldn't. A MMU ensures that programs can't access
memory locations that
aren't theirs. It must be implemented in hardware.
It would be funny to
have userland programs overwrite the MMU and get
write
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
[about MMU]
Ok, but I still don't see how it could not be
implemented in software.
How could you avoid programs to access memory areas that don't belong to
them if your MMU is implemented in software? How could you stop user
programs to
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
important! If you don't know what you're talking
about, please don't say anything.
I was going to suggest the same for you! :)
I work as the technical director of a big ISP, so I guess I know what I'm
talking about.
So please go back
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:51:09 -0700 (PDT), "ðiogo" Sperb Schneider wrote:
Linux is not just a kernel. To be sincere, the kernel
is the least important part of the OS. It just makes
the communication between software and hardware. What
makes Linux so special are the GNU tools made for it
--- ag0ny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
I work as the technical director of a big ISP, so I
guess I know what I'm
talking about.
Oh, don't tell me about that! I've been working with
several technical directors of big ISPs before, and I
don't
--- ag0ny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
How could you avoid programs to access memory areas
that don't belong to
them if your MMU is implemented in software? How
could you stop user
programs to overwrite the MMU code and make it work
as the
--- Daniel Jorge Caetano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey... "The Kernel is the least important part of
the OS"...
so, what is the most important?
The basic software that is made for it, like shells
and tools. That's what actually give an OS it's
identity. All the kernel does is make sure
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:08:41 -0700 (PDT), "ðiogo" Sperb Schneider wrote:
I thought the kernel used to control the
communication between software and hardware. It could
be implemented with semaphores.
Well, if you think on "write on memory" as a task that
the program needs to ask the Kernel
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:19:07 -0700 (PDT), "ðiogo" Sperb Schneider wrote:
Hey... "The Kernel is the least important part of
the OS"... so, what is the most important?
The basic software that is made for it, like shells
and tools. That's what actually give an OS it's
identity. All the kernel
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
How could you avoid programs to access memory areas
that don't belong to
them if your MMU is implemented in software? How
could you stop user
programs to overwrite the MMU code and make it work
as the user want?
I thought the
What do YOU think, should a new MSX be developed? Will it have a
chance in the market that's dominated by PC's and 64 bit game
consoles? Or will it create it's own market?
--
Well, as everyone of you know, the Msx-scene is the cwlest scene you can
imagine..;)
I'd be running fast back to MSX if there was a UNIX
like OS available. I've got very excited a while ago
when I've read somewhere that some guys where trying
to develop a Linux version for MSX.
MSX is the best computer ever created, man... It must
be continued!
=
"Ðiogo Sperb Schneider" wrote:
I'd be running fast back to MSX if there was a UNIX
like OS available. I've got very excited a while ago
when I've read somewhere that some guys where trying
to develop a Linux version for MSX.
Well, you SHOULD take a look at my Jahu photo gallery
to get a
If you want to make demo's/games for pc or something, you have to be very
good and you've got to use profesional hardware to get some respect, and
even to get noticed..
This would mean that the pc-demoscene is some cold graveyard ?? not at
all..! It's true that most pc-sceners started on
--- Pablo Vasques Bravo-Villalba [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, you SHOULD take a look at my Jahu photo
gallery
to get a glimpse of a small fraction of what
Brazilian
fudebas are doing nowadays:
http://jahu99.parn.cjb.net
Cool!
There isn't and there will never be Linux for MSX,
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ðiogo Sperb Schneider wrote:
Why are you so sure? For Linux to run, all we need is
a suitable kernel. Linux kernels were originally
intended for i386 machines only, but it has been
ported to PowerPC, i286, Amiga and a few others... Why
shouldn't it be ported to the
"Ðiogo Sperb Schneider" wrote:
http://jahu99.parn.cjb.net
Cool!
Thanks! :) There is some nice pictures in MSX
Core Club page, too, but the subtitles are in
Portuguese. If you don't mind it, take a look:
http://msxjau99.cjb.net/
Even if you don't speak Portuguese, there are
some things you
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:42:43 -0700 (PDT), "ðiogo" Sperb Schneider wrote:
Why are you so sure? For Linux to run, all we need is
a suitable kernel. Linux kernels were originally
intended for i386 machines only, but it has been
ported to PowerPC, i286, Amiga and a few others... Why
shouldn't it be
Because you would have to rewrite the kernel almost
completely. Memory
management, scheduling, etc. It would be a
completely different kernel,
so it wouldn't be Linux.
Linux is not just a kernel. To be sincere, the kernel
is the least important part of the OS. It just makes
the
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, "Ðiogo" Sperb Schneider wrote:
Because you would have to rewrite the kernel almost
completely. Memory
management, scheduling, etc. It would be a
completely different kernel,
so it wouldn't be Linux.
Linux is not just a kernel. To be sincere, the kernel
is the
, let's just keep playing
with the original - real MSX-es and emulators and stop being naive..
Marco
: -Original Message-
: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
: Sent: 10 July 2000 08:00
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: About the new MSX: what do users think
Hey,
I think the gap is just too big to get the same feeling again, if this new
MSX is released.
You are in Japan now yourself, and you might have noticed (on the Tilburg
fair already)
that the Japanese have a total different point of view at the MSX computer.
We still have fun with old,
I think the gap is just too big to get the same feeling again, if this
new
MSX is released.
You are in Japan now yourself, and you might have noticed (on the Tilburg
fair already)
that the Japanese have a total different point of view at the MSX
computer.
Here in Japan I do not notice
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
: Sent: 10 July 2000 12:11
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: About the new MSX: what do users think?
snip
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and put "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes) i
(about the MSX mailing list):
the discussions here are more relevant and more fun to 'real' MSX users. On
news://comp.sys.msx there is mainly emulator- and offtopic-talk.
True, but the mailing list is invisible for people who don't know it
exists. So if we're discussing topics like the
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Marco Frissen wrote:
Don't forget there is absolutely no software for MSX anymnore (and I am not
talking about the occasional game that is still developed...)
Then obviously you are not part of the MSX scene. There IS new
hardware. Development is slow, but take a look at
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Manuel Bilderbeek wrote:
You can say "but now it continues!", but that is not the same. MSX was
(commercially seen) stopped for 9 years. This is just too long to get the
same feeling back. If ASCII or any other company releases a new MSX this
year, it is still not the
If you don't want to support the new MSX project, that's ok. We can't
force you to love the MSX. But please don't disturb the people who are
working on it. Don't tell people to stop their developments.
Hi Agony,
Also other people are entitled to their opinion. And they are also allowed
to
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
: Sent: 10 July 2000 13:02
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: About the new MSX: what do users think?
:
: Hi Agony,
:
: Also other people are entitled to their opinion. And they are
: also allowed
: to spread their opinion in this mailinglist. You don't have to agree
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Marco Frissen wrote:
And I am not _not_ supporting MSX.. I am just being realistic.. I would buy
a new MSX, for the fun of it, but I don't see MSX becoming a success in the
future, that's all I said.. and there's a lot of difference between
commercial success and success
And I am not _not_ supporting MSX.. I am just being realistic.. I would buy
a new MSX, for the fun of it, but I don't see MSX becoming a success in the
future, that's all I said.. and there's a lot of difference between
commercial success and success for geeks..
Hahahaha, it seems to me that
Am I mean or what?
Hahaha.
Rieks.
Yes you are mean. But you are right too.
So lets go back to the fun and talk about the technical ins in outs of MSX
(i mean the old...)
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and put "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Hi, some small (?) comment from my side. Please do not write reactions
before completely reading the message...
Here is my opinion on a new MSX computer.
What is MSX then?
Not easy to define, as it is very difficult to state what MSX really is.
From what i see in this mailinglist it is
My teenage children, discovering the computer have access to PC's,
Playstations, Nintendo's and my collection of MSX machines. Guess what
computer they prefer for games: the PC and the Playstation. They have no
emotional bonds with MSX and judge the outdated MSX graphics and sound as
Some colleges here @ my work might get hand on a developers-kit for
color-gameboy. And they don't plan to make games, but to do little
demos! A
real CGB scene will come-up trying to get all from that small thingy..
this
is about the same with the MSX scene.
That's my point! Why is the
How strange that there are no messages in comp.sys.msx about the
Japanese efforts to build a new MSX computer. There 's a lot of
discussion going on about this in the msx mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Could it be that most MSX fanatics are subscribed to that list and
don't read this news
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do YOU think, should a new MSX be developed? Will it have a
chance in the market that's dominated by PC's and 64 bit game
consoles? Or will it create it's own market?
It should be developed. There is still a somewhat large userbase, and more
hmmmz new msx ...
I think a computer is dead when there're only some freaks left, and no
prof. company. I think that after the Microcabin-era it was done commercially.
Why a new MSX ... ? The risc of new developments is hardware production..
remember how expensive the OPL4 was ??
Why not
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Maarten van Strien (cs^tbl) wrote:
I think a computer is dead when there're only some freaks left, and no
prof. company. I think that after the Microcabin-era it was done commercially.
Really? ESE Artists' Factory are making big bucks selling MSX
Stuff. Syntax are.
How strange that there are no messages in comp.sys.msx about the
Japanese efforts to build a new MSX computer. There 's a lot of
discussion going on about this in the msx mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Could it be that most MSX fanatics are subscribed to that list and
don't read this news
I think a computer is dead when there're only some freaks left, and no
prof. company. I think that after the Microcabin-era it was done
commercially.
To me, that is no opinion, but it's a FACT.
Really? ESE Artists' Factory are making big bucks selling MSX
Stuff. Syntax are. Sunrise are. MSX
66 matches
Mail list logo
