Re: [MSX] Why should it work in 128K? (was: English version of the site and HardDisk version of Snatcher)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what is my proposal? To set the current MSX minimal standard to MSX2 with DOS 2 and 256K RAM. Even requiring hard disk would not be a nonsense for some applications. I expected a Snatcher version on tape for MSX1 with 16Kb of RAM ;P Greets ___ MSX mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Info page: http://lists.stack.nl/mailman/listinfo/msx
Re: [MSX] Why should it work in 128K? (was: English version of the site and HardDisk version of Snatcher)
I expected a Snatcher version on tape for MSX1 with 16Kb of RAM ;P According to MSX2 Technical Handbook, the minimum RAM size for a MSX1 is 8K. So, why not expect Snatcher for MSX1 with 8K RAM? X-) *** XXII MSX USERS MEETING IN BARCELONA: DECEMBER 7th 2002 *** - Konami Man - AKA Nestor Soriano (^^)v http://www.konamiman.com- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 18281450 Happa ichi mai areba ii. Ikite iru kara lucky da! - ___ MSX mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Info page: http://lists.stack.nl/mailman/listinfo/msx
Re: [MSX] Why should it work in 128K? (was: English version of the site and HardDisk version of Snatcher)
On Sunday 01 September 2002 00:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not saying that all new soft should be developped for Turbo-R with 1MB RAM and hard disk. But just to place in a reasonable mid term: it still seem a sort of sin to develop programs with somewhat high hardware or just memory requirements. But most tims this makes impossible to develop good programs. I guess MSX developers do not like the attitude some (not all) PC developers have, of skipping optimisation and let the powerful hardware compensate for sloppy software. On the other hand, if higher system requirements are necessary to build a program at all, or will save months of development time, it is better to release it with higher requirements. I think the translated Snatcher is a good example. Daniel optimised it enough to run on 128K from floppy. However for running it on harddisk you need 256K, because making it run from harddisk on 128K would be a huge effort. Actually, I don't think there are many people whose MSX has a harddisk but no more than 128K of memory. So, what is my proposal? To set the current MSX minimal standard to MSX2 with DOS 2 and 256K RAM. Even requiring hard disk would not be a nonsense for some applications. I don't think we really need such a standard. For each program the requirements are different: - For programs that dynamically allocate memory, use files that can be anywhere on the system etc DOS2 makes sense. However, a game which has fixed memory requirements and will save to a predefined location does not benefit much from DOS2. - Ofcourse any program that works with files over 720K (such as a movie player) needs a harddisk. But something like a text viewer does not need it, it would take no effort at all to make it work on floppy (which uses the same DOS2 calls). So it's a matter of finding the balance between how much easier will development be and how many people will not be able to use my software.
[MSX] Why should it work in 128K? (was: English version of the site and HardDisk version of Snatcher)
When running on harddisk, the requirements are bigger. The game requires BDOS2 to run on harddisk... And since it'll run with DOS Kernel loaded (which uses 32Kb) you will need 128Kb + 32Kb + 16Kb = 176Kb. Yes, this is a lot of memory... I know only people with 256Kb will be able to run it... But I'm not a magician. (^= Ok, since this list is somewhat quiet right now, let's start a little discussion. Don't ask for apologies simply because your work needs 256K RAM to work. It is not a lot of memory, as you say. What is the sense of developping and buying hardware expansions for MSX, if everbody develops new programs thinking it musk work in a raw 128K MSX2 at any cost?? I abandoned DOS1 long time ago and I'm happy to have did it: nowadays everybody has DOS 2 and this OS makes programming much easier. InterNestor Suite needs at least 256K RAM to work and it is not a tragedy, besides making it work with less memory maybe would be possible, but I would have needed at least double development time. I just though it was not worth the effort. And, how many people bought a Graphics9000 and has it covered with dust due to the lack of software? I'm not saying that all new soft should be developped for Turbo-R with 1MB RAM and hard disk. But just to place in a reasonable mid term: it still seem a sort of sin to develop programs with somewhat high hardware or just memory requirements. But most tims this makes impossible to develop good programs. So, what is my proposal? To set the current MSX minimal standard to MSX2 with DOS 2 and 256K RAM. Even requiring hard disk would not be a nonsense for some applications. Things spent space. You can bet. Sorry if I seem a little paranoid... argh! If I don't finish soon the InterNestor report for the university, I'll become mad! (O.o) ___ MSX mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Info page: http://lists.stack.nl/mailman/listinfo/msx
