Im going to say C64, it has the speed, more colors than Speccy, best sound imo, and scrolls well.
I love 464, but I think if someone had asked me out of the 3, (Speccy, C64, 464) would have to recommend C64.
What are the criteria for the "best"?
What means "all around"?
If it's about games, yes of course, the C64 will win. But as soon as we look into homework, semi-professional use, programming, user friendliness,... I would say that the CPC becomes the better choice. Whatever category you'll come up with, the CPC will probably not win a single one, but it will be "good" in every category. Most other 8bits will have at least one "bad" category, so it does not qualify for "all around".
It's a question with no answer. I know people who wrote their PhD thesis on a cpc. Others that used to run stores on one. For them, of course, not only was the CPC the best option, but arguably the only one.
Slightly off-topic but the 6128 was used as a "PC" long before the IBM PC (and clones) were affordable for most home users.
Not at all off topic, that's the thing. With its 80-column mode and CP/M it could do stuff others couldn't do, not just better.
I would go with a MSX2+. Z80 (it is 8-bit), V9958 Video Display Processor with 128K of VRAM (which makes the base 64K RAM last!), YM2149 + YM2413 for audio, MSX cartridges + 720kB 3.5" floppy disks, built for the Japanese market so good keyboard, etc.
Say a Sony HB-F1XV.
Oh, well. An MSX2 (not plus) would be also fine (not sure how many games used the extra bit of the plus). There are plenty of models to choose from, and those were available in Europe as well.
All is relative though. Not sure there's "the best all around". For a lot of people, the CPC 6128 was it.
Quote from: JimmyChan2022 on 14:36, 03 July 22Im going to say C64, it has the speed, more colors than Speccy, best sound imo, and scrolls well.
I love 464, but I think if someone had asked me out of the 3, (Speccy, C64, 464) would have to recommend C64.
Yeah sure, let me know when that disk software has loaded on the C64... The 464 tapedeck was almost faster! :D
Bryce.
Quote from: reidrac on 08:40, 04 July 22I would go with a MSX2+..
I agree, the CPC will stay my favourite 8bit forever, but if I had to choose for the most powerful one, which is not "too young" (not later than mid 80ies), I would choose the MSX2 with all it's features, power and clean designed architecture.
Quote from: Gryzor on 06:20, 04 July 22I know people who wrote their PhD thesis on a cpc. Others that used to run stores on one.
And others even used it on the Space Station (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ZdFeKrfss) ;D (a Sony MSX2)
SAM Coupé
Well, I'd go to the 6128 plus, this is the one I use the most in recent times, with M4, but, actually, what I like about that 8bit computers is how diverse they were, different characteristics, and different strengths. Even the Spectrum had its charm in its simplicity..
And not forget about niche ones.., FM-7, Enterprise, the Atari 8bit were also amazing, etc...
Assumptions:
All Rounder: Games and Business and Education
Years: 80s
Price: Reasonable
Sales: At least moderate success
All Rounder after setting the criteria appropriately - CPC of course (American's might argue for the Apple II)
Adding on modern additions, I think it would still be the CPC, although those large cart C64 games are impressive.
This is a strange question, I'm a professional software developer, doing do for 24 years, and i owe that to the CPC464.
I learnt to program on the CPC because the basic was fantastic( apparently the BBC was as good but they were far too expensive in my time).
I even discovered how binary worked from the cpc manual and symbol after commands(even more fun when switching mode 1 to mode 0 addressing).
The basic on the c64 was just know substituting pokes for functionality. The 48k spectrum was a waste of time due to the keyboard.
The CPC I think was carrying behind it the 70's approach to being an all purpose machine for business or games, it was a 'PC'. The welcome tape sort of sums that up doesnt it - that is a great tape to put on huh?!
it could do anything. It wasn't a pure gaming platform and it managed to find serious applications as well. I think a lot of CPC's ended being used for word processing, but like Imimmfn above it got me started programming which I'm still doing now and it made me get my head around coding in a way I don't know if I could have persevered otherwise. In those days, you could visit Toys R Us and by coding books. Imagine going to Smyth's toys today and buying a book on Z80 machine code like I did.. the CPC I think a lot of people under the hood of computers, so did the others but... CPC was particularly good at it with it's BASIC and excellent instruction manual. All those 8 bits were good but it's the CPC
It is obvious here, the CPC (6128). Else, into other retro! ;D
Key point is if you mean just "Micro" of the full computer set. No other home computer compares to CPC, mostly 6128 including Monitor and diskdrive all in one..
Actually I would say even PCW if games ported by Habisoft had been available in the 80s.
my personal favourite 8bits micro? MSX.
But the one that holds a place firm in my heart forevermore? The amstrad, obviously :)
6128plus of course! ;D ;D ;D
The only 8bit that has everything.
CPC 6128.
Great quality for the price
Keyboard for humans
CP/M
80 columns
Great Basic
Decent sound
Fast FDD
Lots of expansions
Colors!!!
I also remember back then using them in stores.
Hellas was the land of Amstrad.
I see the 'all in one' thing from a slightly different perspective
The very first micro's were not all in one because the peripherals hadn't been developed (and there was a bus)
Then all in one's appeared like the Pet and business machines in the late 70's
Then it went back to separate again for the home market, I suppose for cost reasons
So the CPC was like the professional late 70's machines and the IBM PC were
I think this together with the wide availability of non-gaming software, the disk drive, the 80 characters, CP/M, educational manual, it puts the CPC in a unique class of its own that's hard to pin down. It could be for games or any of the stuff businesses were doing on 8 bit systems a few years earlier. A bit like the BBC maybe
I think that gives it an 'all-round' win even if the C64 had advantages on games or the Speccy (which has an advantage by having less of something - screen RAM!). I think people that only think of games won't get why the CPC was so good cause they don't see all the other side to it. I will enjoy the argument of which one was best for games but for all-round there's not much contest. It's like the PC now does this role of all round gaming and business
Enterprise 128, excelent but slow basic with procedure and local variable. 256colors, fantastic ram configurator , 640x512 resolution and native CPC simulator.
Quote from: McArti0 on 18:25, 09 November 22Enterprise 128, excelent but slow basic with procedure and local variable. 256colors, fantastic ram configurator , 640x512 resolution and native CPC simulator.
let me guess, you bought one of them last year in a very typical shop? ;D
typical shipping shop ebay ?? ? ;D
Quote from: Gryzor on 06:20, 04 July 22I know people who wrote their PhD thesis on a cpc.
The LaTeX source file of mine would'nt fit in CPC 128K :o
Of course I would choose CPC 6128 (maybe "+"), but i'm quite unaware of other 8bits abilities. CPC could be used in so many situations : programming, playing, working...
Quote from: Mage on 19:46, 09 November 22Quote from: Gryzor on 06:20, 04 July 22I know people who wrote their PhD thesis on a cpc.
The LaTeX source file of mine would'nt fit in CPC 128K :o
Just put in some white space and fill it in by hand like normal people 😀
It has to be the CPC464 with disk drive and dk'tronics 64k extension. The original, the best! :D
Do you remember "Computer of the Year" from Chip Magazine? Smart gays whole 80s was choosing best machine by parameters, available software and of course by price. In few category, with most interesting for us "home computer".
1982 - Vic20
1983 - C64
1984 - C64
1985 - CPC 464
1986 - CPC 6128
And in 1987 they let 16bits starts in this category.
1987 - A500/520ST+/SpectravideoSV738/CPC6128/C128.
1988 - 1040ST/Archimedes/A500/PanasonicMSX2.
1989 - A500/AtariST/PanasonicMSX2/Archimedes.
I was read about it and I wonder what MSX2 must have to be better than CPC? Now I know more, colors resolution sprites, but slower Basic. I never had MSX2, and I still wonder what I loose because of that. :)
Yes, the MSX2 is better than the CPC.
(which doesn't mean, that the cpc is bad :) )
The MSX was one of the most succesful 8bit machines ever (sold >=8 millions) and even created the most powerful 8bit machine, which has been sold on a regular base (the MSX TurboR).
The MSX had one of the most clean and scaleable design ever created for an 8bit system.
The MSX2 is better on the paper, because the V9938 VDP for games. The best usage is not the sprites modes, but the 256 colours blitter mode (like for the Knight Lore remake). If the user require a 640 pixels display for any reason (CP/M ?), it is not appropriated.
Quote from: McArti0 on 18:25, 09 November 22Enterprise 128, excelent but slow basic with procedure and local variable. 256colors, fantastic ram configurator , 640x512 resolution and native CPC simulator.
Was there ever anything that really shows that the Enterprise is better? I struggle to find any app or game that is not a direct CPC rip with almost exactly the same appearance. OK, some more colours, agreed. but e.g. I have never seen the high res resolution in action.
Quote from: JimmyChan2022 on 14:36, 03 July 22Im going to say C64, it has the speed, more colors than Speccy, best sound imo, and scrolls well.
I love 464, but I think if someone had asked me out of the 3, (Speccy, C64, 464) would have to recommend C64.
It doesn't really have the speed, the tilemap graphics and sprites help a lot (although they still have to manually scroll the Colour RAM), but it's only a 1MHz 6502 (2MHz would have beaten the Z80 though). Audio-wise it's very strong. But yes, for games overall the C64 was a good choice, if you could bear the disk loading time, if you could afford the disk drive.
It's less than ideal for serious work because of the screen - MODE 2 made the CPC more versatile in these areas. Sure, there was serious software on the C64 simply because of the sheer sales of the device in the US particularly, but it had to deal with the limitations of the hardware.
Personally I'd want to limit this to devices that sold well - which excludes the Enterprise devices, despite their cool looks and marginally improved graphics over the CPC.
MSX2 was a far later device that could benefit from more modern graphics hardware, hence it was very strong in games. If we include the Plus range then the MSX2 is valid, and wins.
BBC Micro was very strong - the hardware could withstand some real abuse, graphically okay (resolution choice, colour depth choice, text modes, but awful 1-bit RGB palette because of the TTL Microvitec CUB displays commonly used in schools), expandable. Very expensive, a cost reduction for homes didn't occur unless you count the Electron which had a lot of compromises.
Quote from: eto on 10:46, 10 November 22Was there ever anything that really shows that the Enterprise is better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOPnCRmnBuo
The Enterprise 64/128 could have been a formidable line of 8-bit microcomputers...
If the hardware had been sold by Amstrad as CPC 464/6128 with the Locomotive BASIC. :)
People complain because the CPC had only one "gray" to display, but the Entreprise had one less.
Here's a thing to compare two of the said micros if you feeling like it!
Quote from: McArti0 on 12:29, 10 November 22Quote from: eto on 10:46, 10 November 22Was there ever anything that really shows that the Enterprise is better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOPnCRmnBuo
Sorry, I didn't mean that I don't know that it has better hardware and of course specific demos exist. It's 100% clear, that the Enterprise has better specs than the CPC. I am more wondering why in real life, most people (including me) would not see a big difference. Why doesn't it show it superiority in games and apps? Is it just because of the small community and straight CPC games/apps are just easier - a problem similar to the Speccy ports on the CPC? Or is it on paper much better - but at the same time too limited show it in real world applications?
When the Enterprise appeared I was super curious and eager to get my hands on one. On paper it sounded so great. With its specs it should have wiped the floor with the CPC. When a friend got one, he was of course also a bit bragging with that - but when I visited him I was really unimpressed as there was absolutely nothing, that was not very, very similar to the CPC. Either identical or not so much better, that I would have wanted to get one. Ok, sure, here and there a demo, that shows an effect that would be hard or impossible to replicate on a CPC. But in the actual games and applications, there was not much noticeable difference.
I would say that the enterprise suffered from Amstrad ports the same way the Amstrad suffered from Spectrum ports.
Quote from: Sykobee (Briggsy) on 11:09, 10 November 22MSX2 was a far later device that could benefit from more modern graphics hardware, hence it was very strong in games.
The MSX2 appeared in 1985, the same year like the 6128.
Quote from: TotO on 12:55, 10 November 22People complain because the CPC had only one "gray" to display, but the Entreprise had zero.
IIRC it has 8 values for Red and Green, and 4 for Blue. So you can still mix two greys (but not exactly that grey of the CPC).
Quote from: Prodatron on 13:40, 10 November 22IIRC it has 8 values for Red and Green, and 4 for Blue. So you can still mix two greys
Hum, you are right... It has the two greys like from a 6bit palette. I beg pardon! :-\
Quote from: Prodatron on 13:40, 10 November 22The MSX2 appeared in 1985, the same year like the 6128.
Yeah but while the MSX2 was a different (/upgraded) enough machine compared to MSX1, the 6128 was just a 464 with the external drive and external ram built into one package. 6128 wasnt a 'CPC2'.
Wikipedia say ... "Entersoft, modeled after Amstrad's AMSOFT, was set up to ensure a steady supply of software for the new machine."
It was faster that way, but it didn't save the company anyway.
Wiki...
"After the initial manufacturing run of 80,000 units, it is believed that no further units were made, so the Enterprise is among the rarer home computers of the 1980s. The company shipped 20,000 units to Hungary on its closure, and a strong user community formed there."
Who, when and where was to write this new better software.... ::)
Quote from: Prodatron on 13:40, 10 November 22IIRC it has 8 values for Red and Green, and 4 for Blue. So you can still mix two greys (but not exactly that grey of the CPC).
I don't think you will ever get a clean grey from a 332 RGB DAC. The blue levels and the R and G levels are at least 10-12% off. The colours will be "grey-ish" but not grey. Probably still better than just a single grey.
Quote from: rexbeng on 13:46, 10 November 22Yeah but while the MSX2 was a different (/upgraded) enough machine compared to MSX1, the 6128 was just a 464 with the external drive and external ram built into one package. 6128 wasnt a 'CPC2'.
The MSX2 is mainly a MSX with an upgraded VDP (and not the best). So, it is just a point of view.
The Amstrad Plus is a "CPC2". Nobody considerate the 6128 as.
Regardless how someone might think 'the vdp in MSX2 could be better' it still is a significant improvement. New resolutions, new modes, more colours, improved sprites etc. You could say the same about the soundchip, although by a smaller margin. There are no such core changes to the 6128 compared to the 464. Comparing the MSX1 and MSX2 for me is like comparing the original 464 to the 6128 plus.
Edit: scratch the 'somewhat better soundchip'; I had it mixed-up in my mind! ;D
I think the Enterprise mostly suffered from being so late to market that any confidence in it had ebbed away, it's not surprising many didn't sell.
And, like the MSX, it probably suffered from an over-engineered attempt at future proofing the system, with lots of aspects being designed such that programs had to work with the OS in an effort to ensure they could continue to work on future hardware revisions. The Speccy and Amstrad proved, to some extent, that level of forethought wasn't really necessary within the boundaries of an 8-bit system and the overheads of doing so tended to be costly on such resource constrained systems.
The 90's era 8-bits, like the SAM Coupe, CPC+ and ill fated C65 (had it come out) should probably be the theoretical best, they're certainly more powerful than most. They did suffer from trying to retain compatibility with older machines though which probably constrained the designs in less than optimal ways.
Quote from: andycadley on 18:01, 10 November 22I think the Enterprise mostly suffered from being so late to market that any confidence in it had ebbed away, it's not surprising many didn't sell.
And, like the MSX, it probably suffered from an over-engineered attempt at future proofing the system, with lots of aspects being designed such that programs had to work with the OS in an effort to ensure they could continue to work on future hardware revisions. The Speccy and Amstrad proved, to some extent, that level of forethought wasn't really necessary within the boundaries of an 8-bit system and the overheads of doing so tended to be costly on such resource constrained systems.
The 90's era 8-bits, like the SAM Coupe, CPC+ and ill fated C65 (had it come out) should probably be the theoretical best, they're certainly more powerful than most. They did suffer from trying to retain compatibility with older machines though which probably constrained the designs in less than optimal ways.
Excellent points.
I think all candidate for best 8bit, like C128, CPC+, MSX2, Apple IIc+, etc... have 4 problems:
1. Too late...
2. not strong enough,
3. and too expensive - compare to 16bits like A500, 520ST, Tandy 1000 or Schneider EuroPC.
4. And very little software to show power of new features. Because compatibility with old one wasn't enough for that price.
I always found that the answer to the question is "too little, too late". Indeed what we consider as best machines were behind their era when they appeared, with the exception perhaps of the MSX2. Too bad, really...
I think the question was which was best all round though, not which was most technically advanced. To go back to the original question, I think it would have been a bit odd to go recommending something more technically advanced if it's barely available and poorly supported as a best all round platform.
And on that, I think the original question itself sort of had a UK centric basis when talking about 'which of the 3' would you recommend. The various platforms performed wildly differently in different markets back then.
If this is a question of what was best "back in the day" then it is a software question.
And if it a software question then the 6128 (and to a lesser extent the 464) wins hands down.
The C64 had some very good software but was limited by its memory + you had to buy disk drive.
The Spectrum was a games machine.
The MSX failed because it didn't survive in the market place long enough to build significant software support.
To put things into context, 8-bit computers were originally introductory machines for programming. All offered BASIC by default. It was often necessary to have to buy a cassette or floppy disk player alongside to be able to go further and record one's own programs, or even use others. These machines often shared the family TV set (see period advertisements) to highlight their uses.
Even if video games were able to popularize them with the general public, they were rarely good at this task compared to game consoles, and some of these machines were more likely to be used also for professional use by offering softwares. This is why it is important to consider versatility and their commercial success, and not technical specifications which do not speak for everyone.
Quote from: Axelay on 09:33, 11 November 22I think the question was which was best all round though, not which was most technically advanced. To go back to the original question, I think it would have been a bit odd to go recommending something more technically advanced if it's barely available and poorly supported as a best all round platform.
And on that, I think the original question itself sort of had a UK centric basis when talking about 'which of the 3' would you recommend. The various platforms performed wildly differently in different markets back then.
100% agreed. The question "which was the best all around" is extremely closely linked to "availability".
Even today, I would only vote for a system that has at least an acceptable availability of hardware, software (that leverages the hardware), information and an active community around that system.
Back in the 80s it was even more important as I could only get, what was available in my area or at least my region - and for an affordable price. That's not only the hardware. It's also the software and maybe even more important: information. What do you do with a system when you don't get information? Can't share experiences with anyone? Don't get help when things go wrong?
Quote from: ComSoft6128 on 09:54, 11 November 22The MSX failed because it didn't survive in the market place long enough to build significant software support.
Maybe if you are in the UK or in Germany you could have this feeling. But of course the MSX didn't fail, with 9 million sold units it had 3x the success of the CPC (3 millions).
If you would ask me, what was the best choice in the 80ies
in my region, then the C64 was the 100% winner here. Everyone had one, everyone wanted to swap games, and beside the huge amount of good games there were great tools available as well like GEOS and its applications.
does a sega master system count?!
for me it would have to be a 6128
we had c64s aswell as the 464 ..friend had a 6128 i used to go visit her just to use her cpc :P
i never really liked the c64s colours..always prefered the cpc
...mmmm sega vdp addon for cpc.... ...i wonder...
Quote from: Prodatron on 11:35, 11 November 22Quote from: ComSoft6128 on 09:54, 11 November 22The MSX failed because it didn't survive in the market place long enough to build significant software support.
Maybe if you are in the UK or in Germany you could have this feeling. But of course the MSX didn't fail, with 9 million sold units it had 3x the success of the CPC (3 millions).
If you would ask me, what was the best choice in the 80ies in my region, then the C64 was the 100% winner here. Everyone had one, everyone wanted to swap games, and beside the huge amount of good games there were great tools available as well like GEOS and its applications.
Yes I was just a little Eurocentric in relation to the MSX.
Regarding the C64 - I knew a few people here that owned one but again it was used as a games machine.
Have a look at these covers to give you an idea of the market it was aimed at in the UK:
https://archive.org/details/commodoreuser-magazine
At random I looked thru issue 48 and found not a single review of serious software.
GEOS is remarkable but how many C64 owners in Europe actually used it on a regular basis?
Quote from: WacKEDmaN on 12:34, 11 November 22does a sega master system count?!
for an all around 8bit? ;-)
Quote from: Prodatron on 11:35, 11 November 22then the C64 was the 100% winner here.
It was the most successful by far. I guess from 8bit owner I know at least twice as many owned a C64 than a CPC. But from those that owned a CPC at least half of them used it not only for games. From the Commodore guys only a single one knew more than how to start a game. And he owned a C128D.
Sure, there is great software for the C64 - but it had some limitations which made it (imho) painful to use for anything remotely serious.
To find the best "All around" machine it would probably make sense to find a couple of categories and rate each machine on that category, from 0-10.
At the end, you can draw a graph from these ratings. And the best allrounder will not necessarily be the computer with the highest average rating - but the one that is constantly in the high rankings.
People might also rank each category. To some it will be more important to do serious stuff, others will appreciate the games are best and care less about development. Or for some "availability" is not crucial, they just want to compare the facts. Just put the categories into the ranked order and as long as "your" computer is constantly high in the important categories, everything is good.
Categories could be:
affordability of full set-up (computer, storage, monitor)
Suitability for
- games
- graphics
- sound
- text processing
- learning
- developing
- database
availability of
- hard- and software, information
- expansions
- mass storage
Quote from: WacKEDmaN on 12:34, 11 November 22does a sega master system count?! [...] mmmm sega vdp addon for cpc.... ...i wonder...
The Master System VDP had to be inside a "SC-5000" computer if Sega does. The SC-3000 was based upon the TI VDP found into the MSX range of computers and ran the SG-1000 games. With that, Sega/Yeno was able to sold the best 8-bit entertainment computer using the Mark-III game cartridges. The Amstrad CPC was not based on that at all to expect to be "better" if using it.
Following the market in the 80th: C64 was the best.
Quote from: HAL6128 on 14:27, 11 November 22Following the market in the 80th: C64 was the best.
If the market was based upon a videogame console with a keyboard, sure.
8bit home computer ranking...
Market success (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX#Impact)):
1. C64 (12mio)
2. MSX (9mio)
3. ZX Spectrum (5mio)
4. Atari 8bit (4mio)
5. CPC (3mio)
(I wouldn't call the Apple II a homecomputer? otherwise it would be #3)
Power:
1. MSX TurboR, MSX2+
2. Sam Coupe (or maybe #3)
3. MSX2 (or maybe #2)
4. CPC 6128 Plus
5. Enterprise 128
6. CPC 6128
(all Z80 :D )
It's the same as with the shit. Millions of flies cannot be wrong. :D
Interesting second statistics.
(but who cares,... Amstrad CPC - That's why we're here)
@HAL6128 - I'm totaly not agree with that opinion. Quantity of sell it not show best machine, it show cheap machine or good seller.
I wasn't rich and I had my 6128 quite late in years 92-96, and every time when I had guest of C64 or Atari XE owners (most popular 8bits in those times in Poland). I could ease make them jealousy, to show them what my CPC can do. There was only two things shamed terrible on CPC: Last Ninja and Speak program, but rest stuff was least draw with C64 or showed supremacy of CPC. Every time after visit they ware bewitched by CPC charm. They had no doubt which machine was better. :)
�
That speech prog was my fav.
I made programs that used it, still using it today.
Quote from: ZbyniuR on 15:54, 11 November 22I had guest of C64 or Atari XE owners (most popular 8bits in those times in Poland). I could ease make them jealousy, to show them what my CPC can do. There was only two things shamed terrible on CPC: Last Ninja and Speak program, but rest stuff was least draw with C64 or showed supremacy of CPC. Every time after visit they ware bewitched by CPC charm. They had no doubt which machine was better.
Wow, my experience was just the opposite. None of the many C64-owning school mates I had would have given the CPC a 2nd glance. Sure, all of them were in for the games, but .. gaming was a thing then and gaming is a huge thing now.
Quote from: ZbyniuR on 15:54, 11 November 22@HAL6128 - I'm totaly not agree with that opinion. Quantity of sell it not show best machine, it show cheap machine or good seller.
I wasn't rich and I had my 6128 quite late in years 92-96, and every time when I had guest of C64 or Atari XE owners (most popular 8bits in those times in Poland). I could ease make them jealousy, to show them what my CPC can do. There was only two things shamed terrible on CPC: Last Ninja and Speak program, but rest stuff was least draw with C64 or showed supremacy of CPC. Every time after visit they ware bewitched by CPC charm. They had no doubt which machine was better. :)
�
Yeah, I was sarcastic here. MS-DOS was the best selling OS those days but not the best in case of power/features in contradiction to e.g. UNIX.
Most successful=/best
Ironically, the main problem of the MSX line was to be manufactured by many companies offering a software compatibility through a very slow firmware, that not really allowed to use the hardware to the best at the risk to not works for most of the users.
Quote from: TotO on 09:55, 12 November 22Ironically, the main problem of the MSX line was to be manufactured by many companies offering a software compatibility through a very slow firmware, that not really allowed to use the hardware to the best at the risk to not works for most of the users.
The only firmware you have to use is the disc rom, as there are a lot of different mass storage devices.
Everything else is 99,9% compatible on hardware level (as long as you stay with either the VDP9918/9938/9958). But the disc roms of the MSX are pretty fast, so that isn't an issue.
There are some little differences regarding the timing, but you only reach them, when you do hardcore demo coding. I guess Overflow made some experiences with this when he created his great MSX1 demo "IO" (https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=65232).
But here we have similiar issues on the CPC with CRTC0/1/2 etc.
Parts of the firmware maybe slow, but as usually when you do fast games and tools, you access the graphic directly and don't use them, the same like we do on the CPC.
Quote from: Prodatron on 13:11, 12 November 22The only firmware you have to use is the disc rom, as there are a lot of different mass storage devices. Everything else is 99,9% compatible on hardware level (as long as you stay with either the VDP9918/9938/9958). But the disc roms of the MSX are pretty fast, so that isn't an issue.
Hum... You have to use the BIOS routine to access the hardware to be sure to be 99,9% compatible. Else, the controllers ports can be inverted, the VDP not at the same address, ... Not only for the FDC. A direct access to the hardware limit the compatibility but allows more impressive things.
Quote from: TotO on 13:59, 12 November 22Hum... You have to use the BIOS routine to access the hardware to be sure to be 99,9% compatible. Else, the controllers ports can be inverted, the VDP not at the same address, ... Not only for the FDC. A direct access to the hardware limit the compatibility but allows more impressive things.
The VDP is always at the same address, there is the little exception with upgraded MSX1 machines, which have the 9938 at another port range, but this is quite an exotic thing.
All other important ports, like the AY/keyboard/joystick, slot selection, memory mappers are fixed as well:
https://map.grauw.nl/resources/msx_io_ports.php
I learned all this when I ported SymbOS to the MSX, which of course doesn't use the original firmware at all.
We had the compatibility problems with Risky Rick (http://www.arcadevision.net/msx.html) because not using the firmware at all. Worst, on a same VDP address, the display worked fine on some MSX but not others because a timing issue. And I remember that
@Overflow got problems with its great IO demo. On a msx forum, people said to us we are not properly using the MSX because the game didn't pass a "test program" that check the direct access to the hardware instead of using the firmware. (but it is too slow to use it with advanced tricks) :-\
Ah yes, I forgot that you are an MSX veteran as well :)
There are some system tests you can do at the beginning, which are using the firmware, to find out which kind of system do you have including a possible different VDP9938 address.
Interesting thing with the timing. I am only using the bitmap modes and one hardware sprite. Maybe it is more tricky if you use pattern mode with scrolling and multiple sprites/sprite multiplexing?
On every system there are some fanatics who rebuke you, when you don't follow exactly the rules :D The Enterprise guys are even more fanatic here.
(sorry we are very off-topic now)