Talk:MSX

Suggestions

I think a section on the MSX amateur scene would be very nice? Grauw 15:28, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It really would be great. We can start a stub section and put a stub tag there. Hopefully someone will increase it with encyclopaedic information and it will evolve into something meaningfull. Loudenvier 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I'd like to see some screenshots of good old stuff :) Guaka 02:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The problem with screenshots is that they are copyrighted. It´s considered fair use only the use of one screenshot per article and in the article that is about the game or program alone. That´s why it´s very hard to put screenshots in the MSX article itself. Maybe it would be considered fair use if you put the screenshots that are already in wikipedia articles about MSX games. Since it´s impossible to get permission to use those images perhaps it´s considered fair use to some extent, but I´m no lawer. Loudenvier 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I'd like to add that the msx (mostly version 2) was used a lot in europe (nl at least) for 'exclusive' gaming (just?) before the Amiga came out and way more serious stuff like being the intranet for a police station (see a PtC (Philips Thuiscomputer Club) issue which mentions this.

The MSX was a great a machine. :)

<ascheepers@nl.clara.net> "Axel Scheepers"

Video game franchises established on the MSX

Wasn't Vampire Killer the first Castlevania game? If so then the Castlevania-part should be moved from: "Others got various installments on MSX, some including titles unique to the system or largely different to the games on other formats" to: "Several popular video game franchises were established on the MSX"

That is the case anyway... :). Just think of Metal Gear, or Puyo Puyo. But I believe you are right about Vampire Killer, although I’m not 100% sure, others should k

now. Grauw 20:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Neither Castlevania (Vampire Killer) nor Metal Gear started on the MSX

Where did Castlevania staterd then? Vampire Killer was Castlevania. So please, explain yourselves... 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on Castlevania, Vampire Killer was indeed the first Castlevania game, but it was also released for the Famicom Disk System (which oddly isn't mentioned in the Vampire Killer article)... so it might be biased to leave the FDS out in this case — I don't know. --StuartBrady (Talk) 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Canon T90 !!!

I´m a die-hard MSX fan, but I´ve never learned about this fact that the Canon T90 had a memory interface that interfaced only with MSX (and back then at 1986). Impressive! Loudenvier 05:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. If you want a little more detail, go to the Data Memory Back manual in the external links in Canon T90. Wasn't sold in the US. —Morven 05:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union

MSX in Soviet Union: I remember Yamaha MSX 2 installed in Computer Science Dept. in Moscow State University back in 1986. I was 10 at that time :-) Vugluskr 10:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Here in Brazil the MSX franchise was a frenzy. I lived in a building with 24 floors. I was the first to own an MSX computer (the Sharp´s Hotbit computer). After a year, every single friend of mine had one MSX of their own (I´m talking about 18 people living in a single building... Many of their own friends outside our building would end up owning a MSX too). I was 13 at that time, and a lot of my friends were 10 or 11 year old. Today they all have a broad understanding of computer science, and many of them earn a living with computers (myself included) solely because of good old MSX computers. We all abandoned our Atari 2600 and Intellivision in favor of MSX. Loudenvier 14:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Starting the emulation scene

"It was emulation of MSX machines that started the current emulation scene, mainly due to the work of Marat Fayzullin on the Z80 emulation." Could somebody please cite a source for this: it seems a rather bold claim to make without any evidence. Cheers --Pak21 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In the begining almost every single emulator of Z80 was based on Marat Fayzullin sources, including MAME for example. f-MSX came before MAME. Certainly there were emulation before this: around 1986 two brazillian programmers wrote a ZX-Sinclair emulator for the MSX computer, but it had no overall impact. The scene as it stands today was started after f-MSX sources were made available, and gained momentum after Nicola Salmoria wrote MAME, and it´s Z80 emulation was based on F-MSX sources by Marat Fayzullin. It is fair to state that Marat Fayzullin´s f-msx emulator was a changing point in the emulation scene. Loudenvier 17:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could just mention that the Marat's work was influential and widely used in subsequent emulators, the leave out the sweeping claim about starting the current emulation scene. Mirror Vax 18:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's definitely not true from a ZX Spectrum point of view; none of the early emulators (say, Spectrum, JPP, Z80, Warajevo) were based on Marat's core. On the other hand, Marat does get credit for maintaining the original version of the comp.sys.sinclair FAQ. Most of the "Spectrum" knowledge of the Z80 comes from the TECHINFO.DOC as supplied with Z80. Mirror Vax's phrasing sounds good to me. --Pak21 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no complaints about the changing prasing, but I still think that current emulation had it starting point with Marat´s work. Just go back in time and see when emulation really started to take off! Trying to avoid it could be a misleading step. But since the emulation article itself is not clear about current emulation scene origins, I cannot take the responsability of stating something as bold as what is being discussed here. So, let it be Mirror Vax´s phrasing!!! Regards, Loudenvier 12:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"yellow peril"?

Is this necessary? For one thing, Japanese people aren't "yellow", they're as "white" as Caucasians. I understand the writer was being satirical, but it comes across as sort of offensive and needless, at least IMO.

Yellow peril is a common term, especially when discussing the subject of the intense competition with Japan over industrial supremacy in the post WW2 era especially around 1980. I remember It was even explicitly used in at least one article about MSX in a major British computer magazine I read. It is also commonly discussed in Asian studies . See the Yellow Peril article. Mahjongg (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Scoops, good clean-up of emulators section!

Keep up the good job! Loudenvier 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

OK, this article is in some serious need of cleanup - mostly in the area of grammar. I'll try and get to it myself as soon as I get some free time. --Bri 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Loudenvier - sorry... on a second look the problems with this article seem mostly to be in the lead paragraph and in the paragraph I reverted. I put the tag back but I'll proof the article right now and take it off again. --Bri 09:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh! A good cleanup was already made! The MSX article is a very good one! I think we could propose it to the list of good articles with a litle more work, don't we? (good work fellows) Loudenvier 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a minor cleanup to the history section regarding the way the MSX addresses video RAM. I think it reads a bit better now! 85.211.22.244 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wintel?

MSX existed outside of the more successful Wintel model descended from the IBM PC

Considering that Windows 1.0 didn't appear until 1985, two years after MSX1, and that the first big-selling version of Windows (3.0) didn't come out until 1990, the same year as turbo R, is it really accurate to call Wintel "more successful"? For much of MSX's period of popularity, its rivals (at least here in Europe) were 8-bit machines such Sinclairs, Commodores and Amstrads. Not Wintel at all. Loganberry (Talk) 13:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well pointed! I removed the reference to Wintel. It was a clear anachronism... Good work. Loudenvier 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm the "Wintel" contributor. I understand your confusion and have no problem with the change. Hope this helps! Yakuman 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good! Open-mindedness is a very good asset for one's personality :-) Regards. Loudenvier 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! Mind you, I'm not even sure that the IBM PC or Intel references should be there at all: in 1985, say, practically nobody had a PC as a home computer for leisure purposes. (Again, I'm going on my British experience.) Loganberry (Talk) 22:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that this was this was another Microsoft attempt to build a platform that was similar, regardless of hardware vendor. It has to do with Microsoft's business model, not the MSX competing with the PC. Yakuman 23:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but "existed outside of the more successful IBM PC architecture" implies that it was contemporary with the PC, which isn't really the case. I've edited to make clear that the PC was (mostly) a later attempt at a standard. Loganberry (Talk) 23:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not get it clear what you'd mean. The MSX started with a dream by Nishi to produce a home-computer standard. Microsoft basicly provided the BASIC and BIOS. I did not think the MSX was a Microsoft led attempt as the article now states. I will find historical information to deny that. If it was led by Microfsoft it would clearly be aggressively marketed in the USA. There's a story that Nishi presented his plans to make the MSX to Bill Gates when they shared a flight and that Bill Gates told him they would support Nishi and the MSX. The patents for the MSX aren't owned by MS. It was pretty much strange for MS to allow such loose grasp of its property. The comparison, on my opinion, is indead with the IBM PC and Intel: MSX tried to create a standard outside the world of PC and Intel, but had nothing to do with Windows. Loudenvier 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence illustrates the point I'm making, actually. It implies that MSX was an attempt to work outside an existing standard, whereas I think it's important to make clear that the days of PCs as a standard for home computers were, in 1983, very much in the future. That's why I've made the small edit I mentioned above. Loganberry (Talk) 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The IBM-PC was meant to be a standard from inception and reached the market in 1981. The Personal computer article even lists the Amiga as personal computer. The MSX2/2+/Turbo R competed against the Amiga... I think the wording now reads like editorialization, which is not very well accepted on wikipedia. I will think about a new wording or I will delete the whole passage because it's really unecessary. Any reader will realize the MSX isn't an IBM-PC Compatible, so there's no need to say it explicitly, or even make comparisons of success between the PC and the MSX. A better suited comparison would be the MSX vs. Apple IIe's, ZX Spectrums or Amigas... Regards. Loudenvier 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

5 million MSX computers sold

I've come up with this figure of unities of MSX computers sold on the internet [1] (portuguese only - sorry). This would make the MSX a best-selling computer by any standards. I think this kind of information should be made into the article, but a reliable source for that must be found. Anyone willing to make a litle research? Loudenvier 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hate to burst that bubble there, but the C64 sold around 17 million units in it's lifetime and is the Guinness World Record holder for most units sold of a single computer model. Also the MSX is a standard, not a computer, each model from each vendor counts as a different computer for this purpose, otherwise the PC-clones would obviouosly dwarf any other computer sales by a couple billion probably. I think the Amiga only sold around 5 mil, not sure can't remember. Seek100 23:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! The C64 sold a lot of units!!! 17milion is still conservative. People sometimes raise the figures to 20 milion units. The PC wasn't a home-computer, it was a personal computer, so the comparison doesn't apply. But 5 milion makes MSX a best-selling home computer, not THE best-seller... I thought I got too emotional before... But soon I saw my mistake. Thanks for clarifying this to everybody on the talk page (I should have done this myself, but I am such a lazy man sometimes.. :-) Loudenvier 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to belive the apple 2 line only ever sold 2 million units. --24.252.10.228 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, that's 5 million units shared across all models and vendors of MSX machines, not for a single machine. It's be interesting to know what the numbers for the most successful MSX computer were.

Emulators

Considering that only 1 emulator(created by the guy who helped create the MSX) is LEGAL, does it make sense to basically have links to all these MSX emulators? TJ Spyke

The other emulators should be legal. Software is the problem. I'm not aware of anything that you can legally download for free. --StuartBrady (Talk) 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest just listing the one emulator TJ Spyke mentioned, as I'm having a hard time trying to see what is notable or justifiable about listing ALL the different MSX emulators. PeanutCheeseBar 22:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there are many other systems that have a "list of their emulators", so I was so bold as to go ahead and I created a page List of MSX emulators and moved the whole list to it. Then I made a smaller list of the three most notable examples on the MSX page. I will also add some category information to the list page. Mahjongg 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good initiative, Mahjongg. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most MSX emulators are legal today. The MSX BIOS was rewritten and a free version exists which make them all legal. I think there was not a good point in removing the info from the article to a separate one since the article itself wasn't too big (yet). A list page by itself is not encyclopedic, so it could get deleted and the good information lost. Loudenvier 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the Emulators sections... Think it reads better now! Together we always make things better :-) Loudenvier 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Current computer or video game events

Seems to me (a lay Wikipedia observer) that a long-defunct console series wouldn't be a burning issue in gaming today. Quirk of an auto bot run, or is there some legitimate reason for it to be here?

Read the "MSX Revival" section. --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is totally related to current video game events. it is for the first time in about 20 years, but it's current. Zazaban 18:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put the "current" template on the mentioned section because the current event is not at all about the MSX in general, but specific to some of it's games that will be available on the Wii, which obiviously shows how important MSX games were to the japanese people. This is a current event because it could be dropped, that's why the tag was placed there. Originally the tag read This article but I've changed it to read This article or section. Regards. Loudenvier 17:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

MSX citation for the Virtual Console?

According to the article there's a mention of MSX emulation on the Virtual Console on the Wii website. The English-language site is lacking, so is there anywhere that can confirm this?-Seraya 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here we go, a citation: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/features/virtual_console.html -Seraya 04:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Disk Compatability

As far as data was concerned 3.5" double-sided (720k) disks were interchangeable between MSX-DOS 1, Atari ST's and PC's. I worked at GST when we developed for all three and we regularly exchanged data this way.

Chenab 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Article name should return to MSX

An editor with sufficient edit rights should move the current article name "MSX (computer architecture)" back to plain "MSX". No other wikipedia language version uses "MSX (computer architecture)", they all use "MSX". Mahjongg 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We will need to as for administrators to do that. Just look for Wikipedia:Requested moves. Regards Loudenvier 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant an administrator. Do you think I could request an "uncontroversial move", it seems a bit silly to request a "controversial move" for this, as it is only a technicality. Mahjongg 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already done that! :-) Let's wait for an administrator.. regards Loudenvier 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to wait... Move already been done. :-) Loudenvier 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks!Mahjongg 10:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"hugely popular"

I have a problem with the assertion that "MSX-based machines [...] were hugely popular in other markets". I'm not sure if that statement is a violation of NPOV policy. Anyway, a reliable source that has information on sales figures and/or market share of MSX-based computers is needed. kabbelen 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

5 million computers sold made it hugely popular, but I would be more comfortable with popular alone... :-) Loudenvier 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical question

Can someone confirm something for me? There are games that on other systems require 48K or 64K to run, but work on a 16K MSX. Is this because cartridge games require less RAM to run, and they would need more if they were on cassette or disk? That's what I'm thinking, but I've only got an emulator to work with, so not sure if this is right (it could be automatically switching to emulate a 64K MSX when such a game is loaded or something)? BTW this is to make sure of the "system requirements" of other articles, I'm not just spamming up this page with a personal wondering. :) Cheers, Miremare 23:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's safe to assume that a game ran from cassette/disk requires more RAM than the same game ran from a cartridge. Cartridge games run from ROM. Unlike cassette/disk games, they don't need to copy themself to RAM. --Apathor 09:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks, Miremare 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a correct statement. I only had a 64K MSX so I wasn't able to confirm this limitation, but most of the games used more than 16KB. Due to MSX memory management I don't know if it was possible to run the game from the cartridge ROM, I think that every game copied itself to RAM before running. I may be wrong. A more knowledgeable person is welcome to clarify this. Loudenvier 14:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it depended on the programmer of the game what was done, but copying the game to RAM normally made no sense. As most games did not needed to use Basic routines it was common for games to use the second page (4000H - 7FFFH) of memory by swapping out this page which was normally occupied by Basic, and run from there. If the ROM was larger than 16K the third page was used too. The top 16K then was used for stack space and other RAM use. The lowest 16K memory area was normally kept set to Basic ROM, because that way the BIOS routines inside this ROM could still be accessed easily. Not every game needed to access the Bios permanently, so it was also acceptable to let the game use all three lowest memory pages. Mahjongg 02:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi, I decided to move the trivia section to this talk page per WP:TRIVIA. Per Wiki policy, it is better to try to find ways to incorporate this within the article text than it is to make a separate trivia section. As people find a way to incorporate the below into the text (using verifiable sources), it might be best to strike through the trivia in question:

• The birthday of the MSX Home Computer Standard is June 27, 1983, the day it was formally announced during a press-conference. Loudenvier 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• MSX 1 computers were very similar to the Colecovision and Sega SG-1000 video game systems. They shared the same CPU and video processors. Their sound processors were also very similar. A Colecovision emulator for the MSX exists. Mahjongg 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• The MSX 1 BIOS was written by Rick Yamashita and Jey Suzuki (Jey was only 18 at the time).

they both also designed the software for the TRS-80 Model 100 handheld computer! Mahjongg 00:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) )

• By far, the most popular and famous MSX games were written by Japanese software-house Konami. Loudenvier 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• As the MSX's processor, the Zilog Z80A, could only address up to 64 KB of memory, the default allocation (used in most, if not all models) was with the lower 32 KB for ROM BASIC and the upper 32 KB for RAM. Machines intended to run MSX-DOS (a CP/M-like system) had 64 KB RAM, but the lower 32 KB were disabled in order for the ROM BASIC to function. When the computer booted MSX-DOS, the ROM BASIC was disabled and all of the 64 KB address space was mapped to RAM.
• Among MSX-DOS compatible software (directly ported from CP/M) were dBase II, Turbo Pascal version 3 and Wordstar. Therefore, in the late 1980s, several Brazilian companies used an MSX system as their "corporate" computer. As an MSX 1 could display only 40×25 text, expansion kits were introduced that upgraded the display to 80×25, giving MSX a more professional appeal. MSX 2 and up were never manufactured by the main companies in Brazil (Gradiente and Sharp). Much of the market was created alone by Ademir Carchano (MSX Projetos et al) who created most of the aftermarket hardware for MSX, including the MegaRAM cartridge (a way to copy and play MegaROM games), the MSX 2.0 and 2+ conversion kits and IDE interfaces. Although cheaper IBM-PC clones eventually dominated the market, the MSX remained somewhat popular, with hardware being created and sold for substantial prices for some time afterwards.
• MSX 1 games were published mainly on cartridge and cassette. Later in the 1980s the MSX 2 was released, which generally included a 3.5" disk drive, and consequently the popular media for games and other software shifted to floppy disks.
• The MSX 3.5" floppy disks, at least those formatted under MSX-DOS 2.0, were directly compatible with MS-DOS (although some details like file undeletion and boot sector code were different). [2]
• The introduction of MSX led to a new and short-lived kind of software cracking: converting. Since the MSX games were unplayable on the SV-328 computer, SV-328 crackers developed a method of modifying the (MSX 1) games to make them work on the SV-328. In most cases this included downloading the MSX BIOS to the SV-328 from tape or floppy disk.
• Due to the same processor (Z80), graphical resolution (256×192 pixels) and number of colors (16) of the MSX 1 systems and the Sinclair ZX Spectrum, many videogames made for the latter could easily be ported to the MSX platform by the (European) authors themselves, making both versions nearly identical. The enhanced color display possibilities of the MSX were not exploited: they did not used any hardware sprites, and the color by character style of the ZX Spectrum graphics was directly used, instead of using the MSX's more advanced facility to have a different color pair for each line in the character.

Hope this helps. Drumpler 17:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice initiative... When I had time I'll work on this too. Loudenvier 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I started moving some of the trivia into the body of the article, especially I moved the floppy disk info to the "peripherals" section, where I think it belongs. I hope I can do more later. But perhaps this is an example for others what can be done. Mahjongg 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

System specs vs. standard specs

The system specs part is very confusing: it mixes the MSX standard spec with the usual specs of systems in the category. It would be better if this distinction would become explicit. E.g.: an MSX1 can have lots of more memory than 64kB (there are a couple machines with 128kB e.g.), but the spec says it needs at least 8kB to be an MSX1. Usually, MSX1 machines have 32 or 64kB RAM, though.

Other examples: the 5.x MHz stuff in MSX2+ was not standard, but just another extra (any extra can be implemented on an MSX, as long as it adheres to the standard spec as well).

Note that there are other questionable things. The clockspeed of the turboR CPU's don't seem to be correct. The R800 runs on 7.16MHz, and the Z80 on 3.58MHz as usual (otherwise it would not even be compatible).

Lastly, I wonder why specs of V9938 (MSX2 system specs) are repeated in the V9958 section (MSX2+ system specs). They're upwards compatible. Besides, there are already dedicated pages for them which should have all this information anyway.

ManuelBilderbeek 14:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Besides, there are already dedicated pages for them which should have all this information anyway.": Ok, I removed the detailed info, the specs list was getting too big anyway. It needs a proper cleanup really, like being rewritten in prose. As for the R800 speed, do you have a reference for that? MSXFAQ says it's 28.6MHz. --Apathor 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ is wrong. I happen to maintain it and I'll fix it ASAP. If you Google around (or check the R800 page), you'll find out that it's 7.16MHz. There is an 28MHz crystal on the mainboard, but apparently it is only used to derive the 7.16Mhz clock from and not driving the CPU directly. By the way, there is no separate Z80 chip on the turboR. Like most other MSX machines from after 1986, it is in the MSX-ENGINE (T9769C). -- ManuelBilderbeek 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: it seems a bit more subtle. I updated the FAQ with a concept text about it, after I asked around and got a useful reply here. I guess 28.6 MHz is OK after all (the bus is 7.16MHz though)! Note that I already did various other changes to improve the details, but there could still be made a better distinction between standard specs and common specs. ManuelBilderbeek 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated the text from "R800 running at 28.6 MHz (bus on 7.16 MHz, using a 4 divider)" to "R800 running at 7.16 MHz (instructions use about 4x less clock ticks than the Z80, so often quoted as 28.6 MHz when comparing with the Z80)". That is how I understand it is, also explained in the forum post Manuel linked to above. The previous sentence implied that internally the R800 did run at 28.6MHz and the I/O was at 7.16MHz, which isn’t correct, to my knowledge. The 28.6MHz was a marketing trick, and indicated the relative speed compared to the Z80, and not the actual clock speed, which was 7.16MHz. Grauw 14:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links cleanup

The external links list contained over twenty links, mostly unimportant websites (unimportant as in: not informative for further researching by a Wikipedia reader). I've removed most of those links. ASCII was removed because it's currently not much related to MSX, 1chipMSX was changed to Bazix. I've added information where necessary, and added a link to D4 Enterprise. --Apathor 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hugely popular in other markets

This claims needs support. I recall they're launch in the UK, a huge market at the time for home computers, and they were an absolute flop.

That is a UK/US centric view. At the time it was an observable phenomenon that countries that had their own home computer designs (US and UK) were very reluctant to adopt MSX, as this "Japanese" system was seen as a threath to their own domestic products. In countries that did not have a big native home computer industry MSX was received much more positively. Mahjongg (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

that could be true for the US but certainly isn't for the UK, as the American made C64 achieved massive levels of popularity over here second only to the Spectrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.251.97 (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The UK -and the US both had domestic home computer manufacturers, It's a documented fact that both in the US and the UK, there was a "yellow danger" fear that partially explained why MSX did not gain much ground in English speaking countries. It was not only present for (MSX) computers, but all electronic goods. Then in England there was the additional factor that MSX strongly resembled a Spectrum qua possibilities, but even the cheapest models had a better keyboard. A painfull factor for Spectrum aficionado, who really disliked MSX for that. Then there simply was the not invented here factor with Brits/Americans on one side, and the Japanese on the other side. One factor that was a result of it, and enforced it also was that almost no magazines wrote about MSX. All that was very different on Europe-mainland, where there were none of these feelings, and as a result MSX got the same kind of attention as all other systems on the market, and it was seen as a competitive system, in Holland there might even been have a reverse not invented here feeling, as Philips also made MSX systems, and as a result MSX was (and remains) quite popular there. Mahjongg (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any numbers, but at least here in Brazil, the MSX was the dominant home computer without a doubt, at least during the late 80's. They were manufactured here by Sharp (Hotbit model) and Gradiente (Expert model), in addition to several grey imports (I owned a Yamaha version that even contains FM synthesis). And I think another testimony to the popularity of the MSX is the huge number of licensed and unlicensed clones, roughly every major Japanese and Korean electronics manufacturer had its own implementation of the architecture, I think if it wasn't popular, they wouldn't spend money developing so many different versions. 189.105.92.210 (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Attribute Clash

Is it really necessary to include a picture of the machine's attribute clash? I mean every home computer on the market, from Apple to Spectrum to Commodore 64, had the exact same graphical limitations. It just makes MSX look dumber than the rest. --Jquarry (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don’t really have a strong opinion, but I do find it strange that it’s shown next to the MSX2 details. I would be fine with removing it, it’s linked in the article, no need to highlight it in this manner. Grauw (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's partly strange because after the picture was placed somebody decided to replace all references to MSX 1 to simply MSX, It is also strange perhaps because the text that is referencing the picture is perhaps less than clear. The text, as you can read to the left of the picture, it is there to explain that the attribute clash problem of MSX 1 was -fixed- in MSX 2. Also, most other systems did not have "the same graphical limitations", to the contrary, they often had -worse- attribute clash problems. Especially the spectrum, who had only one colour pair for each 8x8 pixel matrix, instead of the MSX's 1x8. Anyway, I tried to clear up the meaning of the picture a bit, hope that helps to make sense of it all.Mahjongg (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice pic, but it seems that the author or someone else rotated the pic 90 degrees, as the atribute clash of the msx was horizontal, not vertical... and it seems to be vertical in it. Nothing against that pic tho... should i fix it?Atriel (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I do believe you are right! I always thought there was something strange about the picture, but could not put my finger on it. It's difficult to say, but I see a few beige pixels on circle segments that can only be explained when the picture is indeed rotated 90 degrees. So go ahead and edit the pic. You know what, the best way this picture would work would be if you could somehow show each 8x8 pixel block, so you can directly see which pixels are effected, perhaps thin vertical lines between the 8x1 cells. Mahjongg (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

History section

The history section is a mess. In large part it compares MSX to other machines on a technical level, and it does so with very questionable arguments that seem only to take into account how hard it is to port ZX Spectrum games.

• Accessing video memory through I/O space is not slower, at least on machines of that era. It saves you from having to keep a second address when copying data. Of course, if you try to reuse code from another system with a different screen layout and thus cannot access video memory linearly, it is not. "Doctor, it hurts when I use a data layout not suitable for the machine I'm developing for." - Well, don't do it then.
• Contrary to the claims in the article, the ZX Spectrum had no support for scrolling whatsoever.
• I find it hard to believe that this "undocumented text mode" was actually undocumented. The Wikipedia article on the video chip does not mention anything to that effect.

In general I doubt that Spectrum to MSX porter's PMS deserves that much space, considering the near-zero significance of MSX in Europe and particularly in the UK.

Uli (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, yes the section about the "weakness" of the video I/O method of MSX is overly large, it started like this when someone wrote it as an "explanation" why MSX failed in the European market. But in fact this "weakness" was only imagined. True the Spectrum had no support at all for scrolling in hardware, but programmers learned how to simulate it in a way that MSX could not, at least not in exactly the same way as on the Spectrum. Yes, perhaps this part does not need to be this large, but not because it's unimportant, it explains in part why not much European MSX software was written especially in the UK. I disagree however, that MSX was not significant in Europe, I remember half a dozen of years in which there were many more MSX computers on display in shops than any other type, and yes, these were sold en-masse too, only being surpassed by the C64. In the UK there was almost nothing in the magazines about MSX, but in Holland alone there were several magazines dedicated to MSX alone, and in Germany and Spain etc too. Mahjongg (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

VHS reference

There is a meaningless reference to VHS as a standard prior to 1983, when the video format battle was certainly not over during that time (1983 being the peak Beta year in the UK). Shall we drop this factually incorrect reference? Colin99 (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure that the reference is factually incorrect, as at that time VHS indeed had established itself very well in the market, the article also does not state that VHS had already "won", only that it was "very succesful", probably what was meant was "succesful in comparison with non japanese standards". Mahjongg (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)