I don't understand the idea why one theory should be in need of evidence while the other one isn't. Since there is no proof that the V9978 is not backwards-compatible with the V9958 either, neither theory is anything but speculation.
Exactly, because there is no proof of how things, were gone, i deny the myth of V9978 being a v9990 and propose an alternative. But it does appear that one cannot question this dogma.... ;-)
My motivations of "suspect" are simply justified by the objective difficulty in making the V9990 design somewhat compatible with 99x8 one.
Too much differences that one need to accomodate:
different ram chips, (dual port)
different bus,
different register array
different register behaviour (and more logical in V9990)
different sprite engine
to accomodate V9990 with V9958 without having to compromise too much Yamaha engineers should have literally done miracles.
Nishi added me a friend on Facebook, wow!
Exactly, because there is no proof of how things, were gone, i deny the myth of V9978 being a v9990 and propose an alternative. But it does appear that one cannot question this dogma....
A theory is always backed up by evidence. Otherwise it's not a theory but an opinion.
V9978 is backed up by testimonials from people from Panasonic in an article and Nishi's lyrics. These are not proofs and you may not believe them like PingPong, but you have to be able to give stronger arguments.
Nishi added me a friend on Facebook, wow!
Me too. I don't use Twitter, then MSX3 Facebook Group give some news and translations from Nishi Twitter account.
MSX0/MSX0 Pro will be available probably Spring 2023, MSX3 later
A theory is a theory not an opinion. Even if it is not proved by evidence. When not proved is simply a need-to-be-demostrated theory
A opinion is a personal view over a fact.
Regardless, words are words. And not evidence. I can say that i've heard about a wonderful V9995 chip from yamaha, or say that nishi told me this "revelation" ;-) in confidential way. Even if saying this is a incredible bullshit, it does not have more or less worth than the mith of V9978 and retrocompatibility because both are not proved by evidence. Only words and people chattering.
Give me strong evidence that V9978 was designed with older VDP in mind, and it will become more realistic.
(Otherwise, it is only chattering)
But the evidence (like pinouts for example) goes in the opposite direction.
first: sorry for the translation "made in google"
I think that the issue of msx3 will never be completely clear, nor the vdp that was being developed, nor if they planned to put the r800 with all its potential (16-bit registers, mmu, dma...) activated.
In my opinion, I think that in a certain way they had a 2-in-1 msx in mind, let me explain
they would have the msx2+ totally (or almost totally) integrated in a new msx-engine, this engine would have integrated:
z80 (I suppose they would normalize z80 at 5.37mhz to get more out of the vdp), vdp, psg, ppi, mapper and slots
and besides they would have what would have been a new specification:
r800 at 16bits (mmu 24bits), 7mhz, with 7mhz bus and architecture improvements
new 16bit vdp (v9978, 9990, 99xx).
In such a way that the system would switch vertically, it can go from msx2+@msx-ng (new gen), but not down due to conflicts in ram management, as Padial did with the z380.
Another thing that they should have already enabled in msx2 is the slot 5 and 16 signals for /busreq and /busack, and be able to use external cpu's.
for the rest of the machine? Well, I think that since opl4 did not exist in 1991, it is not feasible, besides, y2413+y8950 with 128KB of sampleram is already a very interesting system.
also an IDE, as included in the a1200 is an idea that would be very useful.
Regarding the name of the new MSX, I would have called it MSX10, 10 seems like a huge number, but in reality, it would be 1-0 (2 in binary), that is, a new MSX with a new philosophy.
A theory is a theory not an opinion. Even if it is not proved by evidence.
Say "theory" when there is no proof is a misuse of language. A theory is no longer a theory when it based on evidence or etablished facts that are false. You give opinion when it is a personal view over a fact, an event, a way to do, etc. It requires no work, no proof.
I give also my opinion based on words from people who have worked on the MSX and on the traces I see in the system. I'd rather believe them than you.
Give me strong evidence that V9978 was designed with older VDP in mind, and it will become more realistic.
I tell you from the beginning that it was not ready in time. I can't give proof of something that wasn't finished. The only thing that is known is that folks at Panasonic said they looked into putting v9990, which is a derivative of what should have been the MSX3's VDP, in the turbo R but, which they abandoned for cost reasons. I would like to find the japanese article in question i read years ago but I can't remember. I can't find it. And either way, i think it probably wouldn't change much for you.
MSX-DOS2, Extended Bios (which is unfinished) and MSX-View gave the system another direction. I think it was planned for the MSX3 but that everything was stopped after the MSX2+. It was said that the 2+ was a waiting machine and the Turbo R was to please the remaining fans. So when the turbo R was released we already knew the MSX was already over.
A theory is a theory not an opinion. Even if it is not proved by evidence.
Say "theory" when there is no proof is a misuse of language. A theory is no longer a theory when it based on evidence or etablished facts that are false.
So any need-to-be-proved theories on physics is a misuse of language because those are not yet proved?
Here there is no proof of facts that are true or false about v9978 myth, only chattering. So this is a theory that need to be proved.
;-)
I give also my opinion based on words from people who have worked on the MSX and on the traces I see in the system. I'd rather believe them than you.
It's an opinion, your opinion as you said, nothing more...
Give me strong evidence that V9978 was designed with older VDP in mind, and it will become more realistic.
I tell you from the beginning that it was not ready in time. I can't give proof of something that wasn't finished.
Proof could be on the table even if V9990 was not finished. At least in the form of design specifications. But strangely there are not....
So no evidence.
...... I can't find it. And either way, i think it probably wouldn't change much for you.
No, having an official documents that prove that the intended design would have included legacy compatibility change a lot. Of course it cannot be an email shared between msx users with hypothesis. It should be something more official and reliable.
So any need-to-be-proved theories on physics is a misuse of language because those are not yet proved?
When physicists propose a theory, they provide proofs. It remains a theory until the evidences are invalidated. It would be necessary to be able to demonstrate its absolute truth so that it becomes more than a theory.
So any need-to-be-proved theories on physics is a misuse of language because those are not yet proved?
When physicists propose a theory, they provide proofs. It remains a theory until the evidences are invalidated. It would be necessary to be able to demonstrate its absolute truth so that it becomes more than a theory.
No, they don't provide any proof. They make assumptions. Then their hypotheses are validated through experiment to obtain proof and validate the theory. If they had proof before experimenting, experimentation would be meaningless.
