For these boards, would they be dongle-style addons? I was thinking more of a "gaping-hole" style expansion port where additional cartridges could slot in
a la NDS/handheld dictionary devices. Of course the initial cost in designing and fabricating these carts would be higher than that of a USB dongle-style implementation, but it would be more portable and aesthetically pleasing.
I would doubt it, although depending on the design it might be possible to create jackets (like the ones you can get for ipaqs) for it to slot into. We'll have to see I guess.
Those slots in the IPAQ are most probable PCMCIA slots (which undergone different electrical busses in the past). A realworld slot type for realworld connectivity + the space for CF storage which would mean large storage upto 32GB and very fast throughput. (upto 40MB/s continous measured with todays best cards) - in sharp contrast to the largely useless SDIO connectivity. A PCMCIA->CF adapter could hold a CF GPS device for example.
On a sidenote: i proposed 2 slots of them & addible controller addons to the left & right side of the console. See here:
http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?showt...044&st=180#
Benefits of additional modules are that new (experimental? or even commercial) controls could be easily added with least amount of need to mod the core console. Given empty add-on shells it could be marketed as DIY controller testing platform. I think its been told often but i can't refrain of telling once more: a good controls setup can do wonders and make the difference between consoles.
@KeyboardCowboy: i think its now too late to switch the main IC but at least you held the flag upright. I personally think that a faster cpu & lower energy consumption never can be bad but who knows
Btw the ARM11 is a much more complex piece ... comparable to a pentium when a ARM9 is a 486. (purely illustrative numbers. I did not wanted to compare speeds, but only complexity) So the energy saving manufacturing process will be equalled by a more complex technology + higher clocking.
Btw i doubt that MES has own production lines. They probably order their chips at big foundries like alot of other pure IP companies. And while there is much demand on the top-notch fabrication techniques there will be still a lot of older factories which surely comes at a nice rebate on prices
GunPei2X said:
predatorramboxxx said:
I dont really see the point of this system right now. Their are virtually multiple devices that have what people are looking for such as 500+ mhz, running windows ce (which is very good for making programs/emulators), have a graphic cards like the intel 2700, have keyboards/touchscreen, wifi, and have plenty of nand for under 400 USD and have virtually thousands of programs/emualtors/apps.
I think it's because most of them don't have great controls for gaming, nor dedicated devs to optimise/create programs specifically for that device. And it sounds like this will be half the cost.
Couldnt tell it better: mostly controls suck. Or do you like to run Quake on a iPhone with a "touch here to face upwards" steering ? Playing a stunts like (racing-) game on a N800 ? Well i think you get off-track quite soon with a digital dpad only.
jbrodack said:
anyway my main point is no matter how good the new machine is and despite some flaws of the gp2x I wouldn't want this new machine for this xmas. and I have a feeling that a lot of gp2x users won't feel the need to go to the next greatest thing immediately. I mean psp is more powerful than gp2x yet a lot of people prefer their gp2x. so beyond specs a big thing to think about is release date. First and foremost do not rush this thing out.
Thanks, if the design of a console needs time it should take its time B)
KeyboardCowboy said:
A non-MMSP2+ chipset wouldn't limit the appeal to the GP2X community, it would only add the possibility for a more feature-rich device with greater programmer appeal and put a significant dent in power consumption. However the MMSP2+ would be fine so long as the engineers are very careful to alleviate the bottlenecks encountered in the GP2X's MMSP2 implementation.
More horsepower won't touch old gp2x fans but will probably attract geeks & nerds who look for something sophisticated to toy with.
Squidge said:
Then how could you possibly say the i.MX31 is only "a very small increase in price", if you don't have prices of both chipsets?
This is getting a bit off i guess. Considering the i.MX31 is offered at such affordable prices the MMSP2 cannot be sold for more money or else customers would start to leave. Licenses cost money so they can't give them away for free: i guess they sell the chips around 20-30% off the freescale part. (purely speculative!). Given the cost for this chip alone i would happily spent the pricetag off it to have it over an inferior one. On a sidenote: any figures for a TI omap3 IC [see:
TI overview sheet ]?
Dzz said:
Assuming that the MMSP2+ register definitions and general operation methods are similar to the MMSP2 (which seems likely) and also assuming that Craig et al are working from the Open2X kernel effort (which seems possible), it would probably be a fair bit easier to work with the MMSP2+ than the i.mx31.
Very good point. (period) The old question: freedom or compatibility?
DaveC said:
gp2xs said:
If the gp2x had better controls I could have personally influenced the sale of perhaps hundreds of them. I just can't recommend it to die-hard gamers because of the sloppy controls. So to beat this dead Zebra to death, please make nice controls. Thanks.
This is why I suggested that the unit be playable in the vertical orientation too. This means buttons and pad in the right spot as well as a non-clamshell type.
Good point too. Both Stick + DPad on the left (lower in vertical) position ? With 2 input devices switching orientation might be easier, though this has to be proven yet.
[edit] added link to TI overview.