Talk:FM-7

Inconsistent/erranous information

The hardware section claims two 6809E MPUs running at 1MHz while the right-side information box declares two 68B09 MPUs running at 2MHz. Neither is correct according to the reference given: There are two 68B09 MPUs, the main processor running at 2MHz while the graphics processor runs at 1.2MHz. Further more, the hardware section under memory omits the 48KiB of VRAM also listed in the info-box (and also given in the reference). Lastly, the list price of ¥569 is of course absolutely ridiculous! (It's about $2.50!!). The yen sign was probably meant to be a dollar sign? The listing price given in the reference is ¥126,000, which in 1981's yen course was about $570. —BlindDaemon (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How many colors?

Most sites say 8, this site says (and shows) over 256 http://fullmotionvideo.free.fr/fujitsu/FM7/FM7.html

Just 8 colors, IIRC. The first screenshot says "FOR AV", which means "for FM-77 AV series." Mulukhiyya 15:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now it says 262144 colors in 320x200, but I don't see how that is possible with only 48Kb VRAM??? 84.49.75.226 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Palettes were usual in those days, because of limited memory. The high res mode might have used 3 bits per pixel (48kb) and so a choice from an 8 colour palette, the low res mode would allow 6 bits per pixel and thus 64 simultaneous colours / palette entries. Because this is more simultaneous colours, it was also worth allowing more potential colours in that palette. The numbers here suggest 18 bits per palette entry, which would be 6 bits per RGB channel. Credible numbers for that time. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible but extremely high for 1986, even with 144kb VRAM. It is, for instance, only really equalled by the far more expensive VGA standard on the PC, which allowed you to choose from that many in both its high-rez 16-colour and low-rez 256-colour mode (in comparison, the next most affordable/capable PC standards were PGA with 16 or 256 out of 4096, and EGA with either 16 out of 64, or 16 fixed colours, depending on monitor/mode; non-PCs counted the Amiga with 32 out of 4096, and Atari ST with 16 out of 512... the Mac was yet to gain colour output, the PC98 was on about the same level as the Amiga or mid-period FM, just with twice the vertical rez in some cases, and consoles were no better than any of these frontrunners).

However, it's only really a matter of how many bits you want to put in each DAC and palette channel (6 each in this case), so maybe they thought it worth the slight extra spend for the bragging rights. The difference in overall gamut between low and high rez modes is more likely a case of high rez using a digital (TTL) monitor which is only capable of a very limited range of colours - typically 8, 16 or 64 (using 3, 4 or 6 signal wires) depending on machine - but a very crisp image, whilst low rez would just output to a regular TV (it's even possible that the DACs couldn't generate that many colours natively and actually dithered to that from a more limited set, hiding this within the horizontal blurriness of the output device). So screen mode would be determined by the connected monitor (again, not an uncommon thing at the time), with neither option able to display all (or any) of the modes of the other (...ditto).

Otherwise, even if it was using a scheme like Productivity mode on the Amiga which does some fancy tricks where colours are split within each distinct palette entry, you'd expect hi-rez mode would be able, with 48kb VRAM, to offer 8 colours from 64 (vs 64 from 262k in lo-rez), and to offer 64 fixed colours with 144kb (vs a free choice of 262k in low). There's just no reason to not allow as free a choice in hi-rez/limited palette indices mode as in low rez/wide palette, even if just to give the option of either displaying all primaries, or 8 greyscales, with smooth fades through black or white. That it's stuck with the same unchanging 8-colour palette over several years and hardware revisions, and a 3x increase in video memory, suggests it's a monitor hardware issue rather than an actual computer one. Perhaps if the line had lasted longer, it would have got a hi-rez mode that either used 6 bits TTL, or progressed to VGA-like analogue RGB...80.189.129.216 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed notability and prose tags

I don't understand how the notability of the FM-7 can be called into question. The FM-7 was one of the most important Japanese home computers of the 80s, similar to the NEC PC-8801. It just happens to be less known outside.

The hardware section would hardly be improved by conversion into prose, though the details about F-BASIC, which don't really belong under hardware, probably would.—Graf Bobby (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The notability tag is replaced. The problem is that this article doesn't support any claim of notability with references. It doesn't explain your claim, either; why was it the most important computer in that decade? A substantial article should explain the machine; prose is used to write explanations. An enumerated list gives the user zero insight into the product, or its notability. Why were those parts and quantities used? What path did the design team follow to get them? How did users and developers receive those choices? And so on. As is, this is just a product brochure. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

This article claims that the FM-7 was compatible with the Color Computer. This seems incredibly dubious; can any references be provided? -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.jaapan.de/heimcomputer.php?page=fujitsu_fm7 a german site "kompatibel zu CoCo3" which means compatible with CoCo3. --11:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.133.211 (talk)

It cannot have been compatible with the coco since much of the hardware is different, but os9 programs did work, allegedly. All 6809 based computers are called coco clones on wikipedia, even those that pre-date the coco, go figure.reiknir (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The BASIC, FM-7 extensions aside, was very similar to CoCo BASIC, though not quite as identical as some claim. For example, RND(n) where n > 1 still produced a number between 0 and 1, not between 0 and n. Cjs (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Price in USD

The ¥126,000 list price is said to be equivalant to US $1250. This is vastly different from the figure one gets from the historical exchange rates, which varied from about ¥220 to ¥280 to the dollar between 1981-12 and mid-1985. Using those figures gives a USD eqivalant of $450 - $600.

How was the figure of $1200 derived, and why are we using that? Should it be changed to be closer to the exchange rate figure? Or are we doing some sort of cost-of-living type thing with it?

Cjs (talk) Cjs (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the edit history and found that the USD equivalent was added on 21:59, 11 September 2019‎. The $1200 figure is consistent with the exchange rate of JPY/USD in September 2019, meaning the editor of that edit used the current exchange rate instead of the historical exchange rate. In the exchange rate today (August 16, 2023, ¥126000 JPY is equivalent to about $900, and when the system released in November 1982, ¥126000 was equivalent to about $500. As the edit was unexplained and the number almost certainly an exchange rate error, I have corrected the article to use the historical exchange rate from when the FM-7 was released, making the USD value 500. BrentSnocomGaming (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Also here is where I found the historic exchange rates.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/usd/USD-to-JPY-1982 2603:8080:3601:AB00:9F6:AF57:C2F9:23BF (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)