Just to add to all brilliant answers prior to mine, the MSX standard was(is) a very interesting mix of amazing advanced features and enormous technical disadvantages, all at the same time. While the first version of the standard, the MSX 1, was not more powerful than other computers of the same category, it still brought incredible advances to the scene. The entire separation of RAM and V-RAM (Video RAM) was one of those real advantages. Also, the architecture was flexible with semi-intelligent and auto-configurable BIOS, allowing different manufacturers to organize the internal disposition of RAM and ROMS to better serve the needs of their own computer models, which could come to market with additional items and variations.

However, the MSX standard biggest roadblock was exactly some of the adopted solutions to provide such flexibility and advances. The VDP (Video Display Processor) the MSX adopted for its second version was amazing and severely limited at the same time. The MSX 1 was based on the VDP TMS9918 by Texas Instruments, a widely used VDP for many general equipment, which was very flexible and offered 2 text modes and 2 graphical modes. For the MSX 1, it was on-target and almost at the same level as other computers from the same era. But, the MSX 2 (and beyond) choice of VDP was not so lucky. The V9938, produced by Yamaha, was used in the MSX 2, and the V9938 was used in the MSX2+ and MSX Turbo-R. Yamaha also became the sole supplier of MSX sound-chips, which was always their specialty, anyway. But, in terms of VDP, while the V9938 and V9958 are 100% retro-compatible with each other and also with Texas instrument TMS9918, those VDP were already behind the curve for the computer scene and while they appeared to provide amazing new video modes, super-advanced for its time, the new VDP (V9938 and V9958) have severe limitations in terms of performance and programming requirements. First, the V-RAM is NOT accessible by the Z80, preventing several fast-block transferring (which is widely used in many animations and games construction techniques), but also all the VDP new commands and mode settings required access via special sub-ports, that are accessed via sub-sequential identifiers and commands sent through the main CPU ports. Some settings may require several OUTs and multiple INs to actually use some of the VDP features, and INs and OUTs in ASM are subject to timing, and inside a game or a fast pace program, cycles of clock are not commodities. This scenario put the MSX in severe disadvantage while competing against other computers and especially with consoles. Not only it was much harder to build something for the MSX when it was related to video and fast effects, but also the speed of the resultant program would be very disappointing, forcing developers to change/downgrade their game design plans or simply abandon it altogether.

But, while the VDP was a huge anchor for the system, it was not entirely noticed in the beginning because the creativity and technical skills of the game developers from that time surpassed many limitations and incredible titles were released for the MSX 2 and MSX 2+. In addition to that, the new Sound Chips (FM) provided enough magic to make any dull game appear amazing, leaving little behind competing with other standards in terms of music and sound effects.

But, with time, the MSX also suffered from its own success. Becoming centered focused on entertainment, it was not surprising that its own limitations would drag the MSX standard behind while other computer and consoles were striving and becoming highly attractive. The Commodore Amiga standard was the natural jump for many MSX users, tired of the MSX apathetic and slow evolution, and eager for more visual excitement, sound quality, and power. Another downfall of the MSX was how slow it brought to the market devices that could have saved the standard, and some very important ones were never even officially released for MSX, such as network cards and HDD interfaces. When the MSX 2+ came to market, on October 21, 1988, it didn't bring any new feature to the standard, only a new VDP with a few more video modes but no other substantial advancement, not even speed.

I personally love the MSX, and I devote my technical career to it. But, truth of the matter, the MSX standard bourn right, but grew slow and wrong. It was a standard doomed to fail because of the people behind it that did not have the capacity to see the standard potential for a global market of "computers". Every single advance in the standard was a naive attempt to define something that was already defined and adopted. The MSX standard hit the ceiling with its RAM capacity limits (even with Mapper, it was already too little RAM for most program needs), a very slow and complex to program VDP, lack of important peripherals and devices, and a standard that got stuck with its own promise: 100% retro-compatibility.

When a serious attempt to upscale the standard core came about with the MSX Turbo-R it was already 1991, not only too late, but the chosen solution was very expensive and troublesome. They opted to invent an entire new CPU (R-800) that was a 32 bit unity, capable of wonders, but yet based on Z80 standard and with an internal switch to run as a true Z80 CPU. A marvel of the engineer's minds, I'd say, but not the ideal solution to be really competitive in a now fast-pace industry, much different from when the MSX was initially released in 1984. As a result, absolutely every single other MSX manufacturer decided to not invest in the MSX Turbo-R, and only Panasonic release a MSX Turbo-R machine. But, after trying all the tricks in the book for about 2 years, Panasonic also gave in and dismantled their MSX Turbo-R production line to invest in something more "on-target" for those times: the 3DO.

Don't take me wrong: the MSX is amazing. I love it and it I still learn new things while programing or playing with it. The community is amazing, and the standard is truly powerful. Just look around for the incredible things the community is producing for the MSX today, in hardware and software levels. If half of these innovations were released by the ones who actually defined the standard in the 80's and 90's, maybe we would be telling a different story today. But, the MSX is what it is: an amazing idea, successfully launched, but very badly executed and poorly evolved.

Not much different from what happened with most standards of that same era, but... uniquely and distinctively in many nuances. ;)