Hacker News Reader

Comment by hvs | Hacker News Reader

I'm a big retrocomputing enthusiast (in the C64 and Apple // realms) and the people doing this project are well-known in the community, but I just have trouble believing this will be successful. I don't want a computer that's kinda like a C64. I have a C64, and anyone who really likes that platform can either buy one on ebay or emulate it. A new platform that is a shadow of a platform from 40 years ago is such a niche market that I have trouble seeing how it'll ever be popular enough to get the price to a reasonable level. Maybe I'm wrong and there's a huge untapped market for retro-like computers. Pico-8 shows that there is some market for retro-like emulators, but asking someone to pay $14 is a lot different than $100 (or more).

View on HN

Defining success is tricky for these. For some of them I think the people creating them are perfectly happy with just getting something for themselves and a handful of enthusiasts.

I agree with you, though. If I absolutely wanted physical hardware, I'd get a real one, or an FPGA reimplementation on a general board like MiSTER [1] that'd also let me run other cores, or something like the Ultimate 64 [2] (fit's in a real C64 case). I'd be more inclined to buy one of these "8-bit alternate reality continuity" thing, if something like the (FPGA based) Mega 65 [3] becomes reality.

[1] https://misterfpga.co.uk/

[2] https://retrogamecoders.com/ultimate64-review/

[3] https://mega65.org/

An FPGA implementation is missing the big educational aspect though, namely that this product probably intends for it to be feasible (just like it was with the 8 bit computers back then) to fully understand the hardware, prod it, modify it, and interface to it. Usually up to IC boundary, but the key there is that the ICs are distinct and (hopefully) not too complex.

Even a fully "open" modern platform is usually just way too complex, integrated, and often full of abstraction layers.

With an FPGA, you in theory have that within the FPGA design itself for the most part, but it's still integrated and wrapped away so much that the directly relationship between current and logic, and things like an actual external bus with traces you can probe and hook into, is just not as tangible.

I personally didn't find Verilog all that hard to learn, and it's frankly simpler to understand and modify the "hardware" in that form than using a multimeter and logic analyzer and futzing with solder. I built myself a simple retro-style machine around a RISC-V core and my own custom designed video controller in a few weeks, without any prior Verilog experience. Although I am a software engineer, I don't feel like those skills actually helped that much.

Kudos to you if you can go from zero to your own custom video controller implemented in an fpga in a few weeks.

But for normal humans that just want to get involved with hardware and dabble somewhat with software/firmware in the context of vintage computing, taking a detour into fpga-world would be a deep unpleasant rabbit hole unless one was specifically interested in fpga's and there was no other viable option (which in the case of custom ASIC's is admittedly quite possible).

Compared to the nightmarish complex toolchains used for fpga's, digging up some datasheets and working with a DMM, scope, and logic analyzer is a breeze and actually quite pleasurable.

To be clear when I wrote about my preferences above it was from a perspective of what I'd like to have and to use myself. I absolutely agree with you that many of these are great for educational purposes, so I absolutely think it's great some people are doing these too. That said, for that purpose I'd have stuck with something a more direct analog to one of the existing 8-bit machines myself. But it's not my projects so he is of course entirely free to make it however he prefers.

You're probably right, but I'm going to order one as soon as they become generally available (providing the price isn't too expensive). I'm not interested in owning a real C64 because of its complete absence of modern conveniences (VGA, external keyboard, etc).

What I see is a system designed specifically to be tinkered with and learned from. You have large, simple components, lots of expansion possibilities, fixed up BASIC, etc.

I learned on computers such as these and it was a GREAT help in understanding how they actually accomplish basic things like talking to devices, handling memory, dealing with problems, communicating with other computers, etc. This brings back that magic while also removing some of the more unsightly warts of the original systems, and also interfaces easily with many conveniences of the modern era. For $100 that's a great toy to learn on.

There’s now quite a few of these ‘new retro’ projects around, but right now you can’t actually buy any of them from stock (Foenix, Commander X16, Mega65, ZX Spectum Next)

These projects often seem to get bogged down in the costs and practicalities of creating the plastic parts rather than the electronics/software. Large injection-molded enclosures aren’t cheap (for lowing-volume products) and custom keyboards/key caps are even harder to do. (Still waiting on Amiga key caps from a Kickstarter about 4 years ago… apparently it’s still happening eventually…)

That can lead to long delays and high prices.

I have pissed and moaned at length about the ZX Spectrum Next so I'm not about to recapitulate all of that here.

OTOH David Murray (The 8-bit Guy on YouTue), who is leading the Commander X16 project, does have a strong history of executing well and shipping.

I haven't been that interested in other "new retro" computers, apart from the ZX Spectrum Next (which at least retains 100% compatibility, and for which I have significant nostalgia), but I'm interested in the Commander X16 simply because I tend to enjoy David's work in general.

His previous work has been software games, which make up a fair share of his income along with YouTube ads. He quit his real job to be a YouTube personality and sell software on the side.

The design goal of the X16 was to try to make a 8bit computer out of modern stock for close to $100. The concept was to have an easily fixable computer with no bespoke parts.

That goal got blown out of the water due to the realities of custom system design. The costs shot up in order to fulfill other requirements like the graphics and sound. Originally, David didn't want any FPGAs at all, but had to do that to get a viable graphics port.

From what I remember others says, even the 2MB RAM might get knocked down to 1MB or less.

The entire project itself is the nostalgia of a 8bit home computer, but the need to have it connected to modern parts like mice, keyboard, and displays.

Sure, but it's not like it's trivial to build games of the quality he has: if you have any doubts about that just look at the quantity of really terrible games available for 8-bit platforms.

Nobody said that what he's trying to do with the X16 is easy: however, I do trust him to deliver.

(My own personal wishlist here would be something like an Amiga 1200 but with two Paulas, controllable panning, and two SID chips, along with sprite rotation and scaling hardware. Ain't gonna happen, of course.)

That's exactly why X16 uses PC parts for that. The case is a micro-ATX case, the keyboard is a PC keyboard.

> I have a C64, and anyone who really likes that platform can either buy one on ebay or emulate it.

Anything that has actual retro hardware is bound to be niche. I am extremely happy with my C64 Maxi. It’s emulated, has an HDMI output, USB, can be a C64 and a VIC-20 and is a reasonably accurate physical replica of a VIC-20. I already have a dozen actual vintage computers, but the other ones require attention and care that this one doesn’t and that’s a killer feature: it can be used pretty much the same way one would approach a computer in the mid-80s - it’s a computer, not a museum piece. You attach it to a TV, not to another carefully preserved artefact.

The physical mimicry is, what I think, the most important part. You relate to a physical object that feels the same as the original and that allows you to explore what the original was and felt like.

I’d love to see more of this, because it’s easy to manufacture and inexpensive enough to be put in the hands of children who can then have a blast exploring a bit of our past. My 8yo loves it. Now I wish they added C16/Plus 4 emulation, and that they did C128 and C65 ones.

I think part of the excitement over real hardware is the potential that clever programmers can find ways to get more out of the hardware than it was designed for as in the real 8-bit era. While I think things like Pico-8 are interesting, there really isn't the possibility for things like new graphics modes that weren't programmed in by its creator the way real hardware can surprise you.

"Hey, Retro-8 owners! I got a new hack for you — burn this new image onto your FPGA to get a dual-core 6502 that supports 32-bit addressing!"

Yeah, not the same appeal.

I think a reasonably priced RISC-V psuedo-retrocomputer that boots directly into Lisp / Scheme on simple to use hardware would be a great computer to learn programming on.

Should be just as understandable to a newbie as a 6502 / Basic combo, but with a much better path to current computing environments.

I was working on exactly this (though not to Lisp, per se) before I got distracted and COVID came. I was calling it "Retro-V". In Verilog, I had a RISC-V core hooked up to my own home-built video logic, and was working on the SD card controller before I shelved it.

In the meantime various RISC-V SoCs have come to market which could probably do the job well.

I think it will be successful, for a reasonable definition of success (e.g. fulfilling a dream of designing a computer and turning a small profit in the process). There is some precedent for this: retro-like computer games, for both modern computers and the original hardware; peripherals that support vintage computers; vintage computer clones that are based upon emulation or FPGA; hobby computer kits offering similar specifications. While none of those examples are the same, they demonstrate that people are willing to spend money to recreate rather than replicate an earlier era of computer history.

I'm also really curious to see. Something about it appears weird to me more than other "retrobrew" projects, and I'm not quite sure what it is. E.g. the RC2014 ecosystem is also a totally new system around old designs, and somehow I see more appeal in that.

It is like model railways. You are selling to an older demographic with little interest from younger people.

Older people do have money though. In 1983 it was not possible for them to upgrade to a C64 from their ZX81 or VIC-20 because they lacked the money and Christmas only came once a year.

Nowadays though they can buy these toys without having to leave their chair.

8-bit guy is known for destroying rare prototypes with his lack of engineering knowledge

https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1309664882283950081

https://www.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/izuswa...

I thought this was going to be about that time he hooked two power supplies up to the same machine [0]. That time was worse in my opinion because anyone who knows anything about how a switching power supply works could tell you that was a bad idea, but I still have a hard time getting worked up about it. The torx bits thing doesn't even really register.

It may be rare and special to us, but at the end of the day it is just hardware.

you didn't post a link for your footnote! What happened? I can see how this would interfere with the voltage correction (if you don't decouple them e.g. using somewhat low value resistors) but if they're not put in series, I can't actually immediately see how this would cause damage

calling someone a sociopath over making a mistake that affects only an inanimate object that was already defective is maybe a bit of an overreaction

I didnt call anyone anything, just cited one of the things he is widely known for in vintage computer circles.

for example https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=76713

I was referring to the twitter thread you linked, not yourself

Reply on news.ycombinator.com