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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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'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.
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…)
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.)
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.
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
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.
Speaking of "modern retro computing" there is already a player in the town: C256 Foenix [1]. Based on 65c816, affordable, powerful and - most important - already available and well tested. It definitively deserve for user interest. For curious - there is an emulator available [2] (even one-and-half, because mine [3] is rather limited and created mostly for Forth [6, 7] development).
320x240 (double-pixel), 640x480, 800x600 all with 8 bit colors - 2 to 4MB of RAM, SD-card, IDE, FDD, joysticks, DVI for modern monitors - there are even expansion cards (second monitor(!), Ethernet) already available.
Community is - currently - small and it affects the amount of software available, unfortunately - but it is a matter of time, I hope.
There is a wiki [4], but discussions and deep technical details are available mostly on project Discord [5].
> https://c256foenix.com/ Based on 65c816, affordable, powerful and - most important - already available and well tested.
I went to the link:
Available: it's all sold out. Admittedly, it exists more than the project of this post, which was announced 2 years ago and still has to deliver.
Affordable: disputable, this is priced $220/$260 for a bare board (no power supply, no case) so you can find cheaper Amiga/ST FPGA boards; but it is not ridiculously expensive either and some of those Amiga/ST boards are unavailable too.
Re: availability - a victim of own success. ;) And chip shortage too, unfortunately.
Re: affordable: I come rather from 8-bit Atari and - in my opinion - it is not a cheap hobby. Modern extensions like Sophia2 or VBXL aren't cheap, memory extensions also require some bucks. Not mention about SD-card interfaces, although they are cheaper.
And re-implementations like already assembled EclaireXL or Atari 1088 XEL are even more expensive.
> Stefany and I disagree over some of the design at the moment. For example she has an integrated floppy drive, MIDI ports, SID chips, and a whole host of other things that I don’t feel are necessary and will inflate the cost of the computer.
> Even if she agreed to all of my design changes, it would still be a computer that would be $80 or more for somebody to buy, well above the original price point I was hoping to target.
His machine will probably end up costing pretty much as much and be less interesting.
Stefany is a hyper-competent hardware engineer and her machine is excellent. It is an interesting machine -- and it exists. But I personally cancelled my order after a personality conflict with her.
I'm curious; why cancel a product you want made by someone who you describe as competent due to a personality conflict? Some moral boundary or principle matter? I wouldn't think a clash of personalities should be a factor in such a transaction.
I vaguely remember an announcement video there where she discusses the sunsetting process of the project, delivering what was built, etc. But either there has been a change or I'm mistaken.
I forgot I still get her newsletter despite her enmity towards me, so here's what she said in her April email:
"Now... At some point in April I was supposed to begin a new job which would have brought the Foenix back to the Hobby level but things didn't work out quite as planned, did I dodged a bullet? Time will tell! So in a way, what I am trying to say is that for almost a year I have been resisting the idea to make the Foenix a full-time gig and despite my best effort to avoid it, it seems pretty obvious to me that I won't be able to escape it..."
She then goes on to discuss project future and sustainability and even hints at maybe moving beyond the 816 at some point.
So TLDR she's still working on it on an aggressive basis and it's not going to be abandoned.
This sounds like a much better spec. Using the 65c816 keeps the 8-bit vibe but doesn't force you to play the bank switching game to access more than 64K. DVI instead of VGA itself is also enough to give it a much better chance of success.
It's true you don't have to bank switch... but... the 816 doesn't have 32 bit or even 24-bit registers, so working with memory regions over 64k (such as the video framebuffer) is surprisingly awkward. You end up fiddling with the bank registers a lot, and doing a lot of futzing around. Having screen resolutions that require a framebuffer >64k isn't a good match for it, for example. And the program counter is a 16-bit register, too, so you can't have programs over 64k without incrementing the program bank register at the end of the 64k region, etc. Also the stack and direct page can't be located out of the bottom 64k, etc.
So while changing a bank register is easier than doing bank switching with a 6502, it's actually not that different. And using the 16-bit registers on the 816 require a mode change, so working back and forth between 8 and 16 bit values is also awkward.
The 816 on paper sounds good at first. In practice, after working with it for a while (I wrote an emulator for an earlier version of her machine and then started working on software) I found I didn't enjoy the 816 as much as I thought I would and understand better now why Commodore and Atari made the jump to the 68000 instead of to the 816 or other modifications to the 6502.
You can work with 24 bit pseudo registers in the direct page using the [dd],y addressing mode, basically scaling up the very useful (dd),y on the 6502 to be 24+16 bits instead of 16+8.
I am currently working on a compiler for the 65816 and has taken the approach of avoiding mode shifts as much as possible. I also lock the direct page and bank register to a fixed place while running normally. This simplifies it a lot.
Segmenting your functions/code block on 64K is not a huge limitation. How big functions do you write? LOL
The 65816 does require more discipline when programming than the 6502.
Yes, they all went 68000 which is no wonder as it was a step up further. The 16 revolution never really happened, we went from 8 to 32 bits computers.
Commodore did go back to modify the 6502 later, that was the Commodore 65. That the C65 project went as far as it did is beyond me. I would have stopped it immediately if I was shown it at the time, both from marketing and technical aspects. Today, I suppose it makes some minor sense to revive it as a curiosity, just for the sake of it.
I wonder how you can find the 65816 odd, when the Mega 65 comes with three altered variants of the 6502. Also considering that some well known 6502 programming idioms no longer works as before, as soon as you move the zero page or the stack. Having studied them all, I find the 65816 puts those 6502 variants to shame.
Yeah the Mega65 is also going to have these oddities. From reading though it does sound like it offers a nifty 32-bit single register from merging A,X,Y,Z. And I believe it also has relocatable direct page. So some tricks borrowed from the 6809.
When I was playing with the 816 I did use the technique you describe using the direct page. But I recall there being limits on where I could use that.
The 816 is a bunch of compromises. And some awkward ones because the opcode space was all eaten up.
I looked at the Mega65 with its three (not quite) 6502 CPU variants and I just found it so weird. Basically no 16 bit operations, instead a couple of 32 bit operations. Z register is no longer 0 and you have to set it non-zero to change bank configuration. Five instructions (nine bytes) to change bank and I do not understand how you can save the previous bank setting in case you want to restore it.
If you move the stack or zero page, the well known trick of using absolute plus index register no longer works the same as on the 6502 (breaking existing code). Sure, you could hardcode a different page, but the point of moving the stack is (probably) so you could do multi-tasking. But if processes are given different stack pages, they can no longer share code (if using such well known tricks in the code).
Moving zero page is in 256 steps, so you cannot use it as a movable stack frame (the 65816 can set it to any location in the first 64K).
I know there is a lot of interest in the Mega65, but I found it had so many poorly made design decisions that made me want to stay far away.
So far I find the 65816 to a well designed 16 bits ISA (I am also familiar with PDP-11, MSP430, MELPS7700 and Motorola 6812) that gives a lot of 6502 vibes, but is just a lot better. There are a couple of odd corners, probably due to the opcode space as you mention, but I would not call it a bunch of compromises.
To be clear, the value (to me) of the MEGA65 is not that its CPU is superior. It's that the developers of the project are spending a lot of time on the hard part: cases, keyboards, software, and tooling.
They have GEOS running on it, they have backwards compat with the C64, they have games modified to use its extra capabilities, they have injected molded plastic cases, they have keyboards and keycaps manufactured, they have a version of the Kernal and BASIC ported and expanded, they have a user manual, etc.
And it's a) open source and b) open.
And b) is key because they're also making it possible for their hardware to be used with other FPGA bitstreams, including ones developed for the MiST/MiSTer. They demoed their hardware being used with a GBA core running a GBA game.
Further, they seem to have a CC65 backend -- I don't know of what quality -- but it seems C based software is running on it.
That makes it an interesting and more complete platform and consumer product.
And if I want a better 6502 variant on it, I could do that myself and use one of the various 65xx variant cores out there, or write my own.
EDIT: And, yeah, from my perspective from just casually reading their docs is that the CPU in the MEGA65 is an 8-bit CPU with bank switching and a couple weird 32-bit ops. It's not a 16-bit machine despite.
But the thing about the 816 is that it's only _sort of_ a machine with a 24-bit address bus. It effectively just has a bank switching mechanism, but not external. Mensch really just bolted some stuff onto the front of the 65C02 and widened the accumulator and registers by 8 bits. But the 16-bit registers are a pain. I just wish he'd added some new registers (and a way of combining them) instead of having the mode switch.
There was sort-of a 16-bit revolution--it wasn't connected to the 8-bit one. The 68k systems were 16-bit hardware with all new/different operating systems. It was much later we got 68020 32-bit hardware. The IBM PC/AT was 16-bit hardware following the 8-bit 8088 PC. That got us to DOS/16M and Windows/286 and OS/2 v1.3 (good times). On the fun side we got the 16-bit wave of consoles. It was all very semi-business though--I really missed the 8-bit days all through this period. The best times were probably on the Amiga in EU.
Given that a 65c816 is what’s in the SNES, I’d say it has a distinctly 16-but vibe.
Don’t get me wrong; 16-bit is my favorite! Far too few retro projects targeting early-90s era tech, or its portable early-2000s mirror.
(Imagine if you will: a plug-and-play with extended GBA-clone hardware, with a tile-and-sprite PPU that could push 1080p@60 with tons of layered graphics colour-math + windowing + DMA effects, but which explicitly didn’t offer a bitmap mode, let alone 3D acceleration; and tack on both Flash storage and Ethernet APIs, exposed through simple MMIO hardware registers to the games, with all the complexity shunted to a Wii-like IO coprocessor running its own RTOS. It’d be the perfect modern platform for retro-modern 2D JRPGs to be released on. A WonderSwan+++, per se. A PlayStation Zero.)
Don't forget the hardware divider and the DS's sound capabilities!
I don't think retro 3D is a bad idea though. Just do what the DS does (keeping it separate from 2D in the process) and I think it would probably be the greatest console ever made.
It’s not that 3D is un-retro; it’s just a tempting crutch. Give people “free” 3D, even a little, and they’ll use it to the exclusion of interesting 2D effects. You’ll get FF7 instead of Terranigma / Symphony of the Night — still retro, but 1. the wrong era, and 2. not taking any advantage of the distinctive cool stuff the hardware can do, instead looking like every other low-poly 3D game.
Same with bitmap modes: people will use them as a crutch by combining them with software rendering.
(Maybe this could be fixed by putting a hard cap on the 3D frame rate. Maybe even make it so low that all 3D must be precomputed, baked down into a tile map and used through sprites! Under that restriction, it could look arbitrarily good, but the results would still look more SMRPG than Goldeneye.)
And same for sufficiently-good PCM sound. The ideal early-90s sound chip would be something like 128-voice polyphonic MIDI with a huge wavetable (but banked — no playing PCM by walking wavetable samples), passed through an arbitrary FM synth module, with the whole thing being bytecode that can do loops and branching.
> Speaking of "modern retro computing" there is already a player in the town: C256 Foenix
Is there any community site where I can download software for this machine? It is a very good feature of the other retro projects that there are centralized websites where can be distributed and downloaded software. For ZX Spectrum Next[1], for Commander X16[2] and for Mega65[3].
I think the lack of USB, as irritating as it is to implement, relegates this to the "curiousity" bin--not for keyboards, per se, but for storage and other connectivity. Still a cool project, though.
Something I’d buy, and that the Raspberry Pi almost might have been, is a computer running a “retro OS” (instantly boots, BASIC-like commands, direct access to hardware) on a semi-modern ARM chip with a few megs of RAM and HDMI out. That would be fun to tinker with and program for.
The problem with this is that it’s so incredibly hard to do anything in 8-bit, I can’t imagine many people going to all that trouble if they’re not even getting the badge of honor if running on real retro hardware.
32-bit, megabyte-order-of-magnitude is a much more interesting place to be than C64-equivalent hardware. You can actually make things that look and feel good, but you still need to be clever about it.
Nintendo GBA and DS are very much in this space, and are great fun to work with.
I’ve actually tinkered with GBA programming, and you’re exactly right. It’s surprisingly accessible. Of course, it’s built as a console, not a computer, so you can’t actually program on it. But give it more RAM instead of ROM, a keyboard, and you’re almost there.
Maybe it is a feature of how old you are? To me at 50, GBA/DS just doesn't seem very retro. It's just a slightly worse version of modern gaming with no real charm of its own. But I suppose if you are 30, it has nostalgia value because it was what you grew up with.
Well I'm 37. We might split hairs here about what is and isn't retro. The GBA came out in 2001, which admittedly isn't that long ago, but in many ways, it was simply a modernized, mobile variant of the SNES. Indeed, many of its most successful titles were simply ports of SNES games from the 90s, like Super Mario World. So in my mind, it's a mobile 16-bit console in spirit (I know it actually has a 32-bit ARM CPU). That's less true for the DS.
And I don't think many people would argue that 16-bit gaming had "no real charm", I consider it to be the peak of the 2D era. In fact, Super Mario World is often held as one of the best platformers of all the time. With all its fan mods, it's still widely played to this day. It's the early 3D era that followed that's mostly forgotten.
The DS is really just a GBA where you added a bit more every single thing there was in the GBA, and a really weird 3D chip. A bit more RAM, a bit more memory, a bit faster ARM, a few more graphics plane modes, and so on.
I think so. Although I had a C64, I cut my teeth on programming the Atari ST in assembler. The 68k is so much nicer to program than the 6502. The graphics and sound capabilities of the x16 is more in line with a turbo charged Atari ST or Amiga 500. That would be my dream retro station. Still I'll buy a x16 if it ever materializes, could be fun to play with some raster effects and sprites again.
And it's not just Linux. A little known fact is that during startup, before running a single instruction of Linux kernel code, the Pi spends the first several seconds booting the closed source OS that runs the weird Broadcom "VideoCore". Only then does it initialize the ARM processor and start the Linux kernel.
You’re right, that wouldn’t be too bad. I remember it being closer to five seconds, which I found really disappointing, and there are at least some hints of people with a similar experiences: https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=278248
All of this might depend on peripherals, settings, SD card and so on, so maybe there’s more room for optimization than I had realized.
There are a number of hobby projects that aim to do exactly that (provide the instant-on, boot to BASIC experience of old 8 bit micros) without just being a recreation of an old system.
One that looks particularly interesting is the Color Maximite 2, which meets your specs except for the HDMI out (it uses VGA):
While I love, love, love retrocomputing I don't understand why 99% of it is "retro-next" computing - instead of designing computer from some era people like to design much beefier next-gen machines. 2MB of RAM? 640x480? Why not use Amiga instead? Designing a machine that would beat c64 is insanely appealing to me. Designing a machine that would beat c64 because it came out a decade later and had larger ram chips and much larger gate count in a video chip? Meh...
At a guess, it's harder to get your hands on weaker chips in larger quantities. Larger chips are dirt-cheap, while for weaker ones you'd either have to raid NOS from warehouses, or fab it yourself (which is expensive, and sometimes outright impossible - I don't think we've got the tech to fab a SID chip any more, for instance).
The SID's major difficulties are due to it being an analogue-digitial hybrid. That's why most of the efforts have went down the emulation route, though there's apparently an FPGA SID replacement in development that's pretty close. The original 6581 is super impractical as each of those is different, but the later 8580 is much more practical to rebuild in FPGA form, even if emulating the analogue side is still awkward.
That's part of what I was referring to. The analogue-digital hybrid is one of the things that's difficult to replicate with the current manufacturing technology for fabbing new chips.
Most of isn't "retro-next" computing. There are a _very_ small number of projects of that kind, most notably the X16, the Mega65, and the Spectrum Next. The Maximites might fall into that, as might the MiST and MiSTer boards, but that's debatable. What _most_ people do are extensions to existing hardware (like the Amiga Vampire), replacements for failing chips (which might also include extra features because there's space still left on the FPGA), &c. Arguably, I wouldn't include the Mega65 in the list because it's meant to be more or less what was intended to be released as the Commodore 65, which basically leaves the X16 and Spectrum Next. The X16 and Spectrum Next are meant to be idealised forms of the respective machines they're based on, with the Next maintaining compatibility.
What most people build are things like Z80-based SBCs that behave like the CP/M machines of the past, but can take advantage of things like CompactFlash and higher clock speeds, but are essentially period accurate otherwise. Personally, I'd love to build a Jupiter Ace with all the random glue logic reduced down to a PLD, expanded enough to support an ~80-column display.
That sounds interesting, what are the exact rules of this game? Are you only allowed to use components that actually existed at the time, or ones that might have existed? I.e., do you have to use a 6502, or can you design a better CPU, using modern knowledge, but considering old fabrication techniques?
The Commander X16 is a computer that you should be able to understand how it works. You should be able to start the computer and poke away at the hardware and see results immediately. The Amiga is better and more usable, but it is a lot of complicated hardware.
Part of the appeal of old school computing was always lusting after the next computer in magazines that was way out of your price range. It's not like nowadays where an unnafordable PC plays games at a better framerate than what you have now. New computers were a huge leap in power.
So people want to evoke the spirit of their dream computers. Hardware that they always wanted but could never afford (or often never even existed)
Well, electronics-oriented owners have built “next” systems even back in the '80s (and '90s) (and '00s): overclocked (non video signal related parts), added memory (in a dozen of more or less incompatible ways), added expansion boards with a lot more powerful hardware, etc. Usually, the more someone was into it, the more unique their configuration was. So it continues to this day.
At the same time, anyone can actually go the pure retro way, and spend a couple of days soldering the period-correct home computer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rWCYo1UcOQ
What I would love is an affordable Amiga 500 clone. Extra points if it can also work as an Atari ST. Anyone knows if such thing exists? By affordable I mean 100~200 USD. HDMI and SATA for SSD/HDD. Thanks1
You can build that yourself, provided you have images of the Kickstart ROM and Workbench disks. You can boot the thing off of a hard disk image, the same kind used by modern *UAE emulators, or you can boot it off a floppy disk image.
When David Murray (8-bit-guy) first announced his 'dream computer' I was quite excited. His early descriptions were akin to something like a C128 but with more colours, faster CPU and modern connections, all in a single case, like the C128(not D) or C64. Plug into a screen or TV and just 'go'.
Somewhere along the way serious scope-creep happened, and now we've got something that looks and feels just like a mini-ITX Desktop PC running some sort of BASIC 'shell' (even though it's not). It just doesn't exude any Retro-vibes. I could build something almost identical out of off-the-shelf parts, and run a bare-metal Retro-OS emulator on it, and the end experience would be 99% the same.
It's a real shame... and like other commenters have said, I can't see this ending up as a commercial success.
Where did it lose the retro vibe for you? I see a board with very few simple chips where you could reasonably understand the whole system top to bottom. The hardware is still very limited.
The outside might not give you retro-vibes due due the case/keyboard design but inside it's still pretty retro. It's running an 8bit CPU and Microsoft BASIC.
Nothing is stopping you from buying the board and 3D printing a retro case/keyboard for it.
All these machines end up involving one or more FPGAs -- to varying degrees -- simply because of the requirements and logistics. There's varying types of purism involved ("FPGA only where we would have used a custom chip" or "FPGA but not for the CPU" etc) but once you start down that path the whole thing starts to seem silly as with many of these machines the entire functionality could be done on a single relatively inexpensive FPGA but isn't for purist reasons. And then you start realizing how arbitrary many of these projects are. They're admittedly nostalgia projects, but everyone's definition of what nostalgia is for them differs. Attempts to make it more "canonical" are made by locking down the FPGA use, or keep the source to it closed, but again... arbitrary.
In a way this is why I'm personally more interested in the MEGA65 project because it's all-in on the FPGA angle, all open source, and has focused more on the stuff that makes these projects actually logistically tricky: cases, keyboards, packaging, distribution, toolchains, OS, etc. And backwards compatible with the C64/C128, which is something the X16 and the C256 can't be.
It's taking a long time to finish, but I think it's really neat. And I feel like the developers are taking themselves a little less seriously/dogmatically and seem fun.
In a lot of cases, they aren't left with much of a choice. Many chips aren't in production any longer, either due to them being custom chips or due to them serving a need that the market no longer has. Stuffing everything into an FPGA isn't really a solution in this case since it effectively makes it a hands-off machine.
What do I mean by hands off? In terms of software, it doesn't make much of a difference. You can still develop for the machine and it will appear to be the genuine article. In terms of hardware, it is a different ballgame. At best, slots and ports may be exposed so stuff can be added to the machine. It will be a bit like using a modern desktop, albeit with the opportunity to develop your own expansion cards since the expansion bus can be more accessible than PCI-e. On the other hand, most modifications to the hardware itself must be made through the FPGA. The FPGA route will be more flexible, but it requires an entirely different skill set. Relatively few people have the skill or interest to deal with FPGAs, particularly if they are seeking something more comforting than modern hardware.
How is replicating something like the video chip with an FPGA somehow acceptable? Presumably it is because it has to interface with the rest of the system in a conventional way and since people were unable to modify the video chip in vintage computers anyhow. Since it is interfacing with the system in a conventional way, you can also mess around with the video circuitry surrounding the chip.
I'm building a hobby computer from scratch with a modern 80s era CPU. Anyone doing this kind of thing as a hobby has to decide what kind of project it is, what you want to get out of it, and where you draw the line between modern and old.
For me, I had never done electronics before so actually wiring up the components and doing logic at a electrical level was interesting in itself. But also I'm interested applying my programming knowledge to the limitations of that era. It's sort of an art project. No matter what, a computer today with an 8Bit CPU isn't practical.
I'm going to have a 6502 CPU, I'm going to try for 1MB of RAM banked, SD card for storage, and I'm thinking of using a Pi Pico as a VGA graphics card. Obviously using a Pi Pico in a project with an 8bit CPU is "silly" but that still satisfies my own goal. Other people working on these types of computers tracking down chips from that era or are building their own TTL-logic basic graphics cards because they have different goals.
Why not a 65816? That gives you the 6502 compatibility and a larger address space mode when you want it.
In a way, an anemic CPU makes sense if you go back to the old Commodore model of smart peripherlas. You don't need a lot of CPU horsepower, for example, if you can communicate with the mass storage/network card/etc at a high level and it just DMAs into place.
The bus de-multiplexing with the 65816 is a pain for amateur hobby stuff.
A W65C265S is worth looking at, tho it has some annoying masked ROM shipped on it you have to work around. It's basically an 65816 + UARTs + PIA + other stuff all packaged together. It has a boatload of pins which can be programmed to be either GPIO or the full address bus of the 65816 (instead of having demultiplex them like on the real 816).
Comes in PLCC format, which is relatively hobbyist friendly as you can get adapters for breadboard, and it can be done thru-hole. Only downsides I found are the onboard ROM (which you can shortcircuit around I believe) and its maximum bus speed is 8mhz, lower than the 14mhz of the 65816.
Pretty cool. I am not too knowledgeable about fpgas but the 144 qfp or bga parts have so many pins. If you have 32 clocks per clock of emulation that is plenty leeway to have an awesome debug header and monitor that was never possible with the real thing.
The retro designs that I really want to see made real would be the ones done by "Arne"[1].
Most of the designs would be impossible, being pretty steeped in trademarks, but they've explored some interesting ideas, like alternate keyboard layouts (ABC, 4 rows etc.) and mashups of all kinds of "retro" machines.
We're also not seeing that many 16-bit faux-retro designs (i.e. not straight-forward Amiga/Atari clones). Either because they tend to be more complex, or because this follows the same trends as fashion and music, where we e.g. had 80s synthwave followed by 90s vaporwave and now more 00s sounds and looks. Since the time for that should've come by now, I think it's more the complexity angle. "Just" hooking up a 6502/z80 seems an order of magnitude easier than coming up with whatever the equivalent of custom chips would be. Never mind that because of the scale economy, you'd have to do the latter with FPGA, which is a step down on the ladder of retro authenticity.
The channel "Retro recipe" on YT been mostly driving this and has few video's over time with updates and news nuggets upon the progress and now - finally here. Worth checking out the channel if your into that kinda stuff and one of the better ones for that retro nostalgia.
I get building a C64 (or other retro systems) but with HDMI ports and components that can be sourced without dumpster diving. I don't want to replace a bunch of capacitors to play 80s games either.
But why would I spend good money on a Commander X16 when I could buy a (say) Raspberry Pi. If I'm going to buy a modern system, then why not buy a modern system?
some people want the real hardware. some people want to need a stack of cartridges or tapes and to go through the motions of committing to a decision such as which game to play.
if it is virtual, or emulated, there's almost no weight to decisions you make, because it's so easy to switch games if you don't immediately like the game you chose. I find that I don't give things a chance as I would if I had to get up and walk to change a cartridge in a real SNES, as an example.
if emulation works for you, then emulate. go crazy. I don't get emulation, and I'm not going to tell someone that they're wrong for liking it, because they aren't.
for some, emulation isn't enough, that's all.
there are also technical reasons people don't like emulation, but most people don't care about those as much as they care about the experience of the old school systems.
This is true, but it's in the same style as a C64 architecture.
These guys already own C64's. You can convert the signal to HDMI if you want a C64 with HDMI. You can get C64 Maxi if you want the physical experience with emulation. All possibilities are out there.
The purpose of this is to be something new, solving some of the problems of the C64, while retaining the same architectural style.
I think this is a good idea. If successful, it will create a stable platform for 8 bit 6502 people to target their creations and talk about as a community. Those involved are making compromises as time goes on as the ideas hit reality. From what I can see the compromises seem appropriate.
I can easily see a small island of activity around this platform. Plenty of scope for wikis, social media, youtube, etc etc.
115 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadI 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/
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.
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.
Yeah, not the same appeal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1309664882283950081
https://www.reddit.com/r/retrobattlestations/comments/izuswa...
for example https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=76713
It may be rare and special to us, but at the end of the day it is just hardware.
Should be just as understandable to a newbie as a 6502 / Basic combo, but with a much better path to current computing environments.
In the meantime various RISC-V SoCs have come to market which could probably do the job well.
David did a couple of episodes where he goes through the desired specs, and later the design. A lot of the design comes from the community.
320x240 (double-pixel), 640x480, 800x600 all with 8 bit colors - 2 to 4MB of RAM, SD-card, IDE, FDD, joysticks, DVI for modern monitors - there are even expansion cards (second monitor(!), Ethernet) already available.
Community is - currently - small and it affects the amount of software available, unfortunately - but it is a matter of time, I hope.
There is a wiki [4], but discussions and deep technical details are available mostly on project Discord [5].
1 - https://c256foenix.com/
2 - https://github.com/Trinity-11/FoenixIDE
3 - https://github.com/aniou/go65c816
4 - https://wiki.c256foenix.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
5 - https://discord.gg/wvM2vABR
6 - https://github.com/aniou/of816/tree/C256/platforms/C256
7 - https://github.com/aniou/retro816
I went to the link:
Available: it's all sold out. Admittedly, it exists more than the project of this post, which was announced 2 years ago and still has to deliver.
Affordable: disputable, this is priced $220/$260 for a bare board (no power supply, no case) so you can find cheaper Amiga/ST FPGA boards; but it is not ridiculously expensive either and some of those Amiga/ST boards are unavailable too.
Re: affordable: I come rather from 8-bit Atari and - in my opinion - it is not a cheap hobby. Modern extensions like Sophia2 or VBXL aren't cheap, memory extensions also require some bucks. Not mention about SD-card interfaces, although they are cheaper. And re-implementations like already assembled EclaireXL or Atari 1088 XEL are even more expensive.
> Stefany and I disagree over some of the design at the moment. For example she has an integrated floppy drive, MIDI ports, SID chips, and a whole host of other things that I don’t feel are necessary and will inflate the cost of the computer.
> Even if she agreed to all of my design changes, it would still be a computer that would be $80 or more for somebody to buy, well above the original price point I was hoping to target.
Stefany is a hyper-competent hardware engineer and her machine is excellent. It is an interesting machine -- and it exists. But I personally cancelled my order after a personality conflict with her.
I personally am excited about the Mega65.
But there's no info about it on that website. Is there anywhere that I can read about design, specs etc?
I vaguely remember an announcement video there where she discusses the sunsetting process of the project, delivering what was built, etc. But either there has been a change or I'm mistaken.
"Now... At some point in April I was supposed to begin a new job which would have brought the Foenix back to the Hobby level but things didn't work out quite as planned, did I dodged a bullet? Time will tell! So in a way, what I am trying to say is that for almost a year I have been resisting the idea to make the Foenix a full-time gig and despite my best effort to avoid it, it seems pretty obvious to me that I won't be able to escape it..."
She then goes on to discuss project future and sustainability and even hints at maybe moving beyond the 816 at some point.
So TLDR she's still working on it on an aggressive basis and it's not going to be abandoned.
So while changing a bank register is easier than doing bank switching with a 6502, it's actually not that different. And using the 16-bit registers on the 816 require a mode change, so working back and forth between 8 and 16 bit values is also awkward.
The 816 on paper sounds good at first. In practice, after working with it for a while (I wrote an emulator for an earlier version of her machine and then started working on software) I found I didn't enjoy the 816 as much as I thought I would and understand better now why Commodore and Atari made the jump to the 68000 instead of to the 816 or other modifications to the 6502.
I am currently working on a compiler for the 65816 and has taken the approach of avoiding mode shifts as much as possible. I also lock the direct page and bank register to a fixed place while running normally. This simplifies it a lot.
Segmenting your functions/code block on 64K is not a huge limitation. How big functions do you write? LOL
The 65816 does require more discipline when programming than the 6502.
Yes, they all went 68000 which is no wonder as it was a step up further. The 16 revolution never really happened, we went from 8 to 32 bits computers.
Commodore did go back to modify the 6502 later, that was the Commodore 65. That the C65 project went as far as it did is beyond me. I would have stopped it immediately if I was shown it at the time, both from marketing and technical aspects. Today, I suppose it makes some minor sense to revive it as a curiosity, just for the sake of it.
I wonder how you can find the 65816 odd, when the Mega 65 comes with three altered variants of the 6502. Also considering that some well known 6502 programming idioms no longer works as before, as soon as you move the zero page or the stack. Having studied them all, I find the 65816 puts those 6502 variants to shame.
When I was playing with the 816 I did use the technique you describe using the direct page. But I recall there being limits on where I could use that.
The 816 is a bunch of compromises. And some awkward ones because the opcode space was all eaten up.
If you move the stack or zero page, the well known trick of using absolute plus index register no longer works the same as on the 6502 (breaking existing code). Sure, you could hardcode a different page, but the point of moving the stack is (probably) so you could do multi-tasking. But if processes are given different stack pages, they can no longer share code (if using such well known tricks in the code). Moving zero page is in 256 steps, so you cannot use it as a movable stack frame (the 65816 can set it to any location in the first 64K).
I know there is a lot of interest in the Mega65, but I found it had so many poorly made design decisions that made me want to stay far away.
So far I find the 65816 to a well designed 16 bits ISA (I am also familiar with PDP-11, MSP430, MELPS7700 and Motorola 6812) that gives a lot of 6502 vibes, but is just a lot better. There are a couple of odd corners, probably due to the opcode space as you mention, but I would not call it a bunch of compromises.
They have GEOS running on it, they have backwards compat with the C64, they have games modified to use its extra capabilities, they have injected molded plastic cases, they have keyboards and keycaps manufactured, they have a version of the Kernal and BASIC ported and expanded, they have a user manual, etc.
And it's a) open source and b) open.
And b) is key because they're also making it possible for their hardware to be used with other FPGA bitstreams, including ones developed for the MiST/MiSTer. They demoed their hardware being used with a GBA core running a GBA game.
Further, they seem to have a CC65 backend -- I don't know of what quality -- but it seems C based software is running on it.
That makes it an interesting and more complete platform and consumer product.
And if I want a better 6502 variant on it, I could do that myself and use one of the various 65xx variant cores out there, or write my own.
EDIT: And, yeah, from my perspective from just casually reading their docs is that the CPU in the MEGA65 is an 8-bit CPU with bank switching and a couple weird 32-bit ops. It's not a 16-bit machine despite.
But the thing about the 816 is that it's only _sort of_ a machine with a 24-bit address bus. It effectively just has a bank switching mechanism, but not external. Mensch really just bolted some stuff onto the front of the 65C02 and widened the accumulator and registers by 8 bits. But the 16-bit registers are a pain. I just wish he'd added some new registers (and a way of combining them) instead of having the mode switch.
Given that a 65c816 is what’s in the SNES, I’d say it has a distinctly 16-but vibe.
Don’t get me wrong; 16-bit is my favorite! Far too few retro projects targeting early-90s era tech, or its portable early-2000s mirror.
(Imagine if you will: a plug-and-play with extended GBA-clone hardware, with a tile-and-sprite PPU that could push 1080p@60 with tons of layered graphics colour-math + windowing + DMA effects, but which explicitly didn’t offer a bitmap mode, let alone 3D acceleration; and tack on both Flash storage and Ethernet APIs, exposed through simple MMIO hardware registers to the games, with all the complexity shunted to a Wii-like IO coprocessor running its own RTOS. It’d be the perfect modern platform for retro-modern 2D JRPGs to be released on. A WonderSwan+++, per se. A PlayStation Zero.)
I don't think retro 3D is a bad idea though. Just do what the DS does (keeping it separate from 2D in the process) and I think it would probably be the greatest console ever made.
Same with bitmap modes: people will use them as a crutch by combining them with software rendering.
(Maybe this could be fixed by putting a hard cap on the 3D frame rate. Maybe even make it so low that all 3D must be precomputed, baked down into a tile map and used through sprites! Under that restriction, it could look arbitrarily good, but the results would still look more SMRPG than Goldeneye.)
And same for sufficiently-good PCM sound. The ideal early-90s sound chip would be something like 128-voice polyphonic MIDI with a huge wavetable (but banked — no playing PCM by walking wavetable samples), passed through an arbitrary FM synth module, with the whole thing being bytecode that can do loops and branching.
Is there any community site where I can download software for this machine? It is a very good feature of the other retro projects that there are centralized websites where can be distributed and downloaded software. For ZX Spectrum Next[1], for Commander X16[2] and for Mega65[3].
[1] https://www.specnext.com/software-directory/
[2] https://www.commanderx16.com/forum/index.php?/files/
[3] https://files.mega65.org/html/main.php
The problem with this is that it’s so incredibly hard to do anything in 8-bit, I can’t imagine many people going to all that trouble if they’re not even getting the badge of honor if running on real retro hardware.
Nintendo GBA and DS are very much in this space, and are great fun to work with.
And I don't think many people would argue that 16-bit gaming had "no real charm", I consider it to be the peak of the 2D era. In fact, Super Mario World is often held as one of the best platformers of all the time. With all its fan mods, it's still widely played to this day. It's the early 3D era that followed that's mostly forgotten.
Apparently rpi spends about as long on vc boot as it does for kernel+userland combined... Not great imho
All of this might depend on peripherals, settings, SD card and so on, so maybe there’s more room for optimization than I had realized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThreadX
https://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/Software%...
One that looks particularly interesting is the Color Maximite 2, which meets your specs except for the HDMI out (it uses VGA):
https://geoffg.net/maximite.html
What most people build are things like Z80-based SBCs that behave like the CP/M machines of the past, but can take advantage of things like CompactFlash and higher clock speeds, but are essentially period accurate otherwise. Personally, I'd love to build a Jupiter Ace with all the random glue logic reduced down to a PLD, expanded enough to support an ~80-column display.
So people want to evoke the spirit of their dream computers. Hardware that they always wanted but could never afford (or often never even existed)
At the same time, anyone can actually go the pure retro way, and spend a couple of days soldering the period-correct home computer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rWCYo1UcOQ
https://amigastore.eu/en/358-mist-midi-fpga-computer-with-mi...
221,95 Euro (Approx 271 USD)
EDIT: some other sellers: https://www.amedia-computer.com/en/accueil/275-mist-midi-13-... https://www.dragonbox.de/en/consoles/other-consoles/mist-fpg...
Somewhere along the way serious scope-creep happened, and now we've got something that looks and feels just like a mini-ITX Desktop PC running some sort of BASIC 'shell' (even though it's not). It just doesn't exude any Retro-vibes. I could build something almost identical out of off-the-shelf parts, and run a bare-metal Retro-OS emulator on it, and the end experience would be 99% the same.
It's a real shame... and like other commenters have said, I can't see this ending up as a commercial success.
Nothing is stopping you from buying the board and 3D printing a retro case/keyboard for it.
Hmm. Please HDMI? Please wide screen? (I mean 853x480 or even 426x240 not 1080p).
I don't see the retro monitor this is supposed to be paired with for sale.
In a way this is why I'm personally more interested in the MEGA65 project because it's all-in on the FPGA angle, all open source, and has focused more on the stuff that makes these projects actually logistically tricky: cases, keyboards, packaging, distribution, toolchains, OS, etc. And backwards compatible with the C64/C128, which is something the X16 and the C256 can't be.
It's taking a long time to finish, but I think it's really neat. And I feel like the developers are taking themselves a little less seriously/dogmatically and seem fun.
https://mega65.org/
What do I mean by hands off? In terms of software, it doesn't make much of a difference. You can still develop for the machine and it will appear to be the genuine article. In terms of hardware, it is a different ballgame. At best, slots and ports may be exposed so stuff can be added to the machine. It will be a bit like using a modern desktop, albeit with the opportunity to develop your own expansion cards since the expansion bus can be more accessible than PCI-e. On the other hand, most modifications to the hardware itself must be made through the FPGA. The FPGA route will be more flexible, but it requires an entirely different skill set. Relatively few people have the skill or interest to deal with FPGAs, particularly if they are seeking something more comforting than modern hardware.
How is replicating something like the video chip with an FPGA somehow acceptable? Presumably it is because it has to interface with the rest of the system in a conventional way and since people were unable to modify the video chip in vintage computers anyhow. Since it is interfacing with the system in a conventional way, you can also mess around with the video circuitry surrounding the chip.
For me, I had never done electronics before so actually wiring up the components and doing logic at a electrical level was interesting in itself. But also I'm interested applying my programming knowledge to the limitations of that era. It's sort of an art project. No matter what, a computer today with an 8Bit CPU isn't practical.
I'm going to have a 6502 CPU, I'm going to try for 1MB of RAM banked, SD card for storage, and I'm thinking of using a Pi Pico as a VGA graphics card. Obviously using a Pi Pico in a project with an 8bit CPU is "silly" but that still satisfies my own goal. Other people working on these types of computers tracking down chips from that era or are building their own TTL-logic basic graphics cards because they have different goals.
In a way, an anemic CPU makes sense if you go back to the old Commodore model of smart peripherlas. You don't need a lot of CPU horsepower, for example, if you can communicate with the mass storage/network card/etc at a high level and it just DMAs into place.
A W65C265S is worth looking at, tho it has some annoying masked ROM shipped on it you have to work around. It's basically an 65816 + UARTs + PIA + other stuff all packaged together. It has a boatload of pins which can be programmed to be either GPIO or the full address bus of the 65816 (instead of having demultiplex them like on the real 816).
Comes in PLCC format, which is relatively hobbyist friendly as you can get adapters for breadboard, and it can be done thru-hole. Only downsides I found are the onboard ROM (which you can shortcircuit around I believe) and its maximum bus speed is 8mhz, lower than the 14mhz of the 65816.
Most of the designs would be impossible, being pretty steeped in trademarks, but they've explored some interesting ideas, like alternate keyboard layouts (ABC, 4 rows etc.) and mashups of all kinds of "retro" machines.
We're also not seeing that many 16-bit faux-retro designs (i.e. not straight-forward Amiga/Atari clones). Either because they tend to be more complex, or because this follows the same trends as fashion and music, where we e.g. had 80s synthwave followed by 90s vaporwave and now more 00s sounds and looks. Since the time for that should've come by now, I think it's more the complexity angle. "Just" hooking up a 6502/z80 seems an order of magnitude easier than coming up with whatever the equivalent of custom chips would be. Never mind that because of the scale economy, you'd have to do the latter with FPGA, which is a step down on the ladder of retro authenticity.
[1]: https://androidarts.com
The channel "Retro recipe" on YT been mostly driving this and has few video's over time with updates and news nuggets upon the progress and now - finally here. Worth checking out the channel if your into that kinda stuff and one of the better ones for that retro nostalgia.
clearly art https://imgur.com/Y36FUCg
The fpga graphics controller seems like overkill to me.
I get building a C64 (or other retro systems) but with HDMI ports and components that can be sourced without dumpster diving. I don't want to replace a bunch of capacitors to play 80s games either.
But why would I spend good money on a Commander X16 when I could buy a (say) Raspberry Pi. If I'm going to buy a modern system, then why not buy a modern system?
some people want the real hardware. some people want to need a stack of cartridges or tapes and to go through the motions of committing to a decision such as which game to play.
if it is virtual, or emulated, there's almost no weight to decisions you make, because it's so easy to switch games if you don't immediately like the game you chose. I find that I don't give things a chance as I would if I had to get up and walk to change a cartridge in a real SNES, as an example.
if emulation works for you, then emulate. go crazy. I don't get emulation, and I'm not going to tell someone that they're wrong for liking it, because they aren't.
for some, emulation isn't enough, that's all.
there are also technical reasons people don't like emulation, but most people don't care about those as much as they care about the experience of the old school systems.
These guys already own C64's. You can convert the signal to HDMI if you want a C64 with HDMI. You can get C64 Maxi if you want the physical experience with emulation. All possibilities are out there.
The purpose of this is to be something new, solving some of the problems of the C64, while retaining the same architectural style.
I can easily see a small island of activity around this platform. Plenty of scope for wikis, social media, youtube, etc etc.