Commander X16

4 hours ago, maktos said:

For me, Dave's goal to keep the system understandable, buildable, hackable (discrete components rather than FPGA) is a big plus.

But is it ?

I agree with you on the root concepts idea - I've always said people should do something like program a PIC16C84 or a C64 or something like that so they know at root what's going on (some PHP programmer told me "Boolean Algebra's not a thing" any more ...).

Not sure we're there. Might be better off doing the Ben Eater design , or something similar to do the basic stuff.

The X16 also appeals to my desire to experience some of that 8-bit era of programming, through the rose-tinted glasses of modern programming environments and tools.
Personally, I've looked at a lot of the other 8-bit projects, whether based on real platforms or not, as having a high possibility of being vaporware, or else being a cash-in from the IP owners.
I don't fault the cash-ins for what they are; my nostalgia simply runs in along different veins. I'd rather see cash-ins than abandonment, and the historical preservation factor is no small part of that.
But the X16 has the "Dave factor", which to me brings two important qualities to make me interested:

• Dave has shipped products before.
• Dave has an audience and community he can easily promote his project with, which may not exist to the same extent for other 8-bit projects.

I happen to also appreciate the goal of implementing the system entirely without FPGAs (albeit with asterisks since certain hardware is no longer available), this makes it feel more authentically 8-bit to me, since it's not emulated magic. I actually somewhat hope there will be some hardware quirks discovered post-launch, as long as they aren't too annoying. :3

The ”Dave factor” is important for me too. There is a large X16 community already. I just hope people won’t be tired of waiting for the computer to arrive.

Besides that I like the balance between limitations and possibilities. As someone mentioned 8 Mhz is perfect, you don’ have to count every cycle but you still have to think about what’s possible. Likewise for the amount of memory and 320x240 is perfect for homemade games. But it’s sad that the 65816 couldn’t be used. 16 bit arithmetics get tedious to implement after a while even if you use macros.

I don’t know much about retrocomputers but I have visited the Mega65 site. It looks professional but I wasn’t able to understand much, not even if the computer was ready and for sale. The X16 site is much better. An emulator to download, two reference manuals to read and you’re on your way (still I must admit I struggled with a lot of things in the beginning...)

I'm not a developer, just a standard user interested in reliving my youth.

I've been aware of the Mega65 for some time, but I knew relatively little about it (as compared to the X16) before Nostalgia Nerd's video released today.

Based on what I saw in the video, it seems really cool. Very capable and showcasing a lot of features. Clearly the price will have to come down, but backwards compatibility and HDMI are both really compelling!

That being said, the 'kitchen sink' model they seemed to have followed, such as having both an internal floppy and external peripheral support, having both internal SD and external microSD, and the planned Amiga and AtariST cores for the FPGA really have me concerned that the product won't be cost reduced enough for mass market. Also, the complexity they have gone for also slows down development. I don't doubt the product will eventually come out, but I am concerned how long it will take considering the time already invested and the potential for future issues as they refine the dev kits for mass market.

To use a Commodore example, to me the Mega65 appears to be (philosophically) linked to the Commodore 128, whereas the X16 is much closer to the Vic20.

My guess is the X16 will appeal more strongly to those interested in 6502 programming (over the Mega65) because of its simplicity and focus, whereas the Mega65 will appeal more to those that want to have maximum hardware compatibility with their existing Commodore collections.



For myself personally, I want a new Commodore toy that won't destroy the bank and will (eventually) feature a strong software catalogue of new games pushing the hardware in new and interesting ways.

Having just watched a pretty thorough walk through of  the 65, I'm pretty impressed. Sure it was expensive, but it'll get better. Maybe.

A couple things that are interesting to me:

1. 
   GO 64 - I can have my cake and eat it too
   


2. 
   They have shipped 100 units, so it's real(ish).
   


3. 
   The software development is already pretty mature
   

 

 

I will probably end up with both systems.  I have experience with FPGA, so that isn't a religious issue for me. I spend my days on modern computers working in modern languages. In my heart I yearn for simpler times. I deal with so many layers of abstraction in my day to day that the idea of a single core with a single address space gives me a sense of peace. ?

I like X16 because I hopefully will have access to the hardware schematics at some point, so I can understand the system soup to nuts. I also like the possibility of creating my own expansion cards. I'm planning to begin playing with developing some simple programs over winter break.

 The Mega65 has increased memory and processor power as well as network capabilities which opens some interesting possibilities. I would love to have a system that I could use as part of my daily workflow, and the Mega65 might be able to run a simple remote shell, a code editor and a simple mail client.

I totally agree with some of the earlier comments that the community is what makes or breaks projects like these. I am excited to be a part of the X16 community and plan to explore the Mega65 community as well.

-Luke

9 hours ago, paulscottrobson said:

But is it ?



I agree with you on the root concepts idea - I've always said people should do something like program a PIC16C84 or a C64 or something like that so they know at root what's going on (some PHP programmer told me "Boolean Algebra's not a thing" any more ...).



Not sure we're there. Might be better off doing the Ben Eater design , or something similar to do the basic stuff.

Ben Eater's designs are pretty cool.  However, I would want added:

* a version of the Commodore ROMs

* a bit more RAM -- and yes, banked would be nice

* sprites and SIDs

* A KEYBOARD



In short, the X16 gets closest to what I want:

* a PET with 80 columns, sprites, SIDs, and more RAM. 

* a C64 with 80 columns and a clean memory model.

* a VIC20 with 80 columns, sprites, SIDs, and RAM.



Banked high RAM, you say?  Sign me up!

 

The graphics and sound are ... more complex than I'd like.  I suppose that's to make it appeal to the demo scene.

 

The MEGA65... I really want to like it, but Paul is a hardware C.S. professor, and uses that architecture to teach his students some advanced juju.  It is quite beyond my energy level to learn.  Paul is also a cool guy, down to earth and all that.  And the C65 is worth vitalizing and realizing in some form today.  So, yeah, I want to like it. 

But I can't wrap my head around it, and I won't be able to afford it.  So.

 

2 hours ago, rje said:

Ben Eater's designs are pretty cool.  However, I would want added:

* a version of the Commodore ROMs

* a bit more RAM -- and yes, banked would be nice

* sprites and SIDs

* A KEYBOARD



In short, the X16 gets closest to what I want:

* a PET with 80 columns, sprites, SIDs, and more RAM. 

* a C64 with 80 columns and a clean memory model.

* a VIC20 with 80 columns, sprites, SIDs, and RAM.



Banked high RAM, you say?  Sign me up!



 



The graphics and sound are ... more complex than I'd like.  I suppose that's to make it appeal to the demo scene.



 



The MEGA65... I really want to like it, but Paul is a hardware C.S. professor, and uses that architecture to teach his students some advanced juju.  It is quite beyond my energy level to learn.  Paul is also a cool guy, down to earth and all that.  And the C65 is worth vitalizing and realizing in some form today.  So, yeah, I want to like it. 



But I can't wrap my head around it, and I won't be able to afford it.  So.



 

I was suggesting doing both ? If you work through Ben Eater's 6502 course (I've only skimmed it) you won't have much of a computer but you'll learn a heck of a lot. Then progress to a machine like the X16 and you should be able to see the links between what you learnt on the first course and what the X16 is doing. Though you'd have to view Vera as a "magic box" I think. That's basically what I did, I started with an SC/MP trainer board and then had one of chicklet key PETs. I'm very glad I didn't start by using C# or Java and never dropping down.

The Mega65 isn't that different to the CX16, the documentation isn't very clear is half the problem. In some ways it's simpler, because you can write to screen memory in the same way you do on a C64/PET/VIC. In some ways it's more complex - DMA and stuff.

Pricewise .... I suspect more M65 than SpecNext levels.

MEGA65 is a great project, but it seems like an overkill to me. This thing does too many things and has a complicated design. Good benefit it's a new machine and has compatibility with C64. But for a modern variant of C64 I'd better choose C64 Reloaded MK2 and C64C Case from individual Computers. Well, may be I'm simply not a Commodore geek to want MEGA65. )

I like X16 for its simplicity. Though VERA adds a bit of hardware complexity, but from programming point it's simple enough. I believe in future there will alternative much simpler video card, because nothing stops from building one. Also I very much like to follow X16 project progress in David's videos, Facebook group and this site of course.

I actually think it is an advantage that the X16 isn't backwards compatible with the C64. That brings the software we all write into focus. If people buy the computer and want to test some games, it will be the games we make, not just Blue Max, Paradroid and Impossible Mission. This is a retrocomputer but it is also a new computer, with a new hardware design and a new video chip and we write new software for it. I like that, it motivates me.

There is one minor upside. There are some games - Elite was demoed by someone on the M65, have seen similar on the Next - Driller is another good example, the 3D adventure that the processor couldn't really cope with. These now run at a decent speed.

Having said that , most emulators allow you to hack the emulated CPU speed anyway