Commander X16

I think, one major aspect for the decision whether to take an X8 or wait for a more perfect X16 is the time to market. If you have to decide between getting an X8 in, lets say, 2021 (or 1st half of 2022) or waiting for an X16 several years from now on, this could have significantly influence to the answers. A dream 8-bit machine only has a good chance to convince people if it does not remain a dream but becomes available in real hardware (no matter whether in DIL chips or "programmed" in FPGA). So the big question is, how the project members incl. and around David estimate the likelyhood of getting the X16 to market in the next few years - even if it is just the board without case, keyboard or power supply (assuming the hardware is compatible with common keyboards, mice and power supplies; the case shouldn't be a big problem with a wood store around the corner and the ability of using a saw to cut plywood).

On 9/27/2021 at 2:38 AM, Ju+Te said:

I think, one major aspect for the decision whether to take an X8 or wait for a more perfect X16 is the time to market. If you have to decide between getting an X8 in, lets say, 2021 (or 1st half of 2022) or waiting for an X16 several years from now on, this could have significantly influence to the answers. A dream 8-bit machine only has a good chance to convince people if it does not remain a dream but becomes available in real hardware (no matter whether in DIL chips or "programmed" in FPGA). So the big question is, how the project members incl. and around David estimate the likelyhood of getting the X16 to market in the next few years - even if it is just the board without case, keyboard or power supply (assuming the hardware is compatible with common keyboards, mice and power supplies; the case shouldn't be a big problem with a wood store around the corner and the ability of using a saw to cut plywood).

A DIY X16p doesn't seem like "several years from now" ... from the reported state of affairs on the prototype and the current state of the system code on the development branch of the emulator, half a year would seem like a conservative release date for a crowdfund.

On 8/20/2021 at 12:29 AM, The 8-Bit Guy said:

Phase 2 would likely have 1 or possibly 2 expansion slots compatible with the phase-1 system.  Phase 3 would have no expansion capabilities.

My advice is based on various business and computer science training and a little experience.

I recommend producing and shipping an initial X8 system ASAP whether you offer DIY kit and/or preassembled.

Think about more than just the numbers you also need to consider intangibles those things for which you cannot directly assign dollar values.

For example people need to be able to get their hands on an actual system to stimulate them and keep up their morale so they will be willing to wait for an X16 system.

Be clear about everything involved with regard to a DIY kit and recommend it only to those who have more than enthusiasm they must already have experience with assembling such things otherwise you will have a headache and discouraged customers.

The emulator should be dropped right under their nose repeatedly so they are reassured that they can give the system a full go without handing over their wallet.

I am willing to buy a 'baby' X8 system and I bet many other former hobbyists and people curious about computer science are willing to risk it.

********

Good Luck,

Dan.

My opinion on the X8:

I think current X8/X16 resembles quite a bit the Commodore 16/Commodore 64 situation. The C16 had superior hardware in some ways (more colours and faster MHz for example) but inferior in others like less memory and poorer other performance. And most importantly neither were compatible. I think this is a much more apt comparison to X8/X16 than the sometimes mentioned C64/C128 are, because the latter were compatible and the C64 was a true subset of the C128... Which the X8 does not seem to be compared to X16 in the current plan... Indeed the C128 fared much better on the market compared to the C16 and while it did not add terribly to the ecosystem in terms of capabilities used, it did not harm it either.

From this mistake Commodore made, I come to my opinion that X8/X16 should be more like C64/C128 and not at all like C16/C64...

If the X8 is released, it would be best in my view if it were 100% a subset of X16 as far as software development compatibility goes. Basically, the X8 FPGA should be configured to simulate an X16, simply with less memory/features. Nothing better, nothing different! Firstly, the MHz should not exceed the X16, that should be an easy part. Secondly, the VRAM access should be made similar, I think that should not pose major problems either? These would go a long way into making the X8 a subset of X16 (so more C64/C128 rather than C16/C64 situation). I'm sure there are other details that would need adjusting as well, but you get the idea I hope. If you can't make it 100% a subset, a 99% subset is much better than 80% etc... If you can't make it very close, I would not release at all.

Just my two cents and good luck all with the project!

To further flesh out my idea in the above message:

I think X8 not being superior in any way compared to X16 is even more important than not being different, for the X16 to make sense after an X8 release. For example, it was mentioned upthread that perhaps the X8 can't be made to use VRAM exactly like X16 is. I could see this being the case, however that would not automatically mean that it would need to be given superior features.

The X8 window into VRAM is a superior feature compared to X16 and would be detrimental to the ecosystem similar to how the C16/C64 dynamic worked. If it turns out (if?) the X8 can't be made exactly the same in this regard, it could still be made very close – for example allow writing to a single byte window only. Scale the window down to one byte, similar to tuning the MHz down to the same as X16. This way the VRAM address might be different, but VRAM access would not be superior.

I know this is a crude example, but just thought I'd mention. My humble opinion only.

I agree that software written for the X8 should run on the X16, too. Maybe it is possible to use the same VRAM access of the X8 for the X16 phase 3, too?

What I'd like to keep in the X8 is the USB port for keyboard/mouse. But this should not influence the software at all.

Indeed the software side is what matters. I think a single, compatible target platform is important for the success of any retro platform. It has been a good recipe for the ZX Spectrum Next and I expect it will work wonders for the MEGA65 as well, once released. Where there are too many or ever-changing targets, it may be that much harder to reach critical mass.

I COULD BE WRONG, BUT:

 

I think compatibility is overrated, for two theoretical and two practical reasons.

First, if the two systems were compatible, then the least capable one is likely to be what developers code for generally, and the more capable one is likely to be what the demoscene codes for.  In other words, you split the user base REGARDLESS, so time and resources are spent and nothing is accomplished.

Second, in order to make the two systems compatible, you must cripple features on one or both machines, which is a lose/lose overall.  And if only ONE of the machines is crippled thus, it either drags them both down (because you code to the lowest common denominator) or it kills the more expensive of the two.  So time and resources are spent and nothing is accomplished.

* * *

Now for the practical reasons: 

First, the X8 fits neither the ecosystem nor the market of the X16.  Therefore, there's no reason to make the two architecturally compatible.

Second, the X8 and X16 are architecturally DESIGN COMPLETE.  I strongly doubt the X8 is going to be re-engineered, and neither is the X16 -- sticking with the plan is the way to finish, rather than reversing direction and starting over.

 

 

THAT SAID:

Both systems have the KERNAL in common.  That means a lot of the two systems are ALREADY compatible.  A VERA ABI layer in the KERNAL could increase this compatibility a bit.

 

 

On 9/28/2021 at 8:53 PM, rje said:

Second, the X8 and X16 are architecturally DESIGN COMPLETE.  I strongly doubt the X8 is going to be re-engineered, and neither is the X16 -- sticking with the plan is the way to finish, rather than reversing direction and starting over.

If so, I would personally stick with the X16 plan and not launch the X8 diversion. (Or alternative launch just the X8 and focus on that.)

But of course those owning and doing the project will make their own choices. Just my two cents. ?

That was my first impression.  Bruce, who is an economist, helped show that the market separation between X8 and X16 make them reasonably distinct, and selling the X8 won't impact selling the X16, which is my only concern.

 

Also, I just noted that the KERNAL is common between them.  Therefore, a small VERA ABI layer in the KERNAL could help bridge the two to a degree, allowing more code compatibility without being full-featured.