Change of product direction, good and bad news!

Oldrooster · Post by **Oldrooster** » Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:07 pm

On 10/11/2021 at 6:26 AM, BruceMcF said:

I think it is important not to over-generalize here. There is an argument that it is not possible to build Dave's dream computer without a custom fabricated video chip, and the only feasible way to create a custom fabricated video chip at this scale is using an FPGA with the build in hardware that can be wired together to perform the process ...

... which is an argument about Dave's 8bit dream computer.

It is not an argument about an 8bit dream computer in general. If someone has a dream that can be satisfied with a pure tile display, or with a screenbuffer chip, there seem to be options that will work. It's the tile and hardware sprite implemented with a scanline by scanline rowbuffer display that requires either an FPGA to wire the circuit together or an MCU to emulate a notional custom fabricated chip.

So people shouldn't make unwarranted generalizations. It is certainly possible to dream different specific dreams and avoid the choice between an FPGA implementation and a software emulation of a notional chip.

As for that specific choice, for a system that has a design goal of being built to the extent possible with in production ASIC chips, I have no hesitation in arguing that a netlist wiring of hardware is closer to an ASIC chip than CPU emulating the behavior of a notional chip. But if somebody's dream was a "neo retro 6502 GEOS system", there are plenty of framebuffer chips to choose from.

So what you seem to me to be saying is that there is no possibility of satisfying the 'dream computer' objective of no FPGA because the choice for the X16 has been defined as it MUST have FPGA, not because it cant be done, rather the choice being made is that it should not be done. Whereas it could be done by simply designing the computer and optimizing the hardware, by which I mean a similar thing to cutting down software bloatware which everyone understands and then doing that same thing, but for hardware, for example, I watched Ben Eaters lovely video card tutorial for beginners and saw he seems to be using extra components that are not needed, perhaps for clarity ? for students. FPGA or ASIC seems to be a way to throw your hands up and say we don't have a hardware optimizer, so here is our bloatware hardware swept up into neat ASIC trashbag and Surface mounted onto the PCB for all time. I see it as akin to giving up.

Scott Robison · Post by **Scott Robison** » Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:32 pm

Seems like there are better places for some of this discussion than this already too long thread. This thread is about what to do with the X8/X16 as they exist. It is not about philosophical discussions about how it should be done.

At this point X8/X16 includes FPGA because a certain level of video capability and performance was desired, and that is the most cost effective way to realize the dream. Sometimes dreams evolve and plans change as new information and realities are realized. That's not a bad thing.

Janne Sirén · Post by **Janne Sirén** » Mon Oct 11, 2021 6:15 am

On 10/11/2021 at 1:32 AM, Scott Robison said:

I can agree with this just because of perception. The grave interpretation was I think what was being argued against, not that updates wouldn't be welcome. Just that I can understand why updates haven't been forthcoming.

It seems to me the main reason is the developers not being active on the forums, but being active on Facebook instead, though? I am not sure how that fits with your interpretation, since some information does get posted on Facebook, right? Like the X8 tidbit. That is unfortunate given that the Facebook group is private, so the only external-facing updates are what we have here. Anyone coming from the website to the Community menu and then onwards here gets a partial picture.

People are of course free to join Facebook, but I can see why some are trying to cut down on that these days.

Calculon · Post by **Calculon** » Mon Oct 11, 2021 6:57 am

On 10/10/2021 at 11:15 PM, Janne Sirén said:

It seems to me the main reason is the developers not being active on the forums, but being active on Facebook instead, though? I am not sure how that fits with your interpretation, since some information does get posted on Facebook, right? Like the X8 tidbit. That is unfortunate given that the Facebook group is private, so the only external-facing updates are what we have here. Anyone coming from the website to the Community menu and then onwards here gets a partial picture.

People are of course free to join Facebook, but I can see why some are trying to cut down on that these days.

The Facebook group has gotten much quieter over the past year. The vast majority of activity regarding the project happens here, at this point. I'd estimate a new post (by anyone, not just a project member) happens once in a couple of weeks. Occasionally David will reply to a post, and it will reveal some new detail of their plans, but it isn't anything like a formal "announcement". That's how we found out that they were planning to make the X8 more like the X16, recently. Just a one-liner reply. He also recently posted a short video showing the low-end keyboard. But that didn't really reveal anything earth-shattering, either. Plus, anything interesting ends up getting shared here by someone, within a few days. So honestly, I don't think it's worth worrying about. There is no need for FOMO when it comes to the Facebook group.

Janne Sirén · Post by **Janne Sirén** » Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:03 am

Thank you for the update @Calculon, appreciate it. I still think it would be useful if even just a similar amount activity was shown here as well. I mean, a lot of input was gathered (on request) in this thread, perhaps a comment or two might have been useful in recent times. Just IMO.

paulscottrobson · Post by **paulscottrobson** » Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:20 am

On 10/11/2021 at 12:07 AM, Oldrooster said:

So what you seem to me to be saying is that there is no possibility of satisfying the 'dream computer' objective of no FPGA because the choice for the X16 has been defined as it MUST have FPGA, not because it cant be done, rather the choice being made is that it should not be done.

Nope, you could do it fine. It would be ridiculously expensive, very hard to design and require a large amount of board space, but it's *possible*.

But even in the 1980s most computers had ULAs or custom chips, which are the forerunner of the FPGA.

If you discount the 6845 CRTC chip as a specialised chip (like say the 6847 or 9918) then the Pet Apple Tandy Superboard group didn't have them. The ZX81 did but the design was buildable out of TTL, it was just making it cheap.

Post Pet Apple Tandy ... the Spectrum was doable (as there currently exist TTL designs I think), the Jupiter Ace didn't have one, Microbee perhaps. There were some "Iron Curtain" computers ; Galaiksja that didn't, and some home builds (the latter two were originally home builds I think ?). But pretty much everything else had a ULA or Custom chip or sometimes more than one.

I think the Ace is probably the most advanced non specialist chip design that wasn't published as a home build in something like ETI (but I'm probably wrong) but designed to be mass produced.

No .... I think the Camputers Lynx was another non ULA design (256x224x8 colour), but it's still a bitmap design, drive a RAM chip with row and column counters at the right time and generated video from it. Not technically difficult, especially if you forbid VRAM access outside VBlank.

I'm not sure if there exists a TTL design that does any graphics outside either a straight RAM to Bitmap or RAM to character generator design. It's just not economical and still isn't.

Oldrooster · Post by **Oldrooster** » Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:48 am

On 10/11/2021 at 8:20 PM, paulscottrobson said:

Nope, you could do it fine.

well thank you. At last someone has admitted it. been saying it for ages and there are many, many solutions as to how to do it.

On 10/11/2021 at 8:20 PM, paulscottrobson said:

[...]It would be ridiculously expensive, very hard to design and require a large amount of board space, but it's *possible*.

I agree on board space, it's inevitable. this thing I've seen is a real sprawler, but so are the specs. Cost I disagree, as it's a function of design, you just whittle down all the solutions to those that cost the least.

Oh, and although it is a sprawler, it IS beautiful, I must say I've rarely seen it's equal. Though, dont ask me when I'm browsing Soviet retro builds and OH! there are so many engineering things to compare, scratch my remarks, it's too impossible a comparison.

On 10/11/2021 at 8:20 PM, paulscottrobson said:

I'm not sure if there exists a TTL design that does any graphics outside either a straight RAM to Bitmap or RAM to character generator design. It's just not economical and still isn't.

I would only go so far to agree that there shall be a first. I think there are still a few nuts to crack open, one being any large number of sprites on the screen at one time. I can see a few, however combining them all into a minimum of IC's is a challenging puzzle. Others you are correct, but there are I think solutions possible to the impossible such as the dual port ram issue that all programmers adore, it's not a necessary thing, however, doesn't every beginner love the idea. So cracking that nut is a good idea, computers need adorability built in. It's required for the design.

Certainly you know your computers, and I enjoy learning new names out of your post, I've never seen or heard Jupiter Ace before.

Oldrooster · Post by **Oldrooster** » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:14 am

On 10/11/2021 at 8:20 PM, paulscottrobson said:

.. the Spectrum was doable (as there currently exist TTL designs I think),

a long time since my hands have held a spectrum. The Harlequin is lovely though, not ideal to my mind design-wise except as a lovely memory of spectrum. Now when I was looking at this page I get like past halfway and then WHAM Wallace and Grommit jump out and tickle me.

x16tial · Post by **x16tial** » Mon Oct 11, 2021 1:38 pm

On 10/10/2021 at 11:57 PM, Calculon said:

The Facebook group has gotten much quieter over the past year. The vast majority of activity regarding the project happens here, at this point. I'd estimate a new post (by anyone, not just a project member) happens once in a couple of weeks. Occasionally David will reply to a post, and it will reveal some new detail of their plans, but it isn't anything like a formal "announcement". That's how we found out that they were planning to make the X8 more like the X16, recently. Just a one-liner reply. He also recently posted a short video showing the low-end keyboard. But that didn't really reveal anything earth-shattering, either. Plus, anything interesting ends up getting shared here by someone, within a few days. So honestly, I don't think it's worth worrying about. There is no need for FOMO when it comes to the Facebook group.

It doesn't have to be earth shattering to feel like 2nd class.

A video about the keyboard? That would be interesting to anyone following this project, yet no post here. Even more disappointment and demotivation there.

A "new post every couple of weeks" would be a VAST improvement over what gets communicated here currently.

This project had the potential to grab some kind of foothold, or niche, but for me, my interest in it has come way down. This now holds little more interest for me than any other 8 bit project you can name, and there are quite a few.

Calculon · Post by **Calculon** » Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:18 pm

On 10/11/2021 at 6:38 AM, x16tial said:

A "new post every couple of weeks" would be a VAST improvement over what gets communicated here currently.

Just to repeat for clarification: “once every couple of weeks” is not a post from one of the project members. It’s a random person with a question, or an idea, or a link they want to share, etc. Exactly the kind of thing that gets posted here multiple times *every day*. You’re not missing enough to worry about. It’s not “VAST”. It’s tiny.