I cannot leave a message in the good, bad thread started by David.

Cyber · Post by **Cyber** » Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:19 am

On 12/1/2021 at 10:12 PM, Scott Robison said:

his words were something to the effect of "X16 will not be as expensive."

I also remember this. David is very much interested to make X16 as cheap as possible, thus more people would have it, and ecosystem would be larger. I very much support him on this point.

On 12/3/2021 at 2:41 AM, BruceMcF said:

fine-tuning the 65C02 PS/2 code timing or having the 8bit ATTiny micro-controller handle the PS/2 ports might well handle the last serious outstanding problem

Yes, my speculation tells me the same.

Calculon · Post by **Calculon** » Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:13 am

On 12/2/2021 at 4:41 PM, BruceMcF said:

I believe that the PRIMARY issue is that the design is not quite finished. I might speculate ... but it would JUST be speculation, since I am another outsider to the process ... fine-tuning the 65C02 PS/2 code timing or having the 8bit ATTiny micro-controller handle the PS/2 ports might well handle the last serious outstanding problem, then when mist has free time, the Kernel can be fixed up for a beta release, with things like the bit bang serial port and a range of the "not yet implemented" features of existing routines.

True. I'm also not in the know whether those issues are settled, so I went with the one that we definitely know is NOT settled yet. Lot of slowly moving parts, though.

martinot · Post by **martinot** » Wed Dec 22, 2021 9:21 pm

On 11/29/2021 at 9:33 PM, svenvandevelde said:

Other thing is the case ... Is 3D printing an option? I do feel that the X16 needs a case. It gives the product an identity.

I agree 100% that it should come with its own unique case. However; I think David disagrees, and I think that was the root couse for the split between him and Paraf. that ended up with Paraf. withdrawing his support from the project. I think that was unfortunate, even if I respect both of them (strong wills on both sides). I think Paraf. did a great thing with the community here, the manuals, the design and marketing. X16 would never come this far without his help and part of the project.

Scott Robison · Post by **Scott Robison** » Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:26 pm

On 12/22/2021 at 2:21 PM, martinot said:

I agree 100% that it should come with its own unique case. However; I think David disagrees, and I think that was the root couse for the split between him and Paraf. that ended up with Paraf. withdrawing his support from the project. I think that was unfortunate, even if I respect both of them (strong wills on both sides). I think Paraf. did a great thing with the community here, the manuals, the design and marketing. X16 would never come this far without his help and part of the project.

Clearly Perifractic made a significant contribution to the project, but he left a message when he withdrew with a list of reasons why he was leaving the project, and David followed up. I choose to accept them at their word as to the reasons why the parting of the ways came about, such as Perifractic's busy schedule, family issues, and so on.

No one has said anything about them butting heads and thus the split, so I think supposition to that effect is not ideal.

martinot · Post by **martinot** » Wed Dec 22, 2021 11:30 pm

On 12/22/2021 at 11:26 PM, Scott Robison said:

Clearly Perifractic made a significant contribution to the project, but he left a message when he withdrew with a list of reasons why he was leaving the project, and David followed up. I choose to accept them at their word as to the reasons why the parting of the ways came about, such as Perifractic's busy schedule, family issues, and so on.

No one has said anything about them butting heads and thus the split, so I think supposition to that effect is not ideal.

I think they did it very nicely.

I also do not think they become enemies or anything such. Just a disagreement of the direction of the project.

I think they handled it very professionally.

That said, I will miss his vision for the X16 as a complete product (not just a simple board).

svenvandevelde · Post by **svenvandevelde** » Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:05 am

On 12/23/2021 at 12:30 AM, martinot said:

That said, I will miss his vision for the X16 as a complete product (not just a simple board).

Same here.

BruceMcF · Post by **BruceMcF** » Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:04 pm

On 12/22/2021 at 6:30 PM, martinot said:

...

That said, I will miss his vision for the X16 as a complete product (not just a simple board).

Note that the decision to not go ahead with a semi-customized case for the X16p doesn't rule out having one for the X16c, and the economies of scale are more favorable for offering the X16c as a complete system than the X16p.

martinot · Post by **martinot** » Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:48 pm

On 12/23/2021 at 5:04 PM, BruceMcF said:

Note that the decision to not go ahead with a semi-customized case for the X16p doesn't rule out having one for the X16c, and the economies of scale are more favorable for offering the X16c as a complete system than the X16p.

Will that still have all four expansion slots as in the full machine?

BruceMcF · Post by **BruceMcF** » Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:51 pm

On 12/23/2021 at 11:48 AM, martinot said:

Will that still have all four expansion slots as in the full machine?

The x16c design is not pinned down to the same extent as the X16p, but what has been mooted is 1 or 2 expansion slots.

However, note that the slot interface passes all five slot selects to each slot, which allows for a riser board. If it has two slots, then a 1>3 riser board on the "inner" slot would give four expansion slots.

AFAIR, there was a question of the height of the Mini-ITX case for accommodating full sized expansion cards, so a riser card solution might be involved anyway.

martinot · Post by **martinot** » Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:37 pm

On 12/23/2021 at 5:51 PM, BruceMcF said:

The x16c design is not pinned down to the same extent as the X16p, but what has been mooted is 1 or 2 expansion slots.

However, note that the slot interface passes all five slot selects to each slot, which allows for a riser board. If it has two slots, then a 1>3 riser board on the "inner" slot would give four expansion slots.

AFAIR, there was a question of the height of the Mini-ITX case for accommodating full sized expansion cards, so a riser card solution might be involved anyway.

Sounds good. The many exansion ports was part of why I prefered Apple II over other home computers, and later I also appreciated it in the IBM PC. It really made the computers more flexible and exandable compared to Spectrum, C64, etc. This is what I really loved with Davids vision for the X16 to stand by his slot idea.

I like the idea of a riser card solution!

If the board will follow the mITX-standard with the slot placement, we (or the project) will have many good ITX cases to choose from. ?