Commander X16

17 hours ago, Dingo said:

. . . the 'kitchen sink' model they seemed to have followed, such as having both an internal floppy and external peripheral support . . .

Why kitched sink? ) I did not get it.

39 minutes ago, Cyber said:

Why kitched sink? ) I did not get it.

It's a saying, "everything but the kitchen sink". Just means that they threw everything into it that they could think of.

Personally, the M65 does not speak to me like the X16 does. I have zero desire to own a new computer with a floppy drive, and even less to pay more for a cute toy computer than my serious daily driver personal laptop. If I want to play C64 games, there are emulators for that.

If I want a cute toy computer, it's either going to be a Raspberry Pi, where I can run modern software and do things like have low-power servers or custom TV dongles, or the X16 where I can have a fun development target for assembly games and demos that won't break the bank. If the X16 was targeting a $1000 price point, I would not be interested at all, but I would still the admire the technical achievement, like I do for the M65.

2 hours ago, SlithyMatt said:

even less to pay more for a cute toy computer than my serious daily driver personal laptop

To be clear, the MEGA 65 isn't going to cost $800+ when it goes to retail sale. Based on the hardware in it, I'm betting it will cost $400-500. Still not "inexpensive", but actually not far off what it would cost to build an Ultimate 64 with all new parts. 

I just watched the video about the M65 by Nostalgia Nerd. It absolutely seems to be an impressing technical achievement and I understand the goal of the project better. But it is not for me, it is far too complicated. For me it becomes a computer for experiments with all key combinations, different startup options, menus, configurations screens and possible hardware adjustments like changing the CPU speed. I like the simple experience of turning on the computer, seeing a few lines of text and a blinking cursor. And that’s just about it. A builtin machine code monitor is ok though. But I am not sure I like that GEOS is included but I can live with that. [emoji4]

I've been interested in the Commander because it's built from the ground up with a nod to the heritage in terms of design decisions and even the inherent limitations; has a modest MVP, and is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get platform.

The video modes are reasonable and appealing and I won't spend 1/2 my time trying to get old sw working at a specific clock rate, with a given video config, via utilities and hidden menus.  

Commander should be extensible from a HW perspective and I'm hopeful that sw dev efforts don't die out between now and when the platform is released.  

In short, the 65 looks awesome, but too-awesome.  It's not cohesive, it is utter madness in it's design running in every possible direction simultaneously.  It's the cat-dog of computers if that means anything to anybody here.  Just too schizophrenic for me.

Having said this, I have tons of ideas and some old code that I will port to Commander, but not until I can do so on THE hardware.  It's just how I'm built.

 

I agree with the general sentiments in this thread so far.  The community, the simplicity, the price, etc.  A few points to add:

• 
  I enjoy soldering.  The X16 will ("99% sure") be available in kit form; looking at the Mega65 it seems unlikely with all that SMD.  Yes, soldering your own computer is impractical.  But this is a hobby, it's okay to have fun doing something impractical.
  


• 
  I want something really cool-looking on my desktop. (I almost bought a Spectrum Next just because of how great that design looks, even though I don't know Z80 assembly and have no Spectrum nostalgia.)  I know the clear Mega65 is only a developer prototype, but I really don't like that beige render they have on their website now, either (with the disk drive sticking out the front!).  The X16 is going to look great, though, especially with the custom keyboard with the PETSCII characters.
  

 

Moving on:

 

On 11/30/2020 at 2:50 AM, TomXP411 said:

The FPGA doesn't bother me one bit. In fact, I think the Ultimate 64 has proven that an FPGA system can be highly compatible and still superior to the original. Gideon's $240 motherboard is both faster and more powerful than anything ever made for the C64 with discrete components: The 48MHz CPU alone is a first for Commodore 8-bit computers, for example.

Wait, the Ultimate C64 runs at 48MHz? I don't remember that from Gideon's website, so I checked again again just now and I still don't see anything about CPU speed.  I assumed it emulated the C64 at the usual speed.

 

19 hours ago, rje said:

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

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

[...]

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

Last I heard, SID emulation was not a sure thing in the X16.  The FAQ still says there are "3 designs being considered and tested." Or, did I miss some more recent news about that?

 

On 11/28/2020 at 5:43 PM, paulscottrobson said:

Sound is much of a muchness.

I'm sorry, what?

On 11/28/2020 at 9:40 PM, Fenner Machine said:

The Commander X16 has a powerful enough CPU with a good GPU to make games that should surpass almost any 8-bit system and match 16-bit consoles.

If I have read the specs correctly, the Mega65’s CPU is about 6 times faster, but the X16 has a significantly more capable GPU, 16 times more sprites.

I know that’s not the whole story, but the X16 should be cheaper and better at games, win win.

Also the X16 development team and community are good enough that it might sell many thousands of units, maybe even enough to make it viable for commercial development by pro studios. (Well, we can hope).

The M65 has other options than Sprites. It's probably more powerful, but at present harder to access. There is almost zero chance of it being taken up for commercial development. It will be like the other Retrosystems and real retro systems, there will be some games produced like say https://www.rustypixels.uk ,  Planet X2 is another example, but mostly it will be people's own work, a mixture of reboots of old games and hack improvements versions of classic games (perhaps), which won't apply to the X16. This doesn't mean the games won't be any good, they'll be the usual mix.

6 hours ago, John Chow Seymour said:

Last I heard, SID emulation was not a sure thing in the X16.  The FAQ still says there are "3 designs being considered and tested." Or, did I miss some more recent news about that?



I'm sorry, what?

In the latest Vera docs there are 6 (I think) "classic" sound channels which generate the usual square waves and noise and a dedicated PCM channel. Whether this is still the case or not I do not know, but it does rather beg the question of whether there's a point in putting a real chip on the board, I don't think sound has ever been considered.

"Much of a muchness" is a British expression meaning not too different. Mega65 has twin SIDs, it would have to have one as it emulated the C64 as well ? and it also has a couple of D/A channels. So it's sound is better but I suspect in practice it won't make too much difference. The ability of the SID to be able to be tweaked to produced clever effects is negated by just being able to play any recorded sound you like.

Random, disjointed thoughts...

I like the simplicity of the X16 as a platform for learning and exploring assembly programming. All those boot menu options etc on the mega65 just put me off. Also the case is ugly - ew. I don't care about backwards compatibility either - it never works on the one thing you want it for, and if you want to play an old C64 game there are better ways to do it than on a mega65. And anyway, frankly those old games aren't going to be as interesting to play as any new ones that make proper use of the hardware. Breaking C64 compatibility is a big plus and properly focuses the project. Nostalgia is nice, but keep the dial down low.

The X16 feels way more accessible, and I can see it being much more successful at introducing younglings to the craft of writing programs.

I know you said 'chips aside', but...

I don't have a problem with FPGAs as such, but I like that the lack of one makes for a more stable platform. I don't want to have a game that will only run after hunting down some 'enhanced' core that someone made on some forum somewhere. Perhaps an unfounded fear, but there it is (Please nobody make a Vera+).

Also, as a developer, I appreciate the sense of being closer to the metal that seeing the real chips gives you. There's something less satisfying about coding for a virtual or emulated platform, and I'd put FPGAs in that category purely for the feeling of abstraction and instability.

I think 8MHz is also a great balance between capability and constraints. You could make some really great games for this system, well within those constraints, and treat is as a 'lowest common denominator'. Porting X16 games to the mega65 or zx next would be obviously possible and an interesting project. 

All that said, I am a zx next KS2 backer, and my nostalgia for the speccy has won out over my fear of forking FPGA cores, and I will absolutely be playing old speccy games on that when it arrives. I'm sure there will be some C64 superfans with the same feelings about the mega65 who will wonder what the point of the X16 is.

I won't pay what I was prepared to spend on a zx next on a mega65. I will pay for a cheaper, new, interesting and capable platform like the X16. I will also watch mega65 videos on youtube and have thoughts like "wow, 40MHz", and "holy crap 1000 multiplexed sprites, that's so cool", and "Oh, if only the X16 had an HDMI port too..."

For me though, I'm really enjoying learning to code for the 65c02, and the vera chip is awesome.

6 hours ago, paulscottrobson said:

"Much of a muchness" is a British expression meaning not too different. 

Thank you for teaching me that!

6 hours ago, paulscottrobson said:

Mega65 has twin SIDs, it would have to have one as it emulated the C64 as well ? and it also has a couple of D/A channels. 

So, the Mega65 page at C64 Wiki says "Dual soft-SIDs + dual 8-bit DACs".  But, the Mega65 page itself says "four soft SIDs (and the ability to use hard-SIDs in a cartridge) plus four-channel stereo 16-bit digital audio."  So I guess sound design is still being decided in that project as well.