Change of product direction, good and bad news!

James Anders Banks · Post by **James Anders Banks** » Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:32 pm

56 minutes ago, xcv330 said:

Someone mentioned slowing it down so that it would not be faster than the X16. That strikes me as a terrible idea that's been tried before.

Tried before .................. in this context?

Er, no offence, but no.

Scott Robison · Post by **Scott Robison** » Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:06 pm

30 minutes ago, James Anders Banks said:

Tried before .................. in this context?

Er, no offence, but no.

If by "in this context" you mean "protecting one computer from harm by restricting the functionality of another" then absolutely it has happened. The Apple IIgs was deliberately kept at a slower speed than necessary to protect the more important Mac line.

James Anders Banks · Post by **James Anders Banks** » Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:09 pm

Specifically this context. Obviously you can find far more general examples. There's nothing been anything like this in this era so no point coming up with such examples that don't help.

Scott Robison · Post by **Scott Robison** » Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:11 pm

Just now, James Anders Banks said:

Specifically this context. Obviously you can find far more general examples. There's nothing been anything like this in this era so no point coming up with such examples that don't help.

I'm sorry you don't find my comment useful. It's not trying to be cute. Maybe you can better define what you mean by "in this context" because from what I've read, this is the very context being discussed.

What examples would be helpful?

Hedgie · Post by **Hedgie** » Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:25 am

Man sorry you're running into these issues. I must say that I would prefer a Phase 1 kit myself. Been keeping an eye on this place for when the development model release. I have a rc2014 I've been building and honestly wouldn't mind taking my time and building the X16 the same way. I can't recall if you initially planned this so excuse me if my memory has gotten a bit fuzzy. But a DIY kit with a board that fits the ATX standoffs and cases would be an easy fix for the case issue. I know there's some classic cases people can get, repoduction cases, and even new cases that could fit the style of the X16. Also if I may suggest another thing. Please release the manuals ether as an option with the kit or a standalone if at all possible. Heck maybe see if some designers would be willing to do mock boxes that people can purchase. I know that seems to be a new thing now as well. Repoduction boxes that is. I don't know if this is at all helpful. But there's my two cents on the matter. I wish you the best f luck

Hedgie

EMwhite · Post by **EMwhite** » Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:28 am

2 hours ago, xcv330 said:

... the X8 sounds exactly like what I was hoping for when this project first began. I think if the price point is low enough, this really would be useful for teaching as well. If it sells in numbers you can get a much broader base of people wanting to develop for it.

I just re-watched the Part 1 and Part 2 of 'my dream' and saw that $50 was one of the initial price point targets, or upwards of $100.

Then later, David was talking about scope creep and showed a board design that looked nothing like the initial 'must haves'. I think he said $250-$300 at that point.

So maybe $50 is a price that people will buy and just give up Starbucks for two weeks?

I'll throw $100 at anything (or in a pot for the project principals to deliver what they stated, if that is the ask) but it will be a supreme bummer to have it be 'yet another' single board computer (no power supply, no manual, no case, no included keyboard, no compatibility with 9 pin joysticks or IEC peripherals etc). The next great thing was to be something that any hobbyist would be happy to dedicate the majority of their 'free' time to.

Hopefully whatever they decide to do is a) available soon and b) allows something that harkens back to the past besides just Basic 2.0.

daschewie · Post by **daschewie** » Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:52 am

On 8/21/2021 at 5:03 PM, x16tial said:

I'd accept that, if we weren't being asked if we want the product or not.

With all due respect, David is just asking for our opinions with this poll.

This information is good for determining how many units to produce.

Close to 40% of the 228 poll participants want the x8 to come out first.

If 40% of the 20,000 facebook group members want the system, then as much as 8,000 units would be in demand.

That is not to say the x16p wont come out later.

x16tial · Post by **x16tial** » Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:01 am

5 minutes ago, daschewie said:

With all due respect, David is just asking for our opinions with this poll.

This information is good for determining how many units to produce.

No, we're being asked if we want the X8 to be released.(Poll question 1. Should we release the Commander X8?) And your statement of determining how many units to produce assumes the answer is yes!

BruceMcF · Post by **BruceMcF** » Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:46 am

7 hours ago, Scott Robison said:

I agree *but* there is an ever increasing number of people in these communities that do not look at Kickstarter et al as a proposition with inherent risk. They look at it as a pre-order and they look at dates as inviolate contracts. Those of us who've backed a kickstarter that never materialized know better, but it stings to know you just blew $X on something that never happened. Like the Super Screen Kickstarter that took $2.5M and never released *anything*.

...

I agree, and this is why I am not complaining about the cautious approach, simply noting it.

But there is a point where if the main uncertainty is whether sales of product A will fund development of product B to step from a sales funded model to a crowd funded Mel and let those who really want product B to fund its development.

I'm arguing that WHEN the team thinks the crowdfund for the CX16p has arrived, THAT time has arrived for seeing if there is a crowd that WILL fund the CX16c.

BruceMcF · Post by **BruceMcF** » Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:57 am

2 hours ago, Scott Robison said:

If by "in this context" you mean "protecting one computer from harm by restricting the functionality of another" then absolutely it has happened. The Apple IIgs was deliberately kept at a slower speed than necessary to protect the more important Mac line.

Tried before in this context as in releasing the FPGA simulation of a retro computer family before the first actual member of that family. Really, that hasn't been done before.

Also releasing them simultaneously hasn't been done before either.

As for releasing the FPGA simulation of a retro system either with or without a turbo mode, both have been tried, both have successes.