Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

ppescher's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. None of the available answers reflects my opinions on this, so I'll just leave a comment here. Should we release the Commander X8? Yes, but only if it's made compatible with the X16 from a programmer's perspective. I don't think, as others already said, that two different hardware platforms are a good idea. We can live with less RAM (no banking), as long as the memory map stasy the same for both X8 and X16, and also VERA addressing mode should be the same. Ideally, a program should be able to detect X8 easily and decide if it can run on the more limited X8 hardware: if it can, no changes should be required to the code, except for coping with the limitations. Having a stripped-down version of the X16 would be nice for developers, that can start making progress on a real hardware instead of the emulator. It could be a good thing to see how much real interest there is for the X16 and help finance the project. Should we still make a Phase-2 product? Only if it is as feature complete as the Phase-1 board. It could be good to have a mass-produced PCBA if there is enough people that can't afford the DIY kit of Phase-1 or simply doesn't have the tools or skills to build it, but still wants to enjoy a retro-style computer and be part of the community around it, without missing anything that would be made for Phase-1 hardware. I see Phase-2 as the non-DIY option of Phase-1. Release Phase-1 as a kit for those you can buy it and build it, and leave Phase-2 for all the others, but they should be functionally the same hardware, only in a different package that makes it cheaper and good for mass-production. If that's done, we don't even need a Phase-3, more so if you release the X8. For the X16 Phase-1, do you prefer a kit or a somewhat more expensive pre-assembled board? After all the things you said about assembly of a Phase-1 board, I think this should be only released as a DIY kit, without the option to buy it pre-assembled. That should be left for Phase-2, that should be hardware compatible with Phase-1 in every aspect, including expansions. Again, I don't see a point in having the Phase-3 if it's essentially an emulator "in hardware". It would make sense only if it's as feature complete as Phase-1 and compatible in every aspect, including expansions. Then it could replace Phase-2 of course. But I understand this might not be a viable option with an "FPGA does it all" kind of solution. A one chip solution would still make sense to me if the X16 becomes such a huge success that you're going to make a handheld gaming console out of it, with display and keypad included. Otherwise I don't see it as useful. Basically, what I don't want is 4 different hardware platforms. Software should run mostly unchanged on anything you release under the X16 project. I understand you are calling X8 that way right because it's sufficiently different to not be an X16, otherwise you would've called it Phase-0 maybe, but... really I am afraid it could drive away people from the X16, thinking the X8 is just good enough. It could make sense only to raise some funds initially, but call it "X16-mini" or something, and make it fully compatible with X16 architecture. Sort of an appetizer for the real deal: a DIY kit with only DIP parts, released first mostly for developers or education, and an SMD version suitable for mass-production, released afterwards for everyone who could not afford the kit.
  2. The DOS command for Copy looks the same as Rename. Which one is which?
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please review our Terms of Use