My first idea from the title was a historical product, something with RAM expansion, multi-user OS and hard drive. A minicomputer. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minicomputer)
I'm in the same boat. When I was growing up, a mini computer was huge. When I was in high school, some of my programming courses were on Digital PDP mini computers.
I remember writing BASIC programs with a Sharpie on optical mark reader cards. Debugging was a nightmare, you'd run your cards through the reader, look at the printer output and debug back at your desk by sorting through your cards. This was in the mid 80s -- the Apple ][ at home was better tech than what we had at my school.
I was actually expecting something like a fully transistor re-creation of the CPU, graphics, sound, etc - stuff into a minicomputer cabinet of some sort. Something crazy like that.
Just last week I explained to the kids that a mini computer is pretty huge. My 8 yo boy had said something about this tiny computer and called it a minicomputer. "Mini computers are pretty huge. At the time they were made, computers filled rooms, so a computer the size of a washing machine WAS small. And the big computer on your desk is a microcomputer because it's even smaller."
As someone who owned a C64, the games list leaves a lot to be desired.
Some make sense, but the absence of Pirates!, The Bard's Tale series, AD&D Gold Box and Carmen Sandiago games is noticeable. I imagine the licensing is too hard. Then the missed gems like Cauldron I & II, Ultimate Wizard, etc.
Only a couple of those games did I recognize (I think). As far as I could tell from a quick look, not a single game I did play on the C64 made the cut. I wonder if the lack of a real keyboard severely limited the games they could include?
Just checked the web page again, and it sounds like it IS a more or less fully functional C64 -- you just need to add a real USB keyboard to type on it. Wonder if it has a way to emulate a 1541 over USB?
I felt the same way, but then I have to keep in mind that the library of games for the C64 was pretty immense, and negotiating with that many software developers to get the rights would be a herculean task. This isn't Nintendo, where a single company is putting out their own hits. Commodore's library is (I believe) entirely 3rd party manufactured, and back in the BBS days I maintained a library of hundreds of games for trade.
Oh, I completely understand. I just hope there's some nudge-wink way of loading my own software on the thing. Often these things end up being pretty closed off.
That Ultimate Wizard game I mentioned was made by 'Progressive Peripherals and Software', who some might remember as makers of Amiga add-on cards, frame grabbers and games out of Colorado. Just two guys (worked on the game, at least). I heard some sad news back in the 90s that their office burned down and took out their remaining business with it.
There actually were a few games published by Commodore in the early days (like Radar Rat Race and Cosmic Cruncher), but they didn't really take advantage of what the machines could do. I wouldn't say they were terrible games, but the games from later years, all of which were third-party, were far better than any of the games Commodore published.
The full list is at https://thec64.com/hello-world/. Summer Games II is included, but not the first. Maybe there's some sort of weird licensing issue for that, as it's owned by Epyx and all of the other "Games" series are there.
Have you tried the Amiga version? Back in the days. It had the same mechanics but it was a lot more polished with graphics and sound. Plus loading was a lot faster!
In style with NES Classic and SNES Classic, now comes the C64 in similar style - small package with a couple of controllers and HDMI. Keyboard support to write Basic. A handful of built-in games.
I guess it's basically the same inside too, some half-decent ARM A-line cpu running some emulator. I can see the appeal, although I know myself and it will be fun for a good few 10 minutes, then collect dust (not to be pessimistic or so, I just know myself :)).
Ohh great, 35 years old platform wars in the comments :)
The ZX Spectrum is definitely the most overrated of all of the 8-bits : it had by far the most horrid (all but monochrome !) graphics of the bunch, and few other redeeming qualities (mainly its price). And yet, there's no shortage of reissues, books, and modern worship around it. Nostalgia is a strange thing, sometimes.
The C64's cult following is much better deserved : in spite of its washed out graphics (it doesn't even have a proper red colour!), it did have hardware sprites, a lot of character and of course the SID: the most exquisite sound chip ever made !
But probably the most underrated and best 8-bit of all was the Amstrad CPC :
It had hands down the best graphics of the bunch (Google ZX/C64/CPC screenshots of Operation Wolf, Gryzor, or Stormlord and you'll know what I mean ! Also, check out this recent and jaw-dropping homebrew CPC remake of the Amiga's Pinball Dreams : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVv-oBN6AWA )
The Amstrad was also the only fully standalone one, with its built-in tape deck or disk drive and sharp CRT screen out of the box (the screen also doubled as a PSU, and provided proper RGB connectivity, unlike the mushy Composite output of the C64 or ZX on the home TV)
IIRC, the C64 sold 17 million units, the various ZX variants 5 million, and the Amstrad 3 million.
The markets were quite local : the C64 was king in Germany and northern Europe, the CPC was strongest in France (where nobody had ever seen a Speccy ever, and hardly any C64s) and Spain (together with the Spectrum, but not the C64)
Why the British had this strange fascination with the Spectrum and mostly ignored their also-homegrown and vastly superior Amstrad, is a topic of great puzzlement and affliction to me.
And I'm totally not saying that out of spite that the publisher of the gorgeous "Visual Compedium" retro book series, was worried that the Amstrad was "too niche" when I suggested to him that he should do one for the 8 bit with the best graphics (because let's face it, "ZX Spectrum : a Visual Compedium" is kind of an oxymoron). The latest book he had just released was about the Neo Geo. Talk about niche ...
The CPC launched in 1984, just before the home computer crash. It was a relatively expensive and unproven machine, competing in a market that was glutted with unsold stock at knock-down prices. With the required monitor, the CPC 464 cost £300. That Christmas, you could have had a Spectrum 48k Plus for £140 or an Acorn Electron for £100, with a free tape recorder and a bundle of games. Your mates probably had Specrums, so you could copy all their games for the price of a blank cassette. The CPC wasn't that much cheaper than the BBC Model B, which was the respectable middle-class home computer at the time.
The Speccy was the right computer for the times. It arrived very early on in the home computer boom and was very keenly priced, so it maintained good network effects throughout its lifespan. The machine was cheap, the peripherals were cheap and there were loads of games. Sir Clive didn't fragment the platform by introducing incompatible new models, he just kept cutting the price. The Speccy remained popular into the tail end of the 1980s, almost entirely because of the huge back catalogue of games. We loved it in part because it was a bit crap and because Sir Clive was such a hopeless businessman - the British have a terrible soft spot for underdogs.
The CPC didn't sell well as a home computer, but it was quite attractive as a small-business machine - the monochrome display was cheap and reasonably crisp, the 3" floppy drive was far cheaper than 3.5" drives and it would run CP/M. Lord Sugar responded very shrewdly with the PCW series, which was tailored for business and sold far better than the CPC. Marketing the PCW as a word processor rather than a computer and bundling it with a printer was a minor stroke of genius, with the brilliant slogan "more than a word processor for less than most typewriters".
Amstrad had the last laugh by buying out the rights to the Spectrum, but the sheer quantity of Speccies that Amstrad sold is a testament to the platform.
The ZX was cheaper, easier to pick up programming for, and had a better community around it (probably due to the previous points).
But it was, as you mention, technically much less capable. That said - I never really got the impression the communities were at odds util modern times when it became a thing.
Several people I knew growing up had both for example!
Then again, I was an Atari guy so felt they both were not up to the standard my Atari 800XL set ;)
You'll probably enjoy "Ruthless: The Story of Amstrad and Alan Sugar in the 80's and 90's" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiIXn9Tr5hI), an absorbing video that offers some opinionated explanations for the CPC's lukewarm performance in Britain and its success in other parts of Europe. While both the machine and the man were less loved, Sugar did of course have the last laugh as he ended up owning the Spectrum business.
Spectrum fan here, but I do love the CPC's eye popping colours :)
I can't remember which game it was that took 9 minutes to load on my 464. And typing out listing from mags to get eg an assembly graphics routine! Life was slower back then :)
It was really hard to buy one in Johannesburg. I found one importer and only one local shop that had software. ZX C64, Atari 800XL much easier to find.
Friend's father had a horror of a PC box. Little did I know...
Understandable, but disappointing. There already are emulators for the software. For the real experience, I'd like to type using that clunky C64 keyboard :P
Nintendo has sold a great many NES and SNES Classics with non-working cartridge drives, and I'm sure a lot of the people buying those were geeks, so it must not go too strongly against it.
On the higher end of 8-bit-micro reissues, there's the ZX Spectrum Next: https://www.specnext.com/about/ . The industrial design is by Rick Dickinson, who designed all the original Spectrums up to the QL.
Heh heh, I know the Spectrum was a big deal in Spain. Not so much in South America. There's a lot to love about that computer, but the C64 was technically superior: I had a C64 and my friend had a Speccy, and I remember games looked better on the C64. Of course, the Amiga blew both out of the water, but I didn't know anyone who owned one...
> If I remember correctly the Spectrums could display more simultaneous colors than the C64. Not sure about this.
Pretty sure it was the other way around. The Speccy had a limitation where some graphics modes had colors in horizontal "bands", so games had to be designed around this limitation. And when a sprite crossed bands, it changed colors! This didn't happen with the C64.
Yes. However, because there's nothing like a 35-year-old platform war, I feel obliged to add that the C64 was not so overwhelming when it came to vector games or other things outside the 2D-sprites-and-scrolling sweet spot it was so capably optimised for: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-zx... . Which also turned out to be pretty much the DOOM of the Amiga foretold, come to that.
That's amazing...if I don't like Kickstarter, can i buy one after the campaign is over?
Also, will it come with a good documentation? Things in the 80's often had phenomenal documentation that was designed to teach and not just point out the location of a few pins.
I never used the Zx before. What is the user experience like? When you boot up, can you bring up a BASIC prompt or type in Assembly?
the Next is available for pre-ordering here on the website. There are, though, a couple of changes we made to keep things fair for everyone: first, the shipping date is a month later than for the KS backers, they will get their boards and machines first; second, the Next now has a 20% margin over the original price
The more I think about the experience we had many years ago with these simple and beautiful computers, the more I think that we should recreate the same experience for our children. I think that the path is: a very easy starting point (like a BASIC REPL) and the possibility to Peek and Poke at a later stage.
A simple fpga based machine with a simple instruction set, HDMI out, and gobs more memory than used to exist. Nicer graphics say 1900x1200 with good BASIC primitives. Instant on. SD card reader. No internal storage other than ROM.
I did not recognize any of the game titles. I was around then but I did not realize how different the titles on the C64 were to those available on Sinclair and Acorn computers.
Is this a representative selection of titles from the era?
I would be very interested if there was any correlation between home computer brands and automotive brands. Commodore was marketed in the UK in a way that brings to mind Vauxhall cars (GM).
It is too late to do the data now but in my mind Sinclair was more like Ford UK and Acorn more like a properly engineered German marque, e.g. Mercedes.
Much like you would never put G.M. parts in a Ford but you could put a Ford or GM engine in some other car, e.g. a Lotus sports car, it seems that there were reasons beyond hardware limitations for why some titles never crossed over. Only Commodore users got certain sub-genres, e.g. those text adventure things.
Some of these are definitely C64 classics - Creatures caught my eye, rated 96% in Zzap!64 magazine. But I also note other classics, California Games, Gribbly's Day Out, Chip's Challenge and of course Impossible Mission (famous at the time for its speech synthesis: "Another visitor! Stay a while... staaayyy forever!"). I never played Monty Mole or Monty On The Run, but had always heard of them.
I don't think I played much Iridis Alpha, but Jeff Minter (aka Llamasoft) was a legend of the C64 scene & indie gaming in general - his latest 2017 game is central to the latest Nine Inch Nails video clip [1].
I think there is a big difference between the popularity of games in Europe and the US. I grew up with a C64 in the UK, and a lot of these games were considered classics here 85-90ish.
I played a ton of C64 games and the only two that ring a bell are California Games and Impossible Mission (the latter was excellent at least for the time). Some that I remember spending a ton of time on: Ultima IV and V, Legacy of the Ancients, Jumpman, Hacker, Pirates, the old AD&D "gold box" games...
California Games and Impossible Mission are really classic C64 games. Others are pretty unknown to me too and I had a lot of C64 games back in the days.
A bunch of these were also Spectrum hits: Heartland, the Monty Mole series, and Everyone's A Wally are some stand-outs. California Games got converted to pretty much every platform around.
Cybernoid / Cybernoid II too, I remember playing those on my 48k Spectrum.
Infinite lives if you redefined your keys as "YXES" on the original, and as "ORGY" on the sequel. Once done you'll hear an audio confirmation and you can reset them to whatever you like.
this is a 'gateway drug' to getting a full C=64 system so you can Commodore 64 properly: Karatika, Bruce Lee, Print Shop + Epson dotmatrix printer to make banners
I have just had my C64 restored by a friend. SID n VID needed replacing along with a few other bits. The video out is now SCART and it now sports an eight GB SD Card and Fastboot.
Just got it back and fired it up. Nostalgia in spades.
>As befits a home computer you can also plug in a standard USB PC keyboard and use as a classic C64 to type in those old BASIC computer listings or program new games.
It doesn't seem like they'd phrase it that way unless you were required to plug in a USB keyboard in order to type.
I would be interested if it had the original hardware.
What are the challenges in producing new C64 (and NES and SNES) with the same hardware? I believe there are a lot of modern Genesis copies using the same hardware.
Too late for me to edit, but the Analogue-NT Mini is also FPGA. I got that wrong. Pretty sure the original NT was fully hardware, not FPGA, but I don't think it's available anymore.
Main difference between the two linked products, then, aside from appearance and maybe build quality (can't say which is better, don't own either), is output options, as best I can tell (the NT has a lot of AV out options). And price, obviously.
[EDIT] The reason video out options are important, aside from aesthetics, is that some peripherals require a CRT. Notably the Zapper.
You can still get 6502s, but the SID chip has not been manufactured for years. The SID has long been successfully emulated, but I don't know how practical that would be to include in a 6502 box.
Emulated, but from what I understand, not perfectly. Mainly because the SID was a hybrid digital and analog IC - and it's that analog part that made it unique.
Also - I don't think (I could be wrong) that any successful reverse engineering of the chip was ever done, nor do I think that there were any or much documentation about the chip (that is, official docs)? It was very much one of those custom chips made for one specific purpose that wasn't used in any other product (this was a common thing in many home computers of the 1980s).
It was originally conceived as a multi-purpose synth chip. Bob Yannes, designer: "When I designed the SID chip, I was attempting to create a single-chip synthesizer voice, which hopefully would find it's way into polyphonic/polytimbral synthesizers. I never realized this however."
Actually the opposite. The demoscene has done phenomenal work squeezing all the tricks they can out of that chip. Some of its quirks have been used to great advantage in demos over the years.
AFAIK, you can't buy new 6502s any more (nor can you buy the 6510 actually used in the C64). You can buy 65c02 chips, but those are slightly incompatible with the 6502 and 6510 on the opcode level.
Not really significantly though. The Apple //c (and some ][es) had 65c02s rather than the 6502 in the ][ and ][+, but they could still run all the old software.
There are undocumented opcodes that still perform useful operations on the NMOS 6502, for example loading the A and X registers simultaneously, decrementing and comparing memory, along with a variety of more exotic instructions that can replace quite long sequences of equivalent "valid" opcodes. These are NOPs on the 65c02.
I know little about the Apple 2 series, but in quite some C64 software, these operations are used wherever they can save a few cycles. Mostly demos.
No need to build new ones when there are so many old ones available. The Goodwill online auction always has two or three of them for around $30. http://www.shopgoodwill.com
(Note that Goodwill recently updated its web site and apparently kicked many of the regional organizations out, so supply has been lower lately. Hopefully when the regionals get up to speed the supply will increase again.)
They were definitely built to a price, though, and they have a lot of reliability issues now:
* The (epoxy-potted, non-serviceable) power supply fails (and the resulting voltage increase takes out the 4164 DRAM chips).
* The PLA is not heatsinked, runs hot, and fails.
* The MOS replacements for standard 74xx logic chips are notoriously unreliable.
You're better off finding a used one that's been tested with a TV -- "powers on" is not enough.
In addition, the Goodwill ones (at least in the USA) are NTSC, whereas a lot of the later European games were PAL-only. If you want to play those games, you end up having to find a cracked, NTSC-fixed version of them.
How can you put the original hardware into a case that is half the size? There is no way that the bits inside the case of my recently revived C64 would ever fit into this thing. Even if they cram a "real" SID and VIC etc into it then at least the motherboard and rather a lot of other things have to be rather different.
It certainly doesn't look like a hardware reimplementation, either. It's most likely going to be ARM-based emulation. With the DTV you could at least connect it to external C64 peripherals and do cool things with it.
Very nice. Put together, it seems, with a very small team. Curious what their pricing will be and how they managed to license all those games. Interesting that they could include the games but then not use the word "Commodore". It appears that the brand owner still exists, sort of? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_USA).
I dreamed of owning this computer or the Sinclair ZX80 when I was in high school. Our media center had two Apple ][ computers, but access to them was very limited. It would take me two more years to buy my own Apple IIc.
It's ARM-based, so if it isn't using one of the big kahuna emulators (the RPi3 isn't powerful enough to do VICE full-spec), it's unlikely to run even existing C64 demos.
And since there's no mention of any expanded features of the C64-ness itself, there's no draw to do any development for this device in particular.
How easy would it be to write games on this that use the joy stick, and what are the compiler options? BASIC interpreter, C compiler, Pascal compiler, Assembly?
C64 BASIC is pretty terrible -- to do anything with graphics or sound, you really have to use PEEK/POKE and do it in 6502 assembly. Aside from that, 6502 assembly is your best bet. There are lots of tutorials online for the C64 specifically, and there are good cross-assembler toolchains available.
None I recognized the name of on their list, and you'd have to add a USB keyboard to type on it. (Also, speaking as someone who played lots of Infocom games on his C64, I don't think there's any advantage whatsoever to playing them there as opposed to a modern terminal of some sort?)
