On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 11:06:30 PM UTC+10, Zbig wrote:
I've got some innovative graphic mode and sound ideas. Colour, colour modes, graphic tiling based on real 0% CPU
graphic mode rendering, a simple graphic object alternative, screen scrolling, native vector line drawing, maybe not,
512 horizontal resolution, and enhanced sound.
If it's about „retro-computing” the better idea will be to acquire
old XT-clone mobo, ISA 8-bit VGA and AdLib soundcard. You'll get
a machine you've described — featuring higher capabilities and
powerful ML. And with plenty of software already available,
many books that describe the system etc.
If not — you may want to select something already available at
Tindie, like RC2014 ( https://www.tindie.com/products/semachthemonkey/rc2014-pro-homebrew-z80-computer-kit/ )
or anything similar (several designs available there for a few bucks).
Of course plenty of similar SBCs designs can be found just by googling
for „SBC computer”, like:
http://searle.wales/ https://sites.google.com/site/retroelec/retroelecs-electronics-projects/r162 …and many others.
Albert reread the thread. It's never about what you said. It's about simulating what
could actually have been done to a design that has nothing to do with a system at
10x+ the price (just for the monochrome version probably) and Les capable in the
Cpu department, once you add a p16 etc in. You can then establish historically what
Could have been done. A zx spectrum like configuration with enhancements could have been done instead of the ZX80 even. That would have made it difficult for the
Commodore machines. This is a comparative alternative design history study,
as well as an authentic new product option. :)
Commodore actually put in the effort in the Commodore 64. The team had members
who had been pushing for home computers since the 1960's. They had the right place and the to do it, and actually borrowed from a heap of design ideas in use out
there (but why they didn't have at least switchable alternative pallets, is a mystery.
The Commodore had an slightly odd and murky pallet compared to some other lesser systems, robbing them of sales, and keeping others alive. Compared to the
tile based system I'm advocating (with better case keyboard) the Commodore 64 could have struggled against, with it's tile system and pallet, once you made a 64KB
version. The second largest selling computer of the time, the ZX Spectrum, whoes sales
were mainly outside the US, in turn would have struggled, against Commodore 64 if they
had they made some more low keyed improvements.
The Vic 20 was cobbled together with an old graphics
design they had from the 1970's before the Vic 2 chip was ready, from memory. But,
the subsequent Atari 7800 graphics chip set was way Ahead, and showed what Commodore could have done, as it was done by a professional arcade game
hardware company (not Atari themselves) incorporating a lot of good design, not a
smattering of ideas from the industry by outsiders. My understanding is now such, as
to see how a step ahead of this, on an entirely new design, could have been done,
and started since the mid 1970's. As Chuck Jeff and me were of a latter period, no
Palo Alto computer game system. :). It's indeed sad that Chuck's designs did not come
out in the early 1980's or 1970's, that would be the time to get into the home
computer market, as it was before requirements got complex coming up to Unix,
PS2, more advanced Windows, Amiga etc, when things were still a simple
single program single user flat space programming model. That in turn, means profit,
to implement more advanced features.
You could extend all these if you had the knowledge we have now applied to
processes then, to make a digital video interface over RCA, to put advanced AV equipment, including
computers, into higher end TV's. Which would have been a major improvement for VCR
and laser discs too.
It requires an elegant mind to design anything ahead properly, and the people who
object should follow.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)