3 ms·

There's lots of retro/vintage computers out there. I find the ones that use FPGAs less interesting - I guess just because it feels like an FPGA is technologica

There's lots of retro/vintage computers out there. I find the ones that use FPGAs less interesting - I guess just because it feels like an FPGA is technologically very advanced. Most interesting to me personally are "new/old" machines that have CPUs that are real CPUs (i.e. not FPGA) and as close as possible to the originals, Or at least spiritual successors to the originals. For example at the moment there is a machine in development called the Agon, which uses an EZ80 CPU. Sure its not an original Z80, and yes it runs at 20Mhz to 50Mhz and has lots of features, but being a "real" CPU and being the direct descendant of the Z80, this feels more authentic". I guess it's just personal taste. I suppose that for some people, what matters is a retro-like user experience and they care less if there is an FPGA at the core. As I write this I realise it's a very nerdy distinction to be making. It's a strange thing also when a "new/old" machine trumpets its speed as a feature "40x faster than the C64!". If I want fast then I'll use my desktop computer. It's the constraints on memory and speed an graphics that makes retro computers interesting.

jancsika 4y ago
> It's a strange thing also when a "new/old" machine trumpets its speed as a feature "40x faster than the C64!". If I want fast then I'll use my desktop computer. The author of that project has had another goal in mind-- to be able to build usable machines where the code running on them can be reasoned about. There's a talk he gave where he hooked a joystick up to a little cube and had a C64 slideshow with rich text, graphics, and slides that were editable in realtime. Additionally, he had a baseband processor hooked up so he could make and receive calls from some C64 demo-looking app. The interface was so simple between the baseband and the main CPU that a single developer could have a chance at understanding the interface, the code running on the trusted CPU, and the state of the memory when making a call in the app. For that goal, a chip design as well understood as this one is a great starting point. And I believe that's where the "40x" faster comes in-- e.g., that means the slide show with editable rich text plus graphics is actually usable in realtime.

jancsika 4y ago

> It's a strange thing also when a "new/old" machine trumpets its speed as a feature "40x faster than the C64!". If I want fast then I'll use my desktop computer. The author of that project has had another goal in mind-- to be able to build usable machines where the code running on them can be reasoned about. There's a talk he gave where he hooked a joystick up to a little cube and had a C64 slideshow with rich text, graphics, and slides that were editable in realtime. Additionally, he had a baseband processor hooked up so he could make and receive calls from some C64 demo-looking app. The interface was so simple between the baseband and the main CPU that a single developer could have a chance at understanding the interface, the code running on the trusted CPU, and the state of the memory when making a call in the app. For that goal, a chip design as well understood as this one is a great starting point. And I believe that's where the "40x" faster comes in-- e.g., that means the slide show with editable rich text plus graphics is actually usable in realtime.