7 ms·

nearly all of the old stuff just sucked. there's a reason we threw it all away (for the most part) and have turned to emulation. the new low power SoC systems

nearly all of the old stuff just sucked. there's a reason we threw it all away (for the most part) and have turned to emulation. the new low power SoC systems with actual connectivity are much more interesting... probably why they can barely keep the stuff in stock. as a bonus, they can run emulation just fine. old, and new, in one package.

chihuahua 3y ago
I feel the same way about computers of the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. I owned several of them, used them a lot (mostly programming for fun), and much of the experience just sucked. I do not understand the appeal of retrocomputing. But I'm happy that there are a lot of options for people who like that sort of thing.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "I do not understand the appeal of retrocomputing." But at least one knew what was going on. If one didn't then one could probe the hardware with a logic analyzer and an oscilloscope. Try that today and see how far you get. Mind you, the 8088 was a dog of a processor, too little too late and far tooooo slow (nobbling the 8086 was a dumb retrograde idea).
  - avidphantasm 3y ago
    Yeah, using an 8088 in this thing seems dumb. My first thought when seeing this was: put a 386 or 486 with VGA in this and I would buy one. This would be instantly useful for retrogaming. 8088 with CGA, not so much (for me at least).
    - hilbert42 3y ago
      My thoughts exactly, especially the 486. It was a good all-rounder, worked well—thoroughly debuged unlike the Pentium—and fast enough to be useful even today for some work. Also, I'd heard accounts that some influential third parties (companies developing stuff for the military etc.) were still using it long past its used-by date because it was the last of the 86 line whose internals they could fully understand. IBM was second-sourcing it too. Incidentally, I wonder where those 8088s come from, same for the 8087. Seems someone still makes them. __ Edit: Just occurred to me the main/intended use for this computer is as a training aid. The ready access to the chips and that they've sockets for removal would allow access for an ICE (In Circuit Emulator) bond-out chip/board to be inserted. Thus, there's no need for it to run any faster.
      - Koshkin 3y ago
        It's an OKI M80C88A-2, and the genuine Intel 8087.
        hilbert42 3y ago
        Thanks. Presumably for use embedded in their hardware products. A genuine 8087 must mean Intel still makes them or there's a lot of old new stock around.
    - DennisP 3y ago
      Depends what you're looking for. I have fond memories of programming an 8088 in high school with BASICA and Turbo Pascal. I could definitely see getting this to play around with. A 486 could do more but it wouldn't take me back to my roots in quite the same way.
- aembleton 3y ago
  Nostalgia is a hell of a drug
okasaki 3y ago
One thing that didn't suck that we threw away was 4:3 screens though. And chunky plastic builds with easily user-replaceable parts. And nice full 7 row keyboards that felt good to type on. And rounded laptop edges so it doesn't kill your wrists. And ports, lots of ports.
- lloeki 3y ago
  > 4:3 screens The 16:9 craze drives me mad: it's jack of all trades master of none, compromise every other way. Maybe nice to watch TV shows, not really good to watch movies, not tall enough for a single screen, not wide enough to 50:50 split left/right (each side is too narrow). Putting two side by side makes you face the bezels, and constant-tilt your head either left or right when you focus. Three side by side is way too wide. Probably why some folks put three but have the two outmost ones be vertical. Which brings me to 9:16 which is way too thin AND tall. A triple head 4:3 setup was terrible for movies, but reaaaally nice for a battlestation. Maybe 5:4 would have been quite something but I never experienced that. I do like the Ultrawide things though, 2.4:1 feels like two 4:3, only continuous, no bezel in the middle. 3.5:1 is technically about two 16:9 but feels like triple head 4:3. They're especially comfortable when curved, but damn, none are HiDPI, which kind of ruins it. And of course that's kind of a no-go for laptops (or maybe not, but I bet the manufacturer attempting that would somehow botch the execution)
  - don-code 3y ago
    I actually do use three 24" 16:9 screens, side by side. Though small by anyone else's standards, 24" is sort of the perfect size for the three monitor setup. It doesn't make me strain my neck _too_ much, but also isn't so gargantuan that I can't fit three on my 5-foot desk. I split each monitor down the middle, treating it essentially as a viewport for two windows. Optionally I sometimes fill one screen with a single window, but I never overlap screens. On my home computer running Linux (Cinnamon) this functionality is built in; on my work laptop running macOS, I use Rectangle to accomplish the same thing. I did have three 19" 4:3 CRTs, way back when - beautiful Sun Trinitrons. They took up the entire desk, but I could conveniently stack equipment on top of them (speakers, a clock, an FM radio, etc), because they were so large. But my workflow for those was different - each monitor _was_ a single window, as splitting them resulted in windows that were too narrow to be useful.
bharathyes 3y ago
not always because they sucked. Some were replaced by cheaper, easy to mass produce but somewhat inferior products. Others by some insane reasons by manufacturers to increase their profits or differentiate amongst themselves, pushing for thinner, lighter devices. i would gladly use bulkier devices for better specs and reparability.

chihuahua 3y ago

I feel the same way about computers of the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. I owned several of them, used them a lot (mostly programming for fun), and much of the experience just sucked. I do not understand the appeal of retrocomputing. But I'm happy that there are a lot of options for people who like that sort of thing.

hilbert42 3y ago
"I do not understand the appeal of retrocomputing." But at least one knew what was going on. If one didn't then one could probe the hardware with a logic analyzer and an oscilloscope. Try that today and see how far you get. Mind you, the 8088 was a dog of a processor, too little too late and far tooooo slow (nobbling the 8086 was a dumb retrograde idea).
- avidphantasm 3y ago
  Yeah, using an 8088 in this thing seems dumb. My first thought when seeing this was: put a 386 or 486 with VGA in this and I would buy one. This would be instantly useful for retrogaming. 8088 with CGA, not so much (for me at least).
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    My thoughts exactly, especially the 486. It was a good all-rounder, worked well—thoroughly debuged unlike the Pentium—and fast enough to be useful even today for some work. Also, I'd heard accounts that some influential third parties (companies developing stuff for the military etc.) were still using it long past its used-by date because it was the last of the 86 line whose internals they could fully understand. IBM was second-sourcing it too. Incidentally, I wonder where those 8088s come from, same for the 8087. Seems someone still makes them. __ Edit: Just occurred to me the main/intended use for this computer is as a training aid. The ready access to the chips and that they've sockets for removal would allow access for an ICE (In Circuit Emulator) bond-out chip/board to be inserted. Thus, there's no need for it to run any faster.
    - Koshkin 3y ago
      It's an OKI M80C88A-2, and the genuine Intel 8087.
      - hilbert42 3y ago
        Thanks. Presumably for use embedded in their hardware products. A genuine 8087 must mean Intel still makes them or there's a lot of old new stock around.
  - DennisP 3y ago
    Depends what you're looking for. I have fond memories of programming an 8088 in high school with BASICA and Turbo Pascal. I could definitely see getting this to play around with. A 486 could do more but it wouldn't take me back to my roots in quite the same way.
aembleton 3y ago
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug

okasaki 3y ago

One thing that didn't suck that we threw away was 4:3 screens though. And chunky plastic builds with easily user-replaceable parts. And nice full 7 row keyboards that felt good to type on. And rounded laptop edges so it doesn't kill your wrists. And ports, lots of ports.

lloeki 3y ago
> 4:3 screens The 16:9 craze drives me mad: it's jack of all trades master of none, compromise every other way. Maybe nice to watch TV shows, not really good to watch movies, not tall enough for a single screen, not wide enough to 50:50 split left/right (each side is too narrow). Putting two side by side makes you face the bezels, and constant-tilt your head either left or right when you focus. Three side by side is way too wide. Probably why some folks put three but have the two outmost ones be vertical. Which brings me to 9:16 which is way too thin AND tall. A triple head 4:3 setup was terrible for movies, but reaaaally nice for a battlestation. Maybe 5:4 would have been quite something but I never experienced that. I do like the Ultrawide things though, 2.4:1 feels like two 4:3, only continuous, no bezel in the middle. 3.5:1 is technically about two 16:9 but feels like triple head 4:3. They're especially comfortable when curved, but damn, none are HiDPI, which kind of ruins it. And of course that's kind of a no-go for laptops (or maybe not, but I bet the manufacturer attempting that would somehow botch the execution)
- don-code 3y ago
  I actually do use three 24" 16:9 screens, side by side. Though small by anyone else's standards, 24" is sort of the perfect size for the three monitor setup. It doesn't make me strain my neck _too_ much, but also isn't so gargantuan that I can't fit three on my 5-foot desk. I split each monitor down the middle, treating it essentially as a viewport for two windows. Optionally I sometimes fill one screen with a single window, but I never overlap screens. On my home computer running Linux (Cinnamon) this functionality is built in; on my work laptop running macOS, I use Rectangle to accomplish the same thing. I did have three 19" 4:3 CRTs, way back when - beautiful Sun Trinitrons. They took up the entire desk, but I could conveniently stack equipment on top of them (speakers, a clock, an FM radio, etc), because they were so large. But my workflow for those was different - each monitor _was_ a single window, as splitting them resulted in windows that were too narrow to be useful.

bharathyes 3y ago

not always because they sucked. Some were replaced by cheaper, easy to mass produce but somewhat inferior products. Others by some insane reasons by manufacturers to increase their profits or differentiate amongst themselves, pushing for thinner, lighter devices. i would gladly use bulkier devices for better specs and reparability.