7 ms·

Working historical artifact are way more valuable then non-working. I am surprised so many people do not understand that.

wkjagt 3y ago
I agree. And it's not just about monetary value. There's just something beautiful about a 40 year old computer still working perfectly. The fact that it's all original is almost a necessity for me to enjoy it to its fullest. I love programming these old machines in assembly language, while at the same time doing my best to understand what is going on inside the machine with each instruction. Replacing original parts with microcontrollers would take away a lot of that pleasure.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
  precisely my point. I would certainly buy an Apple-1 if it were not as pricey as it is now.
- vidarh 3y ago
  If you want to use them, why does it matter if a chip has been replaced? To me, that is what is bizarre. I get the appeal of preserving some. I get the appeal of using some. I don't get the appeal of insisting on purity and retaining only original parts for something you want to actually use, especially when that increasingly means being unable to use these machines because parts are becoming harder to find. > Replacing original parts with microcontrollers would take away a lot of that pleasure. Why, when these parts react to the same electrical signals in the same way? In this case it's also not a microcontroller but an FPGA. The contents of the package is different, but the contents of the package also changed during Commodore's own production runs e.g. the change from 6526's to 8521's.
  - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
    I think it must be bizarre for why people want original artwork, and do not value replicas. You folks, _bizarrely_ fail to understand what is _historical value _ and what is _period-correct_ _substitute_. First of all neither FPGA's nor MCU are not going to "react the same way to electric signals", cause contrary to what many think, FPGA's are not tabula rasa you can put any digital design to - there are limitations to what can be synthesized. Secondly, 6526 to 8251 is not only period correct, but also a change made by manufacturer themselves, therefore has almost zero historical impact. There is no way a new design, with almost everything replaced by FPGA's can be called Commodore 64, as much as a Ford-T with a brushless electric motor and lithium baterries can be called Ford-T. You can call it replica, and sell it to those who to pretend they own a historical car, but for everyone who truly understand value of old and antique, that would be laughable.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      > I think it must be bizarre for why people want original artwork, and do not value replicas. You folks, _bizarrely_ fail to understand what is _historical value _ and what is _period-correct_ _substitute_. No, I understand it, but yes, I think it is absolutely bizarre. Both can be true at the same time. To me the value in an original over a replica is purely whether or not a bunch of purists are willing to pay more for the original, which I find both bizarre and hilarious. To me the original has no additional value over the resale value - if anything it's value may often be lower if I suspect its age means a higher risk of having to replace components down the line. So, sure, if I were to buy one for the sake of potential financial value I'd value original, working parts because I know some proportion of others care. But if I bought one to use and found some parts had been replaced, I wouldn't stop calling it a Commodore 64 whether or not the replacement parts were original. But in this case, the price for a Commodore 64 is still low; not even purists are willing to pay much for them. > First of all neither FPGA's nor MCU are not going to "react the same way to electric signals", cause contrary to what many think, FPGA's are not tabula rasa you can put any digital design to - there are limitations to what can be synthesized. Secondly, 6526 to 8251 is not only period correct, but also a change made by manufacturer themselves, therefore has almost zero historical impact. For the fidelity required for a 6526, it very much is reacting close enough or it wouldn't work as a drop-in replacement. I don't care if there's some sort of deviation that is small enough that it has no relevance to it's correct functioning in the real hardware. As for "period correct", I couldn't give the tiniest little shit, as the long as it works, as unlike the SID or VIC, there's no "works correctly but the output is different enough to affect my enjoyment of the machine". > There is no way a new design, with almost everything replaced by FPGA's can be called Commodore 64, as much as a Ford-T with a brushless electric motor and lithium baterries can be called Ford-T. You can call it replica, and sell it to those who to pretend they own a historical car, but for everyone who truly understand value of old and antique, that would be laughable. Of course there is every way in which something with everything replaced can be called a Commodore 64: All it takes is people choosing to do so. For me, whether or not I'd call it a Commodore 64 would come down to a subjective assessment of how similar it is. If you changed the physical appearance, that'd be a no for me, but replacing a part that doesn't affect the way the machine works? Sure. I wouldn't try to pass it off as an original, but I also wouldn't care one bit that it's not original, because I don't have any interest in a "historical artefact" but in the nostalgia of being able to use something which feels like the original.
  - wkjagt 3y ago
    If an original part is unavailable, yeah, I'd replace it with a more modern replacement. I prefer that it remains functional more than keeping it 100% original. But I would still first try to find an original part. And I'd feel somewhat disappointed, and the computer would feel a little less appealing to me, if I could only find an FPGA based replacement. I know that's bizarre, and I can't rationally explain it, so I guess I agree with you in a way.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      I can get preferring to stick to "real" parts if available, even though it's not something I really care about. I draw arbitrary lines too, I just generally feel it's worth being pragmatic about them if the alternative is losing functionality, which it sounds like you are too.
    - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
      No it is not bizarre, it is normal and typical feeling in retro community. Check prices on Apple-I or NOS analog components. I'd say it is quite unusual to be indifferent to the period accuracy among those who are interested retro tech.
vidarh 3y ago
I understand that it is so, I don't see the point of it. It's not an asset that appreciates at a rate sufficient to make it worth it for the value, so it's then down to a purity test. To me they've no appeal as a historical artefact. Their only appeal is for nostalgia, for which being able to actually use them matters far more than purity - if anything, my experience is that nostalgia is best served by imperfect replication that fixes those real aspects that were particularly painful (like easily burning out 6526's...). Especially those we badly wished for at the time (like 6526's more resistant to burnouts...)

wkjagt 3y ago

I agree. And it's not just about monetary value. There's just something beautiful about a 40 year old computer still working perfectly. The fact that it's all original is almost a necessity for me to enjoy it to its fullest. I love programming these old machines in assembly language, while at the same time doing my best to understand what is going on inside the machine with each instruction. Replacing original parts with microcontrollers would take away a lot of that pleasure.

SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
precisely my point. I would certainly buy an Apple-1 if it were not as pricey as it is now.
vidarh 3y ago
If you want to use them, why does it matter if a chip has been replaced? To me, that is what is bizarre. I get the appeal of preserving some. I get the appeal of using some. I don't get the appeal of insisting on purity and retaining only original parts for something you want to actually use, especially when that increasingly means being unable to use these machines because parts are becoming harder to find. > Replacing original parts with microcontrollers would take away a lot of that pleasure. Why, when these parts react to the same electrical signals in the same way? In this case it's also not a microcontroller but an FPGA. The contents of the package is different, but the contents of the package also changed during Commodore's own production runs e.g. the change from 6526's to 8521's.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
  I think it must be bizarre for why people want original artwork, and do not value replicas. You folks, _bizarrely_ fail to understand what is _historical value _ and what is _period-correct_ _substitute_. First of all neither FPGA's nor MCU are not going to "react the same way to electric signals", cause contrary to what many think, FPGA's are not tabula rasa you can put any digital design to - there are limitations to what can be synthesized. Secondly, 6526 to 8251 is not only period correct, but also a change made by manufacturer themselves, therefore has almost zero historical impact. There is no way a new design, with almost everything replaced by FPGA's can be called Commodore 64, as much as a Ford-T with a brushless electric motor and lithium baterries can be called Ford-T. You can call it replica, and sell it to those who to pretend they own a historical car, but for everyone who truly understand value of old and antique, that would be laughable.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    > I think it must be bizarre for why people want original artwork, and do not value replicas. You folks, _bizarrely_ fail to understand what is _historical value _ and what is _period-correct_ _substitute_. No, I understand it, but yes, I think it is absolutely bizarre. Both can be true at the same time. To me the value in an original over a replica is purely whether or not a bunch of purists are willing to pay more for the original, which I find both bizarre and hilarious. To me the original has no additional value over the resale value - if anything it's value may often be lower if I suspect its age means a higher risk of having to replace components down the line. So, sure, if I were to buy one for the sake of potential financial value I'd value original, working parts because I know some proportion of others care. But if I bought one to use and found some parts had been replaced, I wouldn't stop calling it a Commodore 64 whether or not the replacement parts were original. But in this case, the price for a Commodore 64 is still low; not even purists are willing to pay much for them. > First of all neither FPGA's nor MCU are not going to "react the same way to electric signals", cause contrary to what many think, FPGA's are not tabula rasa you can put any digital design to - there are limitations to what can be synthesized. Secondly, 6526 to 8251 is not only period correct, but also a change made by manufacturer themselves, therefore has almost zero historical impact. For the fidelity required for a 6526, it very much is reacting close enough or it wouldn't work as a drop-in replacement. I don't care if there's some sort of deviation that is small enough that it has no relevance to it's correct functioning in the real hardware. As for "period correct", I couldn't give the tiniest little shit, as the long as it works, as unlike the SID or VIC, there's no "works correctly but the output is different enough to affect my enjoyment of the machine". > There is no way a new design, with almost everything replaced by FPGA's can be called Commodore 64, as much as a Ford-T with a brushless electric motor and lithium baterries can be called Ford-T. You can call it replica, and sell it to those who to pretend they own a historical car, but for everyone who truly understand value of old and antique, that would be laughable. Of course there is every way in which something with everything replaced can be called a Commodore 64: All it takes is people choosing to do so. For me, whether or not I'd call it a Commodore 64 would come down to a subjective assessment of how similar it is. If you changed the physical appearance, that'd be a no for me, but replacing a part that doesn't affect the way the machine works? Sure. I wouldn't try to pass it off as an original, but I also wouldn't care one bit that it's not original, because I don't have any interest in a "historical artefact" but in the nostalgia of being able to use something which feels like the original.
- wkjagt 3y ago
  If an original part is unavailable, yeah, I'd replace it with a more modern replacement. I prefer that it remains functional more than keeping it 100% original. But I would still first try to find an original part. And I'd feel somewhat disappointed, and the computer would feel a little less appealing to me, if I could only find an FPGA based replacement. I know that's bizarre, and I can't rationally explain it, so I guess I agree with you in a way.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    I can get preferring to stick to "real" parts if available, even though it's not something I really care about. I draw arbitrary lines too, I just generally feel it's worth being pragmatic about them if the alternative is losing functionality, which it sounds like you are too.
  - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
    No it is not bizarre, it is normal and typical feeling in retro community. Check prices on Apple-I or NOS analog components. I'd say it is quite unusual to be indifferent to the period accuracy among those who are interested retro tech.

vidarh 3y ago

I understand that it is so, I don't see the point of it. It's not an asset that appreciates at a rate sufficient to make it worth it for the value, so it's then down to a purity test. To me they've no appeal as a historical artefact. Their only appeal is for nostalgia, for which being able to actually use them matters far more than purity - if anything, my experience is that nostalgia is best served by imperfect replication that fixes those real aspects that were particularly painful (like easily burning out 6526's...). Especially those we badly wished for at the time (like 6526's more resistant to burnouts...)