16-bit C64/128?
in [Commodore]
|
From: BruceMcF on 14 Apr 2008 00:38 On Apr 13, 5:32 pm, Jim Brain <br...(a)jbrain.com> wrote: > BruceMcF wrote: > > But note that attacking the problems a chip at a time does not mean > > that you can never then proceed to put those designs together ... > > indeed, if you stay with the same FPGA family, putting the designs > > together seems like it could be mostly a copy and paste affair. > That would be the idea. Play around with a design (and be able to > isolate and test it against actual peripheral ICs) and then switch to > another design for another IC. Take a design and tweak it, etc. > Then, when people collectively decide there is a VIC-II+ or a SID+ or a > 6510+ (with 16 or 32 bit support, or whatever) that satisfies a large > enough set of folks, pull the individual designs into a single FPGA, add > a bit of glue, some IO ports, and ship a new 64 design. (Or a VIC, or a > 128, etc.) > Both paths will end up the same place, but the direct path seems to > stall more easily. > Jim They have different thresholds in order to achieve network economies ... the approach you've sketched is suited to tinkering, which means that it can spread from person to person slowly, below the radar, and continue to build momentum. The system requires the market, created by a kernel of existing capability and an ability to grow from that kernel. All of that requires understanding the market. Jeri seems to be a hardware tinkerer at heart, and so its no surprise that the C64DTV was a hit among hardware tinkerers. But to be something more than just another NES all-in-one joystick knockoff with slightly better sound and either better (NTSC) or worse (PAL) graphics, it needed to be something that software tinkerers could play around with without being hardware competent, and then easily share what they had done. Or, in other words, out of the box, if it had a way to hook up an SD flash card and autoboot off of it, it would have had a shot. And in terms of hardware, its very close to that ... its just the mask, and maybe a couple of pull up resisters, away from that. But the real market is where the difference between a device that can get onto the net in a crude way with a software-mappable 40 by 25 A/V display for under $50 is, in reality, an actual market, and that is in the low-income nations where mobile phones are spreading like wildfire, but computers are a far more restricted item.
From: BruceMcF on 14 Apr 2008 00:41 On Apr 13, 11:21 pm, Jim Brain <br...(a)jbrain.com> wrote: > > Should there be 2 SPI connections on each board, giving the ability to > > daisy chain a SPI bus 'behind the scenes' to other daughter boards? > I would be OK providing a bit of user defined IO on the board, but I > think making more specific items just limits their usage. It may be noted that 8 GPIO pins equals 2 independent SPI ports, or 1 SPI bus master with multiple selects, or 1 SPI device with a 4 wire UART or 2 4-wire UARTS or ... well, anyway, 8 is a good round number to have.
From: Pheuque on 14 Apr 2008 09:03 The only thing that would get me to part with REAL hard cash, would be a handheld Commodore One. At the C=1's current form factor it has no use outside the hacker market. I've always thought the C=1 board was layed out "sideways" anyway. Mini-ATX was poor choice for a board that small. It should have been ITX or along the lines of the Shuttle XPC's. But for any 16 bit machine to worth developing these days, it would have to be no bigger than an Old Speak and Spell, and include at least a 320 x 240 screen, which would be the bulk of the unit cost.
From: Mark McDougall on 14 Apr 2008 09:08 Pheuque wrote: > But for any 16 bit machine to worth developing these days, it would > have to be no bigger than an Old Speak and Spell, and include at > least a 320 x 240 screen, which would be the bulk of the unit cost. How about this then? <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug/pace/hardware/pace-p3m-scale.jpg> With QVGA & SD card slot, the only thing that has prevented me from porting FPGA64 is lack of time... :( - well actually, the screen on this one is 240x320 rather than 320x240, but the next version reportedly has the latter... Regards, -- | Mark McDougall | "Electrical Engineers do it | <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug> | with less resistance!"
From: BruceMcF on 14 Apr 2008 10:58
On Apr 14, 9:03 am, Pheuque <Ratte...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The only thing that would get me to part with REAL hard cash, would be > a handheld Commodore One. > At the C=1's current form factor it has no use outside the hacker > market. > I've always thought the C=1 board was layed out "sideways" anyway. > Mini-ATX was poor choice for a board that small. It should have been > ITX or along the lines of the Shuttle XPC's. > But for any 16 bit machine to worth developing these days, it would > have to be no bigger than an Old Speak and Spell, and include at > least a 320 x 240 screen, which would be the bulk of the unit cost. Yes, the lowest unit price for color QVGA LCD's that I saw on digikey was over $100 ... a small one with a unit price of $112 and a price break at 50. Which is, of course, why all the focus on the el cheapo all-in-one units is A/V output to the television. |