No, it is not "sophistry". There is a reason why Apple-I commands these high prices- because it is a piece of history, a slice of technology of the era. If I buy Commodore 64, I won't be buying it for replaying old games, it is completely pointless excercise, I can just buy RPi for that, I will be buying it to have a historical artifact. Now what kind of historical artifact would it be, if the only thing left is the PCB, and everything else are Xilinx IC's designed in 2020s, 40 years later?
If you're buying it as a historical artefact and not to use it, then surely it doesn't matter if it's non-functional either? In that case this isn't for you, and that's fine, but arguing it's not a Commodore 64 any more is sophistry. It's not an "100% original unchanged" Commodore 64, sure. Very few people care about that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Very funny mix of GenZ and postmodern thinking - from GenZ it is like "I want to signal to everyone (myself including) my connection to history without actually investing into, by buying an insta-history new thing" and from postmodern -"things are what I decide to call them, if I call apple a banana it is a banana" now.
I don't care about signalling anything to anyone. I grew up with a Commodore 64, and to me the value on a Commodore 64 is primarily nostalgia.
A connection to history is irrelevant to me. Something which triggers my nostalgia and which I enjoy using is not, and that does not require perfect accuracy (if anything, nostalgia often favours avoiding perfect accuracy on favour of avoiding nuisances)
I certainly do have no interest in "investing", no, because investment or history is not the point to me.
If I had the choice between an electric Ford T and an authentic one, I'd certainly prefer the electric one. That's be an interesting curiosity - Ford worked on one which was never launched, and his wife drove an electric car -, while an original one would be something I'd have no interest in outside a museum.
Then you should get worked up so much, about not calling it C64. You should be fine then it is not Commodore 64, but just a gimmick that has nostalgic value for you, but not in any way actual Commodore 64 (which it clearly is not).
BTW, good luck reselling your model T as actual model T LOL.
I don't care what you call it, but to me it's still a Commodore 64, and not a gimmick, and I could just as well tell you not to get so worked up over someone else not caring about your purist insistence it is not.
Reselling an actual model T with an electric motor as an actual mode T with an electric motor would work just fine. Some would lose interest because it's been changed, some would find it more attractive. For my part, I'd find it far more interesting and be willing to pay more for something esoteric like that.
I not being worked up about your opinion, you are entitled to. What I am saying that it should not be advertised as a real thing, as a brand new C64. As simple as that.
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...)
There are 2 things you can get from classic computers - a piece of history as you say, but also nostalgia and a return to childhood. I don't think that replaying old games is a pointless exercise. It's just a way to escape from the day-to-day grind and go back to an earlier part of life where things were just a lot easier. So I hear what you want from computers, but there is a lot more to retrocomputing than just hardware preservation.
Totally agree with you; my point is that for replaying old games, RPi is well enough. No point in making what is esentially a hardware emulator and calling it "the real thing".
Ah, I see. On that, there are different degrees of "realness". Aside from historical preservation, there are enthusiasts (I might be one of them :) ) who want the most realistic possible retro experience given the constraints of ageing hardware.
Using the actual hardware with 100% accurate modern part replacements is one way to get there. Another way is to have perfect, "cycle accurate" emulators but these aren't easy to come by - some emulators have been in development for years and still have glitches. This kind of hardware replacement has a much higher chance of reaching the 100% accuracy I'm referring to.
The problem is that FPGA's are not 100% hardware replicas of the chips. The only way to be close to tru experience is to use newly made silicon, but made according to the blueprints from 1970s. For example 6502s sold today are of this type; also 74AC/HC/LS chips.
These are for the most part digital chips. If you make a cycle accurate replacement, they're close enough in that they for most users won't change the output. E.g. here's an in-progress cycle accurate 6510/8500 replacement, that is if anything more compatible than some of the alternative "period" licensed 6502/6510/8500 designs, where support for the undocumented instructions vary:
There are other similar projects. This notion that the use of FPGA's means there's some inherent difference in fidelity that newly made silicon wouldn't have is nonsense for parts like this that are so far from pushing the limits of available FPGA's.
They are not hardware replicas (as in "the same circuits"), but as far as the pin voltages are concerned, they can behave exactly like the original chips. And when I say "exactly", I don't mean "pretty much the same", I mean the same. That's the beauty of the digital world, it's absolutely possible to fully and perfectly emulate digital circuits.
Arguably an emulator could do the same, but it's much harder to simulate the entire system than it is to isolate a single chip and emulate that.
It is not the point that replica behaves "perfectly same", the issue is that they are not period accurate. Even it is a perfectly
But also keep in mind that there is no such a thing as a "digital circuit" in physical world, because there some analog effects at work in any digital circuit. If it were not true, the would not have been hardware incompatabilities seen even in moderrn systems, which often happen due timing/delay or noise issues. WRT to retro tech, in for example Apple-I modern 74hct/act chips would not often work compared to more humble 74ls chips. There are also interesting temperature-dependent effects in NMOS 6502 (some undocumented instructions are executed differently) which have non-digital reasons and cannot be reproduced.
Emulators are a lot easier btw to write than a VHDL or verilog spec and put it to actual hardware and debug etc, due to having already so many existing open source code for emulators, processors etc.
My point is different though - there is no way to make new Commodore 64 out of existing components. What you will get is a faithful replica with zero historic importance. For some it does not matter, but I still believe that even these people make a majority, the resulting product is not C64 and should not be called such.
1) The historical artifact. Case manufactured in original factory, IC's manufactured back in the day under (in this case) Commodore's supervision, etc.
In this case,"original condition" is paramount. Some may be happy with minor fixups like replacing electrolytic capacitors, power supply, broken connectors, replace dead IC or whatever. Some may want as original as possible, in working order or not.
2) The look & feel, having original-looking machine in front of them, that (as much as possible) connects to the same peripherals original machine does. And runs software exactly like original machine would.
In this case, most buyers won't care (or even prefer) various upgrades / replacements, as long as that look & feel remains. See eg. CPLD or FPGA based replacement parts, new keyboards, or "mini" versions of systems like the NES. That C64-in-a-joystick or similar is grey area here. :-)
I suspect user group pursuing 2) is larger than those pursuing 1). Let alone the purists among them.
Software emulators are just a lower-bar, easier way to tip one's toes in the water (or do sw development).
Your assumption is unjustified TBH, because HN comment section is not representative of retro community. Now I also cannot understand how something can feel same as old historic device - this is not true even for differen gens of the same hardware. Say Apple-IIe feel substantially different from IIc and deeifferent generations of Sony PS 1 are also feel different.
In any case I would agree with title "100% new C64" if it were made from silicon level replica of chips, not FPGA's, much like new 6502 sold on aliexpress are generally good replicas of NMOS 6502, with the quirks and even current consumption faithfully reproduced, not some Xilinx Spartan-based simulacrum of the real thing.
That might be an argument if the only market was for projects like the linked one, which provide drop in replacement for period-accurate replicas, but the market is also full of full FPGA reimplementations and machines that adds all kinds of additional features, which shows there's a substantial portion of the retro community who don't care even about whether the result provides accurate reproductions.
This is not a market for retro, it is a market for replicas, an entirely different one. Still a replica is a replica, and should not be advertised as a brand new original machine, which the original title (before edit) was about.
