oracle_jedi

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious - how many of these games are you sure run on a 1200, regardless of any OSSC issues? I've been downloading some games, old favorites and some I've never heard of, from planetemu. ADF files then loaded onto an HxC. With a PAL1200, my success rate is exactly 50%. Of 88 games tested, only 44 have worked without any issues. A few more sort of work. The rest is a mishmash of blank screens, red screen, frozen screen, invalid instruction errors, random reboots etc etc etc. I have now put the 1200 aside and have a 500 on the bench, and with guidance from @OLD CS1 it has 1MB of Chip RAM, Kickstart 1.3 and a physical NTSC/PAL boot switch. So far the games that failed on the 1200 are working on the 500. But only just started so time will tell.

That's exactly the question, and my frustration. In fact I think the Amiga hates me. All of them. I have; A500 Rev6 NTSC, A500 Rev6 PAL, A500 w/ Vampire 2, A1200 NTSC with internal CF card based HD and an ACA1221+ and an A1200 PAL stock no HD. I also have an ACA500+ with CF card based HD. And with all of that my success rate at running any random WHD or ADF game is 50/50 at best. Is that normal? With my Atari 1040ST and a Satan HD most things do run. Maybe 8/10. On the Amigas; NMI errors, insufficient ChipRAM, Insufficient memory, green screen (ACA500+), black screen, red screen (Rainbow Island), lock up, red-text-on-black-background illegal instruction errors and sometimes just title screens that refuse to respond to any input from keyboard or mouse. Is it the Kickstart? Is it an AGA/ECS/OCS issue? Is it not enough RAM, RAM in wrong place, Chip RAM? Is it a PAL/NTSC timing issue? Is the game fine but the hackers who plastered their intro over the front coded some dependency.... What is the most compatible Amiga config for playing casual games?

And the Nuclear Power station that the ZX80 was managing was Three Mile Island.

Well the ZX81 predecessor - the ZX80 - could run a nuclear power station. We know this because Sinclair marketing told us so. But the postit note predecessor - sticky tape and paper - could get you to the moon and back!

So I've seen online guides that show adding extra RAM chips to a Rev 6A board, and then modding JP2 and JP7 to give 1MB of Chip RAM. And as I understand it, just modding JP7 would change the trapdoor RAM from Fast RAM to Chip RAM, although some guides say some older software that needs 1MB wont run in this config. So... is it possible to add extra RAM chips for 1MB of Chip RAM, and then keep the trapdoor RAM as Fast RAM, for a total of 1.5MB? Is that an option? Is Chip RAM and Fast occupying the same physical RAM addresses or are they different? If you add the extra RAM chips to a Rev 6A board and DONT modify JP2/JP7, is that effectively the same as having the trap door RAM card present? Right now I have two A500s and only one A501. I probably do have those RAM chips somewhere in my box of spares.

On both of my Falcons the RAM is on a daughter card that plugs into the motherboard. I thought all Falcons were shipped this way, with the daughtercard being 1MB, 4MB or 14MB (technically I think it was 16MB but 2MB is masked out).

I need a few parts from amigastore.eu and with shipping being what it is, considering adding a few more nice-to-haves, including replacing the old, clunky, heavy and gets-too-warm A500 512K RAM expansion. Amigastore.eu offers a nice new compact unit, in either 512K or 2MB configurations. There's also a RTC option I will probably skip, as my Amigas all think it is still 1992, and I'm cool with that. But my question is; is there any point to a 2MB-in-the-trapdoor expansion for an A6 rev Amiga 500? I used to have a Baseboard RAM expander once in the A500, which bumped me to 2MB, but it required a ribbon cable to an adapter to plug into one of the main ICs, and it only worked if I added the Baseboard shim into the boot disk, so I am pretty sure no commercial games would be able to recognize it or use it. Anyone know is thats the same deal with these 2MB expansions? I always thought the A500's trapdoor was limited to 512K and anything more would require some modding.

Yeah I think this 1084 is the same as your 1084S - only this one is not stereo. And the VSIZE/V.HEIGHT is around the back inside some little hole that is not easily accessible. With all of the junk on the bench, and all of the stuff piled on top of the 1084, I have extension cables to bring the RGB and Composite Video jack to the front so I can swap out one retro machine for another without having to disturb the monitor. Later I will get the SCART cable out and try it with my Sony PVM and see what it does.

I seem to recall an XF551 cannot read flipped disks - unless the timing hole is exposed on side B, which it rarely was. Is that relevant to your chart?

Cause they had an even worse sound chip than the ST I actually considered buying an Atari PC1 around 1989/90, when I finally gave up on the ST and decided to move to the PC. I liked that I could reuse one of my ST disk drives, but the lack of expansion slots put me off. Had the machine shipped with MCGA or VGA graphics and something resembling a sound card my decision might have been different. There was also the PC2 that did have slots, but 1988 was about the time when the market was flooded with cheap clones, often unbranded, sold by everyone as his uncle. My childhood friend's father, who had retired from British Leyland a few years before, was now selling PC XT clones by mail order out of a shed in his back garden. Against that backdrop I don't recall the PC2 being especially attractive. Later came the expandable PC3, PC4 and PC5 but again I don't recall the machines standing out from the crowd in terms of specs, design or price. In fact I thought the later Atari PCs were quite ugly. In the U.S. Tandy had a network of retail stores to help push their cheap PC clones. In the UK, Amstrad had established a name for themselves and were able to position their machines through stores like Dixons and Comet. Both the Tandy and the Amstrad were expandable. Other clone manufacturers like Dell and Compaq chased the corporate market and/or had customer support that Atari just could not compete with. I ended up buying a used PC XT clone called an Advance 86B. It was very cheap but utter crap, and I quickly replaced it with a 286 system from some outfit in West London run by a couple of students.

Its an interesting question, looking at ST Format magazine from March 1990 - http://www.stformat.com/stf08/stf08.pdf - it shows several vendors offering the basic 520STE pack for under £300. These same vendors seem to be charging a £200 premium for the 1040STE models. Of course the old trick of different bundles with supposedly high value software and extras makes exact comparisons hard, but my understanding is that those included software bundles were usually low cost items for the vendors to justify a higher price and collect a larger margin. Also curious, is that at this time - early 1990 - the older STF/STFM is still being sold by other vendors, and I spotted a 520STFM to 1040STFM upgrade for £60. However that would have been 512K worth of DRAM chips and not the DIMM stick used by the STE. Does anyone know if DIMMs were more expensive that the older RAM chips around 1990?

Okay thanks. Sounds like a royal pain but at least it is expected behaviour.

Running a PAL-default timing A1200 on a U.S. 1084 monitor, and the screen is offset vertically. Part of the top of the image is missing, and there's a huge matt bar at the bottom. With Lemmings it doesn't matter too much, but with PGA Golf the top menu bar is no longer visible. Is there a simple way to fix this, such that the monitor is still suitable for use with my other computers, none of which have this problem - including my Atari STE running in 50Hz mode.

Right!? The TI99/4A had a whole expansion box with slots. So did the Spectravideo. The Coleco Adam had expansion slots inside the unit. Atari promised us the 1090XL Expansion System although they never delivered... There's been something of a consensus that the one feature of the original 520ST that should have been changed was the weak sound processor. I get that. It was the key weakness that the Amiga excelled at, and with both machines becoming defacto games machines in the late 80s, the weak sound was a serious obstacle. But the Amiga didn't exist when the ST was being developed. It seems to me the reference point for the ST was the Apple Macintosh - a machine with intentionally no expansion options - and here I find myself wondering how well the ST's sound capabilities stack up against the original Mac. If any Mac experts want to enlighten me.... But back to the original question. The one thing I would change? The lifespan. We are expected to believe that Jack and his hand picked team went from a blank page to a fully finished, mostly debugged system replete with a functional DOS, GUI, two choices of floppy disk drive, two monitor choices and a smattering of software in just 9 months. I've always been dubious of that claim, suspecting that the ST started as an off-the-books skunk works project at Commodore, but I have no evidence to support my crazy conspiracy claims. All that said, the original ST standard should have been retired and replaced with the STE in 1987, not 1989. Had the 520STFM never come to market. If instead the next machine released after the 1040STf was the 520STE, coinciding with Commodore's Amiga 500, then the smaller install base of the older standard might not have been the drag on developers embracing the superior audio and graphics of the STE standard. The "new" Atari STE would have been in a far more equal fight with the cost reduced Amiga, and with its TOS-in-ROM and easier RAM expansion to 4MB, there would have been many areas where the Amiga would have struggled to compete.

I took my original IBM PC-AT right up to a P2. Shuttle continued to offer AT form factor boards long after everyone else had abandoned them in favour of ATX. Other than that no. Although I do wish the people behind the recent Commodore PET clones had designed them to fit inside a 64 breadbin case and use the 64's keyboard. I think it would be sorta cool to show up at the local meet with a stock looking 64 and have it power up to CBM BASIC 4.0 with green on black, and able to run all of the old PET software.

It's an interesting qualification - what constitutes a computer versus a games console versus a calculator. In the 80s it seemed pretty straightforward to me. Calculators had fixed functions and limited input and output devices with no ability to use permanent storage beyond ROM. Games consoles had interchangable software and some had more elaborate input devices, but still no ability to write to permanent storage. Computers by contrast had user definable software, complex IO devices and could save content to storage. Machines such as the Commodore MAX or Sord M5, that were in essence little more than games consoles with keyboards still counted as computers as they were programmable (albeit very limited) and could save to tape. At least that's how I saw it. Its subjective and you are free to disagree. The TI Calculators referenced by @Krebizfan and @AMSDOS certainly defy my simple definitions. Although marketed as calculators they really are portable computers, and if I am reading this right, TI was continuing to release new models into the early 2000s, making them I suspect the last commercial use of inherent 8bit technology - as opposed to emulated - in a commercial product. That said they were marketed as calculators, and not as computers which is an interesting distinction in my opinion. The 1995 Amstrad PCW16 is another interesting case. In fact I admit I always assumed it was a 16-bit product because - ya know - it has "16" in the name and it was brought to market far too late for that to indicate 16K RAM. But I was surprised to learn it was also Z80 based like all other PCW machines. I would peg it as the last commercial 8bit to feature significant new development, as opposed to the TLC that @Krebizfan mentioned, which was mostly a repackaging of the existing and aged Apple IIe, but even though the PCW16 was really a computer it was marketed as a Word Processor, albeit without a printer. The 1996 TLC then seems to be last product brough to market, marketed as a computer, to be based on 8bit tech. Notably it was positioned as a child's learning tool, and if my research is right, its ability to read/write to permanent storage is somewhat crippled. So I guess maybe it was the MSX Turbo R that @SlidellMan mentioned, introduced in 1991, that was marketed a computer, was not simply a repackaging of an existing design. Always interested in the opinions of others, and what the evolving discussion of Soviet-era computing product reveals.

My sample rate may not be large enough to draw any conclusions, but I have two C64s and a C128. All three have failed at some point with bad PLAs, BASIC, Char ROM and a blown SID. All despite using a Ray Carlson PSU. The C128 had dry solder on the power switch and one of the ROM chips had worked itself loose from the socket. It also needs a recap as it still fails to power up to a BASIC prompt until it has had a chance to warm up. By comparison in my collection of 2 Atari 400s, 2 Atari 800s, an 800XL and four 1200XLs none have failed except for the well known 1200XL keyboard mylar issues. FWIW the Commodore keyboards are built to a high standard, esp the C128 which has a wonderful keyboard, and a great version of BASIC, so if you want to keep working on your BASIC projects it would be a great platform to use. I have been a frequent critic of the breadbin keyboard of the VIC and 64 due to its ergonomic position but the C128 resolved that, and it is a delight to type on. If you are paying $$$ on Ebay or similar I would advise looking for evidence the unit powers up to the BASIC prompt. The output of a diagnostic cart proving all systems are operational would be even better. Once you get your C128 I would also advise removing the lid and ensuring all ICs are properly seated, and that the thermal paste that drains heat to the RF shield is refreshed. Better yet consider investing in some copper heat sinks for the major ICs to better protect them for the long haul. Good luck!

You've already stated that you're using a GSYNC monitor, so for anything from the 1980s you are going to have to use a Retrotink or equivalent. Therefore PAL/NTSC is irrelevant, although some import machines can be hard to adapt to North American power, whereas others are a simple 9V DC wall wart. A 220V step up transformer is sometimes the answer, although if you're brave you can also hack most older machines to run on a different PSU. At the end of the day most power supplies end up delivering +5V/+12V and sometimes -5V or -12V. The C128 is a great choice. Prices are still surprisingly low and the machine is 4 computers in one; Commodore MAX, C64, CP/M and native C128. The C64 is well known and well supported. CP/M can be interesting for those who enjoy such things (including me). Native C128 mode is great but there isn't much that uses it. Failure rates of C64s and C128s is quite high so be prepared to do some diagnostics and repair work. MOS branded ICs were notorious and many of the ICs; PLA/SID/CHAR ROM/Kernel/BASIC and SID are all failure prone. The good news is repairs are usually easy. The VIC is a fine choice but is limited. My first computer it has a special place in my retro heart, and I love the chunky graphics and games written to use PETSCII characters. Many people would quickly get bored with it. The older gold-badge units are built like tanks and failure rates are low. But the video signal wasn't remotely in-spec in 1981 and time hasn't helped. Old monitors were forgiving of such variance, but modern upscalers less so. I use Sony PVM with mine and it is lovely. On the LCD the image jumps every few seconds. For North American beginners another option to consider is the TI99/4A. They sold 5 million so they are not rare in the U.S. Prices and still low for consoles and accessories. Well supported by a wonderful community which is also refreshingly low-drama compared to the ego-dominated Commodore and (some) Atari areas. Another bonus is the TI was built to an extremely high standard. I swear those computers could survive an EMP blast. Add a 32K RAM expansion, a Flash GROM cart and an Atari joystick adapter - all easily available - and you have a retro platform you can explore and enjoy. You can even add an F18A to get native VGA out from the unit, which also opens up new game ports such as Super Mario and Zaxxon.

I remember seeing the TLCs for sale at the Tiger Direct Outlet store in Naperville, IL back around 1997. I didn't know it at the time, but I am guessing that's where they dumped the unsold stock after the license deal with Apple was rescinded. I thought it was an interesting idea then, and I still do now. It's a shame it didn't get a proper chance. And I think it probably was the last product brought to market as a "computer" (versus a calculator, many of which are functionally indistinguishable from a simple computer) that was wholly based on 8-bit technology. I didn't buy one. At that time, on any given weekend, you were more than likely to find an Apple IIc or IIe at a yard sale for the cash you had in your pocket. Those days are long gone.

The recent discussion on the merits of a Commodore 128, over in the Commodore 8bit forum, reminded me that when it came to market, it was eclipsed by 16-bit Atari 520ST, which itself was followed by a series of affordable 16-bit machines including the Amiga 500, Archimedes and a multitude of cheap PC clones. The computer magazines of the era quickly lost interest in 8bits as their focus shifted to the newer 16-bit models, even if the 8bits continued to dominate the software sales charts due to their larger install bases. And 8-bit computers continued to be introduced well after 1985. Including the Apple IIGS in 1986, Cambridge Z88 in 1987 and the Sam Coupe in 1989. Plus Sinclair, Atari, Commodore and others released repackaging of their 8bits well into the late 80s - wasn't the C64GS a 1990 release? And then there was the Amstrad PCW range, which I think remained Z80 CP/M based system throughout most of its commercial life, with later models appearing the 90s. So what was the last commercial 8bit? [1] Did the 8bit remain a viable platform for substantially new hardware in developing markets long after North America and Western Europe adopted 16bits? Or was it just a case of Atari 800XE style repackaging and cost-reducing what had become obsolete in the home markets? [1] Not including embedded systems or the C64 mini style retro systems which I think are essentially emulated on a RISC processor.

No. The UAV will improve the video output. It wont magically convert it to NTSC, and you wouldn't want that anyway as you need the PAL timing for the PAL-specific software. You are going to need a display device that can handle PAL. Your best choices are; A Sony PVM or equivalent color monitor that can natively handle a PAL signal - these are getting hard to find and are expensive now. A composite/SVideo PAL compatible LCD monitor - there was a discussion recently of a Dell unit that could handle this. Many older Samsung units can too. A Retrotink/equivalent that can capture PAL and convert it to HDMI for use on a modern display.

Not a very high bar though....

No. It didn't.

PRGE starts on Friday!. Excited for my annual opportunity to play Xevious on the Jag!

Looks promising! Next time I order some parts I will add some of those and see. I need 10 for various projects. Thanks!