Nebulon

I'm sure he's not the only person considering doing something like this. Anyone who decides to give a project like this a shot could learn from this as a precedent.

I also think this is a very interesting (and attractive) project. However, the North American price point is $200.00 to $300.00 for something like this. Maybe a partial solution is to shop the idea to a number of Chinese manufacturers. There are bound to be some that can deliver good quality for a price that would put it into the $200 to $300 USD range. The game list is an important part of the marketing of this item and is something that most retro-gamers will insist on seeing first. Hopefully this idea can re revived in the future. Also, if they are arcade games, it would be best to turn the screen so that it is taller than it is wide (like in most arcade machines). That would give you an edge over a lot of existing emulator setups.

Hmmm.... All I have are ColecoVision box scans. Those went to Digital Press and are likely available for download from their site.

I always get a kick out of people's reactions to TRON. Most insert a quarter, get annihilated, and then give up. Once I show them some of the patterns, they usually give it another try. That's one game I'd say is pretty darned tough. It took me a lot of quarters to get decent at it. Sinistar and Defender are tough for me, but buddies of mine are really good at them. I don't count Dragon's Lair or Space Ace because they're pretty much rote memorization. Donkey Kong is hard. However, after watching the barrel behavior -- I swear that game cheats. IMHO, Mr. Do and Mr. Do's Castle are relatively easy.

Okay, well now I want Star Wars with a real X-Wing to sit in.

Reminds me of a keyboard synthesizer that I'd ordered over eBay. UPS slammed the side of it into the front step and left it there in the middle of winter to freeze. Great big crack all down the side of the machine. Good to know about the older A8 cases. I'm looking to purchase an Atari 400 sometime soon, so I'll certainly watch for this.

Personally, the old computers versus new computers debate makes perfect sense to me and I think it's well worth discussing. Yes, I do appreciate newer computers (I regularly push modern computers to their limits and use them for things that older computers just can't do). However, I think it's fair to critique modern computers and expect more from them. I recall a service pack install on a Windows machine that displayed a message stating that it would take up to three hours to complete the update. I thought to myself, "Three hours? No way. I doubt it could possibly take that long." Guess what? It really did take three hours to update Windows. Now, what on earth could it have been doing for that long? How much of that was bloat? How much faster would the operating system run if it was re-written from scratch with optimization in mind? Anyway, the point is that our ultra-fast computers aren't actually delivering the kind of speed that they have the potential to deliver to us. So there's nothing wrong with asking for better software and hardware design. And if using relatively efficient retro computers as a point of comparison is one way to do that, then I'm all for it.

Of course, all the prices quoted from the late 1970s and early 1980s would be tripled to account for inflation.

TRS-80 Color Computer 2. At first I also thought it had worse graphics than an Atari 2600. Later I got a disk drive and discovered games like Shock Trooper, Marble Maze, and Time Bandit -- which proved that it actually could do some cool stuff. The PC/XT was my dad's, so I can't really count that as mine (although I did use it a lot). After that, it was an Amiga 500. For me, that machine re-defined what a personal computer could do. Prior to the CoCo 2, I saw a TI-99/4A running a game in a display window. My parents had to drag me away from it. Soon after, I saw an Atari 800 running Pac-Man. I was determined to get one of those. Over 30 years later I finally get an Atari 800XL. Better late than never!

"Just keep doing whatever it looks like you're supposed to be doing, no matter how crazy it seems." "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" - Especially with British games. Not sure why they make them so incredibly difficult. Don't eat purple pickles. Steerable bullets are possible. Fruit is a good for you and it's worth points! Watch for falling rocks. Watch for falling apples. If being chased by giant food items, use pepper on them. Knights come from eggs.

Actually, I really do like the look of the C128 and C64C. I also really dig the look of the Atari 400, 1040ST, and the TT030. Damn! There sure are a lot of dead sexy computers out there.

Both look great. The Ace 500 looks like its ready to kick some ass! That's a mean looking machine

A buddy of mine was hooked on CompuServe. Damn! What an expensive habit that was.

For personal computers, I'd say the Sinclair 128. http://retro-treasures.blogspot.ca/2011/06/sinclair-zx-spectrum-128.html http://www.retrogamescollector.com/show-us-your-collection-17-ant-harper-retro-games-collector/ I should really also mention the Sony MSX2: http://www.msx.org/forum/msx-talk/trading-and-collecting/interest-check-sony-hb-f1xv-msx2-computer And for massive computers, well... the Cray, of course! http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/these-two-guys-tried-to-rebuild-a-cray-supercomputer/283071/

Since I can't edit my own post for some reason, here's the actual Windows 7 system requirements link in a separate post: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-CA/windows7/products/system-requirements

Then just turn it around and run XP on a machine spec'd to run Windows 7 smoothly. I'm quite sure Windows XP would run the exact same cross-compatible apps more quickly than a Windows 7 machine. Even if the speed tests did turn out to be the same, XP would likely use less RAM and hard drive space than 7. For example, try running the exact same multi-tracking audio app, 3D modeling/animation/rendering engine, or video editing app. Based on the test results that I've read about, they're pretty darned close -- edging each other out in various categories. Here's the differential for the RAM and hard drive requirements (7's requirements are considerably higher): XP: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865 XP (64-bit): http://www.ehow.com/list_6694828_windows-professional-x64-system-requirements.html 7: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

My favorites: IRIX 6 (SGI) - A nice-looking GUI that ran great and was awesome for scripting. A bit core-dump-happy at times though. Amiga OS 3.1 (A4000/040) - I recall putting this one through a multi-tasking stress test, and it preformed brilliantly. Two disks formatting at the same time, a script running in the shell, thirty simultaneous downloads, music player running in the background, and a graphics app in the foreground (with a ton of open windows). I also like the right-click drag-select for quick file selection, the SHIFT-Backspace to delete all prior command-line text, the up-arrow for accessing previous commands, and all the free desktop tools that are available for it. The OS's that I've used in the past (some I still put to use): RS-DOS (Color Computer) Apple DOS MS-DOS (5 was my favorite) Windows 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 (I still regard XP as the best of the bunch with ME one of the worst). Microsoft BOB (hey, it wasn't by choice) OS/2 Warp (Seemed pretty good at the time) AmigaDOS 1.3, 2.x. 3.x TOS OS-9 (TRS-80 Color Computer) - this is one that I'd like to get to know better. Max OS 8.x Mac OS 9.x Max OS X

Oooh! Awesome. And I know the Danes are adept programmers, judging from their amazing MegaDemo competition entries over the years. Must be something in the water over there....

Ye cats! I've got some 'research' to do Thanks everybody.

Color Computer software listing: http://www.lcurtisboyle.com/nitros9/coco_game_list.html#agames

I've wanted to get back into the BBS thing for ages. Glad to hear that it's alive and well.

It was an XT that I helped spec for my dad. The first time that I ever saw anything on that machine that I had any respect for was Jet (great game). I also recognized its ability to handle word-processing and CAD well. Generally though, I found PCs to be boring as hell. Somehow I turned the damn things into a 20+ year career. I'd fix PCs at work and go home and use my Amiga. Nowadays, the only time I really enjoy using a PC is when it's emulating an Atari, Amiga, C64, or some other retro machine.

Anyone have any favorites for TI-99 games? Was there ever a Berzerk-style game on that machine?

Aside from Dungeons of Daggorath, Downland, and a few others, most of the cartridge-based Color Computer games really suck. I'm not sure if it was some kind of reverse-marketing strategy on Tandy's part or what. Downland is pretty awesome, although it's also brutally unforgiving.

Although the CoCo did have a lot of clones of actual games, that didn't mean they weren't good. Lunar Rover (Moon Patrol) is very accurate to the arcade machine from a gameplay standpoint. In fact, it gets more details correct than a number of the official Moon Patrol home conversions. When evaluating the CoCo 2 on the game front, be sure to take a look at the following: - Time Bandit - Cash Man - Dungeons of Daggorath - Dragon Slayer - F1 Racer (somewhat like Pole Position) - Buzzard Bait (Joust) - Downland - Lunar Rover (Moon Patrol) - F-16 Assault - Color Car (Bump n' Jump) - Qiks (Qix) - Pit Stop II - Shock Trooper - Marble Maze (Marble Madness) - Trekboer - Calixto Island - Grabber - Hall of the King 1, 2, and 3 - Sailor Man (Popeye)