jbanes

This was more or less my point. Technologically, the two systems were fairly well matched, with each one having particular advantages over the other. The most extreme discussion was this one, though I got started on trying to find the answer based on several offhand comments. (Like the one you just made.) Some of those comments suggest that the 5200 is superior, and some of them (again, like the one you just made) suggest that the 7800 is superior. My final take is that they're simply the flip-side of the same coin. Now that's an interesting comparison, isn't it? The 7800 had better sprite capabilities and pastel colors, but the Nintendo creamed it on better sound support, tiling support, and more "earthy" colors. The earthy colors were often "ugly", but were put to good use by Japanese artists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but games usually didn't allocate artists to work on games prior to the Nintendo. Pretty much all the artwork was worked out by the programmer of the game, sometimes with a bit of consulting with an artist. I've spent some time considering this, and I've come to the conclusion that had the 7800 been released in 1984, it still would have needed a follow-up console to properly compete with the Nintendo in later years. Of course, by then the system would have been 2-3 years old, and would still have a couple of years of breathing space before Nintendo really grabbed hold of the market. Really? My understanding was somewhat different. As I understood it, the ANTIC ran separately from the 6502, and processed the display lists as a full microprocessor instruction set using DMA transfers from RAM. The ANTIC microprocessor then drove the GTIA. The only use of the 6502 for graphics should have been the creation of display lists. I think he means internal RAM, not cartridge size. Also, the board I built for 5200 MULE can handle a 512K game. 993525[/snapback] Correct. Cartridge ROM limits don't really mean anything as you can always build a more sophisticated cartridge with a larger bankswitching scheme. (Just don't expect programmers to like the pain you're putting them through. ) The 5200 had 16K of internal RAM while the 7800 had only 4K. While 4K wasn't quite as limiting as the 128 bytes of the 2600 (256 if you used a Supercharger), it still wasn't exactly a "lot" of RAM to do very complex games in.

Poking around through the forums, it's easy to see that the 7800 and 5200 camps are divided on which system is technically superior. I've taken a bit of time to investigate each one, and I've come to the conclusion that they're effectively equals. Both systems use the DLL scheme for graphics. Both systems run on the same processor at the same clock rate. Both systems can use POKEY for sound (though the 7800 was severely limited in this area). Both systems have a variety of arcade ports. If anything, I'd give a slight nod to the 5200. It has more memory, a separate bus and processor for handling the graphics, and has many more control options. (Idiot analog joystick aside.) The 7800, OTOH, seems to be able to display more colors per scan-line, and can theoretically handle more sprites. (Though the lack of a separate bus really hurts here.) When it comes down to it, I'd have to say that the systems end up being defined by their games. The 5200 had a very nice selection of arcade quality games. Its Centipede, for example, is unmatched by any contemporary system, and it had a few exclusive titles like Rescue on Fractalus. The 7800, OTOH, had fewer arcade ports, with many of them failing to take advantage of the system's capabilities. However, the 7800 did have many non-arcade games that (would have) allowed it to better challenge the contemporary game systems. Its ability to play 2600 games was also a plus. So when it comes down to it, it strikes me that the 5200 was the "Neo Geo" of the 80's, while the 7800 was a "5200 'lite'" that was much better suited as the successor to the 2600. Considering that the 7800 was developed several years after the 5200, it should be no surprise that the components were finally inexpensive enough to make a console with the 5200's power at the 2600's price. What are your thoughts?

Your point about Tekken was worded a bit clumsily. It would have been better to say that SNK had previously made the arcade hardware available to home players (Neo Geo), but that Tekken was the first arcade game to use existing home console hardware. Also, I agree with a previous poster about Pole Position (there would have been no Virta' Racer, Cruisin' USA, or Ridge Racer without Pole Position!). and you forgot to mention TMNT. TMNT started the 4-6 player craze where each joystick represented a different player. This concept launched the X-Men, Simpsons, and many other arcade games for four or more players.

When I first played Centipede on my Flashback 2, I thought it was cute and ignored it. But it has some sort of strange appeal that has me coming back and back. Millipede doesn't grab my attention the same way. Maybe it's the ability to play for 15 minutes or more at a time. Maybe its the super-simple, yet challenging gameplay. Whatever it is, this classic (which I used to be only so-so on) has now permanently captured my attention. Maybe I should get a 5200 just to play it.

If you have a design, then you can use Pad2Pad to do runs for you. Their prices are often quite affordable, and they can scale to just about any size order you might need. Pad2Pad accepts standard Gerber 274X files in addition to their own proprietary format.

8bit Classics seems to have -2 on hand. Guess they accidently oversold.

I got my son Frogger for Christmas. At $9.95, it really wasn't that much. Here are the pros and cons I've found: Pros: Nice Joystick - The Joystick is large, solid, and easy to grip. It makes playing the game a pleasure. True Gameplay - As far as I can tell, the gameplay elements are all intact. Of course, most of my memories come from playing Frogger on the Atari 8-Bit at my local library, so take this with a grain of salt. Cons: The music screams "I'm a Nintendo game!" The chinsey music-box sound was great back in 1988, but in 2006 it seems just a little on the poor side. Especially knowing that the original music was better. Only one game. I mean, couldn't they have thrown Frogger II on there as well? Cheapskates. Too many logo screens. If I have to cycle through one more "Konami", "Majesco", or "Whoever" screen, I'm going to throttle someone. Oddities: What's with the two buttons? All they do is make you hop forward, guaranteeing that you'll kill yourself in the process. I'm guessing that this is a generic Nintendo stick, and the buttons are for other games. All in all, it's a nice purchase, but don't count on recreating anything more than you can get on a Nintendo.

I just got mine off of eBay from bkfowler (great seller, BTW) for ~$16. It included Ms. Pac Man, One on One, Dig Dug, Donkey Kong, and Pole Position II. The RF adapter was included with the unit, and the unit had been cleaned and tested by the seller. Shipping effectively doubled that price, but otherwise it was a great transaction. Now all I need to find is a good used game store in the Chicago area. Anyone know good stores in my area where I can get 7800/2600 games?

Music is judged that way because the court has to look at sheet music. If you change the scale, you don't actually change most of the sheet music. In software, they're looking to see if significant parts are the same, or obviously ripped off. The general look, feel, and gameplay are not protected by copyright. (The artwork is though, so don't use that directly!) To take a popular case in recent history, SCO was unable to prove that Linux infringed on their Unix IP, since Linux was built from scratch. However, Linux does retain many of the exact same features and designs as Unix. The judge has not at any point ruled that this similarity is enough to prosecute Linux on. I don't understand your point. I'm merely clarifying the laws under which protection is granted. Merely the act of creating a clone puts you in danger. Selling it only increases that danger. Take the example of The Tetris Company. While they've quieted down quite a bit over the years, they used to send Cease and Desist letters to nearly every clone in existence, regardless of whether or not money was made or the name was used. At the time, these actions had a chilling effect on the industry as no one wanted to take the Tetris Company to court. From Wikipedia: To clarify that last sentence, a clone of a game cannot be protected under the "derivitive works" concept that authors are often able to use in protecting their works. The source code and game code is otherwise copyright protected. The flyer the text refers to can be found here. The first sentence states: The text then goes on to describe how to register your game's copyright. (Which, BTW, you have an automatic copyright under the current laws ratified by the Berne Convention.) As I said, as long as your sourcecode, artwork, and other elements are original, copyright does not apply. (Which doesn't stop the owner from sending a Cease and Desist, regardless of whether he believes he'll win the case.) You need to make sure you're in compliance with trademarks. It wouldn't do to spend all that time obscuring the game itself only to get in trouble for using the name. That's hardly a fair comparison to what homebrewers are doing. Homebrewers are writing their own code, creating their own images, and generally doing all their own work. The market sees this as competition to an otherwise monopoly. If it could, the market would allow for competition in music, as the individual songs can command unnaturally high prices. For example, Michael Jackson's Thriller CD costs more money in stores today than when it was originally released on cassette. CDs cost less to produce than cassettes, and the product should deprecate in price over time. Yet since there's no competition to Thriller, there's no reason for the prices to drop. Unfortunately, there's no way to both respect the copyrights of an artist and provide for competition, so the music industry continues to get away with exhorbant prices. Again, not the same thing. Creating a clone of a game is like creating a competing pocket calculator. Let's say you created the first calculator. Is it fair that all these other manufacturers took your idea and created their own pocket calculators? It could be argued that it's not fair, but the US market is structured to encourage such practices. That's why many new businesses always look for what's called a "high barrier to entry" when creating a new product. "High barrier to entry" means that it's difficult for a competitor to provide your product or service, thus ensuring your monopoloy for a longer period of time than would otherwise be possible. I think you misunderstand me. I am in no way encouraging authors to "rip off" the originals. I'm only clarifying the precise laws and vectors of attack that authors need to concern themselves with. Trademarks can actually be more dangerous than copyrights because individual characters and likenesses can be trademarked. For example, Mario is a trademark of Nintendo Co, LTD. If you use Mario's likeness, you're in a far worse position than if you use a generic character. Danno's heart was in the right place, but his understanding of IP Law was seriously skewed. If you're going to protect yourself, you need to understand exactly what laws you're trying to stay in compliance with.

I'm sure about that. "Walkman" is still trademarked. Sony is very rigid about ensuring that no one else uses the term, even though it was popular for awhile to use the term "Walkman" in common lexicon to describe any portable player. Game Boy is anything *but* a household word. Generally its only used to refer to an actual Game Boy. I haven't heard anyone use the term for their GameGears, Lynxs, or PSPs. Since it's not considered generic (even though it's made of two generic words). it is perfectly trademarkable. Finally, you're mixing the trademark laws of another nation with the US's laws. While such laws are usually compatible, you always need to check what the exact laws are in other countries. Even "Kleenex" is still a valid trademark. I said it was in danger because of its common usage, but no one has yet challenged the validity of the mark. Xerox sent out various pamphlets to consumers explaining how to properly refer to copies made on copy machines in an attempt to overthrow the "I'll just Xerox this document" terminology.

You didn't kill the discussion. I just keep getting sidetracked from replying. To answer your concern, there's no reason why much of the older hardware can't be copied. The 2600 was copied by Coleco and MANY other companies. The courts upheld this right. So you'd be pretty safe as long as you're not stepping on someone's Patent. Since pretty much all the Patents that could possibly cover the Atari machines has expired by now, you're probably pretty safe in recreating, say, the 5200. Nintendo was always a difficult one, as they had many heavy patents protecting their hardware. Since most of those patents have expired (or can be worked around), we're seeing a lot of legitimate NES clones hitting the market. (e.g. The Generation NEX) Just don't try selling any software that you didn't create yourself, and you should be fine.

Wow. What a mess. While I understand the sentiment, allow me to decode what you mean to say. First off, video games are not protected by patents. Programming elements may be, but not the game itself. The game itself is protected by copyrights (life of owner + 75 years), and the names/feel are protected by trademarks (valid as long as it's protected and maintained). Copyright doesn't enter into this discussion, since the homebrews are not derived from any original code. (At least, I assume they're not.) Thus trademarks are the primary issue to deal with. Now trademarks are much different than patents and copyrights. There is no time limit on trademarks, but in exchange the mark has to be protected. This makes it difficult to create clones without silly names. The owner of the Frogger mark may have no problem with Frogger clones. But the moment you use the Frogger name, the owner MUST shut you down or face the possibility of losing their mark. With that sort of requirement over their heads, the owner will pursue you no matter what their feelings on the issue are. Even if you're not making money off the mark, you're still walking on thin ice. If you threaten their mark, you're going to be targetted. Period. The only up side is that these things usually only go as far as a Cease and Desist. As long as you comply, the owner will usually not carry it any further. Trademark infringement is NOT theft. It is a violations of government granted rights, and is subject only to civil suits. You are not taking anything from the owner of the mark, you are merely misrepresenting yourself as a legitimate owner of the mark. That doesn't make trademark infringement "right", but it isn't theft. Especially when you consider how much hard work the homebrewers have invested in creating their clones. There is no statute of limitations on copyrights or trademarks. The statute of limitations is for the matter of legal issues, usually criminal issues. e.g. If you steal money, but don't get charged for 10 years (or whatever the statute is in your area), then you probably can't be prosecuted. What you're thinking of is the time limitations on intellectual property. Copyright is life of the owner, plus 75 years. Patents are about 14 years (though there are some tricky things that can be done to shift that protection into the future). Trademarks have no limits. All they require is that a mark be maintained. A mark is lost if it is considered "abandoned", or if the mark falls into such common usage that it is considered to be no longer trademarkable. (e.g. "Kleenex" is in danger because everyone refers to facial tissue by that term.) The argument over whether or not an owner has made his money off of a product is a matter for Copyright law. The Founding Fathers of the United States wanted the Copyright to be for a very limited time. After that time, they wanted it released into public domain so that others may build on earlier works. Unfortunately, they didn't define an upper bound on what was "reasonable". Thanks to Disney's concerns over Mickey Mouse falling into Public Domain, Copyright has been extended from its original 14 years (act of 1790) to a whopping life of the author PLUS 75 years! That's simply not what our laws intended. It's screwed up and wrong, but the Supreme Court won't overturn it. The court agrees that the term is too long, but dodges the issue based on the idiocy that the upper bound of "reasonable" wasn't defined.

But, aren't the constraints what makes it interesting? 989474[/snapback] I think that the definitive answer to this is: It Depends. (Don't you just love firm answers? ) Ask yourself, would you use Wood and Cloth to build an airplane when lightweight Aluminum is available? Probably not. Wood and Cloth are very limiting in constructing a craft. There's very little to be extracted from attempting the feat unless you have nothing else at your disposal. On the other hand, ask yourself if you would prefer a vase made of Clay or Pyrex? Probably the clay. It has an aesthetic and historical appeal that Pyrex simply can't match. And here we come to the crux of the problem. Many people like the old game consoles because they're a piece of history. They have aesthetic, nostalgic, and historical value that is a shiny new device can't offer. But if you create a new device that's unrelated to the historical one, then it's questionable whether you can attract interest or not. Why would people want to work with this machine? So they can spend hundreds of hours coding for an intentionally limited device when they could recapture history by programming for a real device? It's a bit like classic cars. People like classic cars because they're classic, not because they're limited. How many car enthusiasts create new cars at the level of a Model T without making an actual replica? Probably not too many. I'm not saying you're on the wrong track. I'm just offering food for thought. You may decide that cloning the 5200 or 7800 would be a more interesting use of your time. Then again, maybe not. It's up to you to see if you can find a market.

Just an FYI, the 8086 is a 16 bit processor just like the 80286. You might be thinking of the 8088 which was a 16-bit processor with an 8 bit data bus. The Z80 was a clone of the Intel 8080, which was an 8 bit processor, but with 16 bit memory addressing. The 8086/88 got around the 64K limitation by using a segmented memory scheme. The processor would first be fed a 16bit memory segment locator which would tell it the section of memory to work in. The program would then be able to address any memory within that 64K segment. This led to the development of C compilers with "small" (64K), "medium" (64K code, 64K data), and "large" (full use of all segments) memory models.

Most off-the-shelf components in the hardware design world are designed to operate in and around 3 Volts. (That's 2 AA batteries.) My suggestion is to design your hardware with 3-3.3 Volts in mind, then work on a handheld version when you're done. If your voltage is a bit above your target, you can add a third battery or switch to a rechargeable pack. The conversion to a handheld shouldn't be all that hard. (Just ask Ben Heck. ) Your greatest obstacle would be getting ahold of some LCD screens. Unless you have massive production runs, those things are expensive.

Kaboom! would have been a nice addition. Unfortunately, it just wasn't going to happen given Activisions trademarks and copyrights. I'm shocked that any Activision games made it to the FB2! Personally, I found that the games were a mixed bag. For example, Canyon Bomber wasn't exactly fun the first time around. Bringing it back doesn't help anything. But Pong, Breakout, Super Breakout, Warlord 2600, and Warlord Arcade more than make up for the other games on the paddles. Heck, just Pong and Warlord for two players is awesome. Breakout is a bonus.

Designing a new Vectrex is really beyond the ability of your average hardware developer. It would require very precise development of CRT hardware. That stuff is nowhere near as easy to get ahold of as it was when the Vectrex was created. (I mean how many people think, "Hey, we've got a bunch of extra Cathode Ray Tubes lying around. Let's make a portable game console!") A developer could translate the vector commands to pixels in a framebuffer, but that kind of defeats the point. That being said, there is a way to bring back the Vectrex as long as you don't mind a projection unit rather than a CRT unit. JB, I give you LaserMAME. There's a video of it in action here. Technology may have marched on, but it has offered us new ways to do the same cool stuff.

Are those real, honest to goodness, arcade cherry switches I see? Tell me those are real arcade joysticks? *drool* Where did you get the parts?

You have to be careful with companies that fold. Just because the company no longer exists doesn't mean that someone doesn't still have the rights. Usually it's too much trouble to sort out who has the rights then purchase them, but once there's money involved (such as a product being produced off of the IP) then someone will usually smell easy money and purchase the rights so they can sue everyone else.

Depends on your interface. There's nothing stopping you from having an interface that consists of writing a memory address to the right port. That would be nice, simple, and easy on the programmer. That being said, I'm planning to hide the implementation behind APIs so that the programmer doesn't have to fiddle with the fiddly bits. But doesn't that kill the "retro-ness" of it? Like I said, it depends on what you're aiming for. If you want a super-charged Atari, then you probably don't want a framebuffer. If you want a cool 2D console that you can produce and sell for a good price, then go for the framebuffer. If Mode 7 on the SNES used an accelerated framebuffer, then does the SNES have one? I'll have to look back through all the SNES docs I've compiled and not yet read. I didn't say it used a framebuffer on the SNES. (It didn't.) I said that if you want Mode 7-style graphics, than hardware acceleration of scaling and rotation would be a good feature to have. If you use a framebuffer, that just means that your hardware blitter does the scaling and rotation before adding it to the framebuffer. Can a 6502 (or variant) access more than a 64k address space without bankswitching? No. No idea. I personally wouldn't bother with the 6502 due to its limitations. 32 bit chips are plentiful and cheap these days. Again, though, it's all about what you want. *I* wouldn't do it because I don't see any market for it. But that doesn't mean that you have to agree with me. You've been spending too much time with the TIA. NTSC specifies 480 lines of interlaced resolution. The interlacing basically divides the number of lines in half, giving you 240 lines of resolution. To clarify on the horizontal part, there is no specific horizontal resolution as the signal merely drives the electron beam. How many horizontal pixles you get is a function of how precise the electron beam is. I could hold the color solid long enough for the beam to travel the entire width and get 1 pixel per line. Or I could hold the color solid for precisely 1/512th of the beam's journey and get 512 pixels per line. Theoretically, there's no upper bound on horizontal resolution, though practical matters tend to limit the resolution. You're welcome.

If you really want a SuperNES system, try this auction. It's got the complete SNES system, PLUS a complete NES system, all for $30.00. The only down side is that the auctioner couldn't test the SNES because he doesn't have a game. So there is some risk. But if you want it, you've got four hours to get it. So get cracking.

My suggestion is ISO 7816 SmartCards, but I may be a little biased. Was that question targetted at my project? If you look around the website, it describes the choice for media (SmartCards). At least in the version of the box I'm working on, there would be no networking capabilities. The choice of Java as a language was to harness the massive Java gaming community that's looking for an outlet to expend their creative energy. That's not such a good idea. Once you force users to start upgrading their systems, you lose one of the key advantages to Consoles: Plug and Play. Users end up having to treat their console like a computer, paying close attention to the correct upgrades to apply for a particular game. Worse yet, users may be forced to chose between upgrading their systems to play new games, or keeping the old version of the BIOS to ensure that they can still play all of their old games.

It's a common misconception that the hardware is responsible for the quality of the games. Hardware only translates to capability. It's up to the game developer to translate that capability into games that are fun to play. As a result, your choice in graphics hardware is all about how much you plan to limit the developer. My own take on graphics rendering is that you should try to limit the developer as little as possible in the design that you're targetting. That means that the best solution is to use a hardware accelerated Framebuffer. The console would draw to the framebuffer which would in turn be used to produce a video signal. The hardware acceleration would probably be unnecessary if you were only allowing direct blitting (the baseline clock for an FPGA these days is about 50MHz, and an ASIC can easily hit 400+ MHz), but Mode 7 style scaling and rotating graphics are a nice thing to provide developers. Alpha filtering is another commonly requested feature, though I'm not a big fan of using it in games. (It tends to blur the heck out of everything.) In the 1980's, no hardware designer in his right mind would have bothered with a framebuffer. Memory was just too expensive. The Atari was so short on memory, that it didn't even have enough memory to framebuffer its cut-down playfield scheme! Today, megs of memory can be had for a couple of bucks. For a 256x192 screen with full RGB support, that works out to about 144K of memory. Speaking of which, what are you going to do with the other 40+ lines of resolution? Also, you may want to consider a variable horizontal resolution. Most TVs are capable of up to 512 "pixels" across.

I was wondering who "Morgan" was. Tramiel I recognize, and who wouldn't recognize old Yar. But it looks like Morgan had a rather short life as the CEO before Atari got split in two. BTW, I've noticed something interesting with the FB2, though I'm not quite sure that it qualifies as a "secret". If you start the console in Paddle Test mode with the regular joystick, then press a button or direction on the joystick, it drops you into "Off the Wall". Is that just a glitch, or am I somehow ending up in a special mode?

Whine, whine, whine. Suck it up and learn a new instruction set! Now drop and give me 20! Seriously, Java is super-easy. Everything you ever wanted to know (and didn't want to know) is here: http://java.sun.com/docs/ And of course, the JVM and compiler can be found here: http://java.sun.com The most important part from a hardware development perspective is to understand the opcodes here: http://java.sun.com/docs/books/vmspec/2nd-...monics.doc.html So go do a tutorial or seven. Just ignore the Applet part. FYI, my console will have full RGB (or YUV) colorspace. Individual sprites will be limited to 256 colors, and a size of 256x256, but that limitation comes at the gain of the SuperPackME APIs which keep images in a super-tight state. I've been kicking butt and taking names later in the 4K game programming contests because of it. I'm also looking at things like precomputing to the YUV color space to make the video signal easier (and to save framebuffer space). I've got all kinds of notes scattered all over the site (for example), so it may not be immediately clear everything that's going on.