What computer would you recommend for people who are just getting into the hobby of retro computing?

[Bill Loguidice]

5 minutes ago, potatohead said:

One day, it will be almost all FPGA and emulation.  I feel putting that off as long as possible is good for everyone.

 

I'm OK in theory with going all FPGA. It's typically a better experience than straight up software emulation, but sometimes not as flexible in terms of special features. A big key with this FPGA stuff would be having the right keyboard. For the most part, A - Z are no problem, but then the placement of other keys is typically all over the map on vintage systems, not to mention the ones with additional key labels. You just have a different feel with the original hardware, no matter how authentic the rest of it gets. It would be really something special if someday someone can create relatively inexpensive keyboard options with different layouts and labels, like a homebrew SteelSeries Zboard. Otherwise, to be more authentic, we have to get hardware like the ZX Spectrum Next, which is great, but still means you have to collect individual systems for a more authentic experience.  

At the moment I have a MiST, Mister, ZX Spectrum Next, and an Ultimate 64. I'm not sure I want to get very many more at this point for the reasons mentioned above (although I still suspect I'll want a Mega 65).

[potatohead]

37 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

A big key with this FPGA stuff would be having the right keyboard. For the most part, A - Z are no problem, but then the placement of other keys is typically all over the map on vintage systems, not to mention the ones with additional key labels.

That's the part of retro beyond gaming that matters.  

 

Solutions like that will be labors of love.  We should be aware and seek others who will love that labor.

[JamesD]

15 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

And? For the 8 points we more or less settled on what the most logical choices were. Then somebody (can't recall who), went on a posting spree about BASIC and obscure computers.

Why do we need to agree?  It's about people's opinions in the first place. 
You have argued with everyone that disagreed with you.
Logical depends on the criteria.  Yeah, the OP had a list, but out of that what is most important will be different for different people.

As for l̶o̶s̶e̶r̶ obscure computers.
Someone else suggested the MC-10, I repeatedly said I didn't recommend it. 
Someone mocked that choice as silly (you Bill) so I pointed out it has a better BASIC than the C64, it's faster than the 6502 machines you list depending on what you want to do,
and I said the 6803 might be good to learn assembly on, but I suggested using the emulator.
I also pointed out the price difference between the MC-10 & C64 in 1983 because... not everyone is fabulously wealthy.
Pretty sure I responded to someone else's comment joking about the Aquarius.  You replied before I did so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How dare I assume some people might want to program in BASIC (which IS on the list), and they might want to know what they are in for.
I posted the code so people can decide for themselves if it's good enough.  I even suggested options to improve the C64.
You said C64 BASIC was good enough because (paraphrasing) hey, look how many people used it.
(everyone used punch cards at one time, did that mean those were good enough?)
If it's not important to them, they can ignore it, if it is important, they can take my suggestions into account.
FWIW, the C64 code I based my circle example on didn't work either.  If I want to fix it, I have to look up what all those POKEs do, and figure out which one they screwed up.

My recommendation wasn't exactly based on what you said was important.
Buying any brand of old machine carries the risk of having to repair the machine before you can get started.
Then you need to buy certain accessories.
Look at that woman's video I shared.  She's buying a power supply, monitor, etc... before she can even turn it on.
I don't see everyone opening up an Apple II power supply to replace the filter caps, a CoCo to replace a PIA, or a C64 to replace a bad PLA.
With the old machines, you have to buy some sort of disk drive emulator, and possibly cables to hook up the machine.
With the C64 you buy a fast loader cart to speed up the disk interface, but it can't be in the machine at the same time as Simon's BASIC if you want to try that.
So you install Jiffydos instead.
The list goes on, and every machine has some thing that has to be dealt with.
That's not "I know absolutely nothing" beginner stuff unless you want to do that sort of thing.
If I have to make a recommendation without asking the person any questions, I have to consider some of the audience doesn't want to fuss with any of that.
THE C64 is a no brainer to get started.  You don't even have to type commands to load a game, and it includes a keyboard so you don't have to worry about differences there. 
There isn't anything like it for any other machine, so it's not like I could pick a version for the Apple II, Atari, or CoCo.
The Retro Pi gives you a similar capability, and it's more flexible though some assembly is required.  You will have to deal with the keyboard differences.
Microcenter make's it slightly easier by giving you a kit with everything but a keyboard, and I figured some people would get a kick out of the "wood grain finish" on the case.

[JamesD]

19 hours ago, Arnuphis said:

Also the MiSTer is a great option for someone looking for a retro experience with limited space. It's more expensive than the Pi option but its true FPGA machine experience and supports many platforms. Gonna check out that Atari kit though. Woodgrain case...

FPGA's lack the slight lag that some of the options like The C64 Mini had.  THE C64 improved on this.  Someone measured the lag difference on their youtube channel.  The 8 bit guy maybe?
Emulation may can be cycle accurate from the machine side, and still not quite perfect on the user side.

[Bill Loguidice]

It's a discussion forum, JamesD, a back and forth. You need to distinguish arguing from providing additional opinions or discussion points. Just because a counter opinion is presented, doesn't mean it's arguing in the way that you're trying to imply it is. Just because you think I'm wrong or I think you're wrong doesn't make it a bad thing, especially when additional counterpoints are brought up or further explanation is provided.

 

And yes, all the points you brought up were already brought up multiple times, including The64 as an option, which I had mentioned first. We certainly all agree on the points that there's not any one classic computer perfect for every usage, perfect for every user, or that everyone will universally agree on. It's also true that many of the people in this thread more or less agreed on the C-64, Apple II, and Atari 8-bits as the best choices for the 8 categories. It's OK that we answered the OP's original challenge with perfectly viable solutions.

 

And again, you can go on all day about the relative quality of the C-64's BASIC. It really doesn't make that much of a difference relative to everything else. It's still BASIC. It works, and plenty of people still use it and enjoy using it. It will be the rare person who decides not to use a C-64 or any other classic computer because they don't like how the BASIC works.

[Bill Loguidice]

54 minutes ago, potatohead said:

That's the part of retro beyond gaming that matters.  

 

Solutions like that will be labors of love.  We should be aware and seek others who will love that labor.

Yeah, that's why it's a shame that the Zboard failed. That could have been an ideal solution over keyboard stickers or having full multiple keyboards. Still, it's probably a relatively small percentage of an already small niche of those of us who seek out and like to use so many different vintage systems. I suspect most people stick to one or a small handful of platforms and don't worry about others. That certainly makes things easier.

[potatohead]

Many machines with a simple cassette can be a good experience if they want to program it.  Or play a few games.  The EU saw a lot of cassette use for economic and some political realities.  Seems valid to experience today.

 

Apples have aa audio game server that is cool.  Literally call up a page, pick game, plug into Apple, press play, and the game is loaded, ready to go.  I used this.  Works great.

 

So, the MC10 would fit into that list.  A Model 100 would too.  Having loaned mine (Model 100) out a time or two for this exact case, I can tell you the people got something out of it.  They did stuff like guess my number, or make a program to calculate something, or tell jokes, or draw on a screen.

 

Seems to me the quality of BASIC part of this whole discussion ended up doing an implied MC10 recommendation because it has a good, and fast BASIC.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

When games enter the mix, people need carts, or a disk, or looooooong cassette wait times, or, or, or... availability and costs on all that vary somewhat and can vary widely too.

 

One thing I see fall out of this discussion is whether someone has a fellow retro traveler or group in the mix.

 

If that is not in the mix, no brainer easy, popular stuff will make a lot of sense.

 

Where that is in the mix, a whole lot will depend on who has what and knows what.  A much wider range of gear will make just as much sense.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by potatohead

[bluejay]

Please keep in mind that this is considering the average, casual retro enthusiast. Video games are their biggest appeal, and they want to learn some simple BASIC. I don't think the average person in 2020 will notice a huge difference between extended and standard BASIC, and if they were to get an MC-10 or Model 100, they'd be disappointed due to their nonexistent game library.

Also, if someone would want to program really advanced BASIC, then they'd most likely want a better keyboard than the one on the MC-10. I can't imagine someone wanting to sit in front of an MC-10, typing into it for hours.

Edited October 8, 2020 by bluejay

[potatohead]

Average... 

 

What demographic?

 

I think you may find that varies widely too.  I've seen younger people do all sorts of stuff.  Some of them want to learn as much as play games.  Older people?  More games than learning, in my experience so far.

 

Nobody is recommending the MC10.  But, it definitely comes up in a BASIC discussion.  Also, I know I'm not average.  So, I tend to attract other non averages.  People looking at the roots of computing will find interest in the various nooks and crannies we've had a chat about.  Seems to me, retro gaming is a bit different than retro computing.  Seeing as how we are in the computing branch of retro here in this sub forum...  Just saying!

 

A greater point here is there really aren't wrong answers.  Some answers stand a greater average chance of being worthy, and that's as good as this all ever gets.

 

And you might be surprised.  A while back, on a family gathering, I had taken the Model 100 along.  Was poking at it doing some 8085 assembly.  Never programmed the chip before, and saw it had some undocumented instructions.  One of the 20 somethings there was well on his way to getting his PE and degree on structural engineering.  He had never seen BASIC.  Had seen Mathlab.

 

"What is that thing?"

 

"What many may call the first laptop."

 

"What does it do?"

 

"Why do you have it?"

 

Old computer discussion happens.  Then:

 

I took one of the equations he wrote out while explaining some structural stuff to me earlier, just as a curio, and wrote a short program to take the inputs, compute and output.  A bit later we plotted it and saw the rough curve he put on a piece of paper.  Dude asked a few questions and borrowed it for a while making some cool programs.  Basically, when he heard when it was made, he said it was easy and useful.  There were probably people like him walking around with those things back in the day.  We had a good time writing some programs, just dorking around making it plot some stuff, using it like a kick ass calculator.  That's the part he liked.  Write it up, save it.  And then when wanted, call it up, input the stuff, run and get the info. 

 

He didn't need much:  Plot, math ops, input, print, if/then.   

 

Next time we meet up, I'll probably put a BASIC on his phone.  On my recommendation he's looking at python.  He should be.  

 

Anyway, that's the spark right there!  Same one many of us had.  Same way.  Same outcome.  Retro cool, in the computing sense.  That guy had not seen anything simple, interactive, etc...  This is why a bunch of us will put kids in front of machines with BASIC, BTW.  Other people do, depending.  It all changes when people instruct the computer as opposed to use a computer.  So far, in my experience, how this happens, and on what device doesn't seem to impact it much.  If it happens, a lot follows.  Good stuff follows.

 

Who knew?

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by potatohead

[bluejay]

I guess so.

But still, I don't imagine the MC-10 would be a good BASIC computer. Is it particularly capable/fast compared to regular CoCo BASIC? Does it have good documentation? How does it compare to Apple BASIC in terms of speed, capability, and documentation?

[JamesD]

48 minutes ago, potatohead said:

Many machines with a simple cassette can be a good experience if they want to program it.  Or play a few games.  The EU saw a lot of cassette use for economic and some political realities.  Seems valid to experience today.

 

Apples have aa audio game server that is cool.  Literally call up a page, pick game, plug into Apple, press play, and the game is loaded, ready to go.  I used this.  Works great.

 

So, the MC10 would fit into that list.  A Model 100 would too.  Having loaned mine (Model 100) out a time or two for this exact case, I can tell you the people got something out of it.  They did stuff like guess my number, or make a program to calculate something, or tell jokes, or draw on a screen.

 

Seems to me the quality of BASIC part of this whole discussion ended up doing an implied MC10 recommendation because it has a good, and fast BASIC.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

When games enter the mix, people need carts, or a disk, or looooooong cassette wait times, or, or, or... availability and costs on all that vary somewhat and can vary widely too.

 

One thing I see fall out of this discussion is whether someone has a fellow retro traveler or group in the mix.

 

If that is not in the mix, no brainer easy, popular stuff will make a lot of sense.

 

Where that is in the mix, a whole lot will depend on who has what and knows what.  A much wider range of gear will make just as much sense.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply anything, just pointing out the MC-10 doesn't totally suck.  It is a computer, and it's probably faster than machines that filled a room in the 50s. 
People have made use of it, so good for them.  If someone wants to try it now, have at it.

People I see wanting to start out usually already have a machine.
They found it at a yard sale, in the attic of their parent's house, a garage, thrift store, or whatever.  Most of these are on facebook.
They want to know what they can do with it, stuff they need for it, where can I find manuals...
On discord I've seen a few people asking about how to do stuff in BASIC, others asking about assembly, etc...
Many of the assembly group are former owners that always wanted to learn.
 

[potatohead]

22 minutes ago, JamesD said:

I didn't mean to imply anything, just pointing out the MC-10 doesn't totally suck. 

Totally.  It doesn't totally suck.  

 

22 minutes ago, JamesD said:

They found it at a yard sale, in the attic of their parent's house, a garage, thrift store, or whatever.

Yup.  It's one of the triggers.  "Dad's old computer..." seems to come up a fair amount right now too.  Too bad for the Dads tho

[JamesD]

52 minutes ago, bluejay said:

I guess so.

But still, I don't imagine the MC-10 would be a good BASIC computer. Is it particularly capable/fast compared to regular CoCo BASIC? Does it have good documentation? How does it compare to Apple BASIC in terms of speed, capability, and documentation?

The keyboard is evil, I just picked mine up and I have to squeeze my fingers together to get them on the keys, but I have big hands.  An 8 year old might love it.
If you wired up a new keyboard for it (someone used a CoCo 1 keyboard on a ribbon cable) then it wouldn't be bad.

The BASIC is almost identical to COLOR BASIC on the TRS-80 COLOR COMPUTER (the 8K non-extended version of BASIC), and it only lacks a few commands
of the TRS-80 Model I/III's LEVEL II BASIC (PRINT USING, CSAVEM, ELSE, ???) but otherwise it can do pretty much everything they can do short of certain file I/O.
You can run most MC-10 BASIC code on a CoCo.  If you avoid the Extended BASIC commands, and ELSE, CoCo programs run on the MC-10.
There is a RAM expansion that includes a new ROM with Extended BASIC commands, so you have greater compatibility with the CoCo.
It's called MCX-128, and you can load & save programs from a PC over the serial port.  It's similar to Drivewire for the CoCo, and PyDriveWire will talk to either machine.

The MC-10 BASIC is actually slightly faster than the CoCo version in benchmarks if you don't use the high speed POKE on the CoCo. 
Not sure on machine language, it's close.  It's more the coder than the CPU, but I give the 6809 the advantage if the programmer knows it well. 

The manual that comes with the MC-10 is small.  It has all the commands, and examples, but it's not what I'd call special.
You can use the CoCo's 'GETTING STARTED WITH COLOR BASIC' manual which is excellent, you just ignore the parts that are CoCo specific. 

When compared to the Apple II or C64, which is faster depends on what you run.
The MC-10 & CoCo math libraries use a slightly higher precision in certain calculations, which makes them slower at math.
Ahl's benchmark was 1:53 for the Apple II & C64, 1:59 for the MC-10, but the accuracy of the calculations were higher on the MC-10.  That benchmark uses a lot of square & square root math.
Other programs I've run like the Solitaire Solver show the MC-10 to be noticeably faster than the Apple II, which beat the C64. 
But that's emulators and I'd like to verify the accuracy vs real hardware.   It's faster, just not sure how much.
Since the random number generation is different, you have to run benchmarks a long time to account for differences in what decks are dealt on the Solitaire Solver.
As I mentioned before, moving some subroutines to the top might help the 6502 machines. 
8 bit registers do not deal well with linked lists, and BASIC lines are in a linked list.

I mentioned details about the MC-10 BASIC replacement I'm working on in a previous post.
The Apple II doesn't even come close to that.

[JamesD]

2 hours ago, potatohead said:

Totally.  It doesn't totally suck.  

 

Yup.  It's one of the triggers.  "Dad's old computer..." seems to come up a fair amount right now too.  Too bad for the Dads tho

<sigh>  Trying to connect with dad that recently passed away seems to be common.

[potatohead]

It is.  Same for gramps

[potatohead]

3 hours ago, JamesD said:

Ahl's benchmark was 1:53 for the Apple II & C64

Interesting!  The C64 should take a small hit due to screen DMA and refresh, both of which are transparent to the Apple 6502.

 

They use essentially the same clock too.  1.024Mhz on Apple, 1.023 on C64.  Must be Applesoft needing 5 to 7 percent more cycles, on some operations, or  ??

 

Right now, I have a //e setup where running something can be pretty easy.  

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by potatohead

[JamesD]

3 hours ago, potatohead said:

Interesting!  The C64 should take a small hit due to screen DMA and refresh, both of which are transparent to the Apple 6502.

 

They use essentially the same clock too.  1.024Mhz on Apple, 1.023 on C64.  Must be Applesoft needing 5 to 7 percent more cycles, on some operations, or  ??

 

Right now, I have a //e setup where running something can be pretty easy.  

 

That's what was published in Creative Computing.  There is a related thread on Atariage, you can find the code in it. 
Don't use the A=A*A optimization mentioned.  The MC-10 ROM I'm working on would run the benchmark in 42 seconds with that optimization. 
After I replace the LOG function with a faster one, it might come close to that anyway.
 

[JamesD]

The C64 BASIC code I posted to draw a circle does work except it doesn't return to text mode properly on exit.
It's really slow... but it works.
 

[JamesD]

15 hours ago, JamesD said:

...
The BASIC is almost identical to COLOR BASIC on the TRS-80 COLOR COMPUTER (the 8K non-extended version of BASIC), and it only lacks a few commands
of the TRS-80 Model I/III's LEVEL II BASIC (PRINT USING, CSAVEM, ELSE, ???) but otherwise it can do pretty much everything they can do short of certain file I/O.
You can run most MC-10 BASIC code on a CoCo.  If you avoid the Extended BASIC commands, and ELSE, CoCo programs run on the MC-10.
There is a RAM expansion that includes a new ROM with Extended BASIC commands, so you have greater compatibility with the CoCo.
It's called MCX-128, and you can load & save programs from a PC over the serial port.  It's similar to Drivewire for the CoCo, and PyDriveWire will talk to either machine.

The MC-10 BASIC is actually slightly faster than the CoCo version in benchmarks if you don't use the high speed POKE on the CoCo. 
Not sure on machine language, it's close.  It's more the coder than the CPU, but I give the 6809 the advantage if the programmer knows it well. 
...
 

Just a few hours after I posted this, the author/designer of the MCX-128 RAM expansion & MCX-BASIC posted a teaser of an SD interface for the MC-10
https://mcxwares.blogspot.com/?fbclid=IwAR1kmzNWN9-3tZHI_lNhwG_EIs4FMGO3GZuoVFqzBfC-0xerH3pBc0Pf9rI

[Mr SQL]

On 10/8/2020 at 4:17 PM, bluejay said:

I guess so.

But still, I don't imagine the MC-10 would be a good BASIC computer. Is it particularly capable/fast compared to regular CoCo BASIC? Does it have good documentation? How does it compare to Apple BASIC in terms of speed, capability, and documentation?

 

20 hours ago, JamesD said:

The keyboard is evil, I just picked mine up and I have to squeeze my fingers together to get them on the keys, but I have big hands.  An 8 year old might love it.
If you wired up a new keyboard for it (someone used a CoCo 1 keyboard on a ribbon cable) then it wouldn't be bad.

The BASIC is almost identical to COLOR BASIC on the TRS-80 COLOR COMPUTER (the 8K non-extended version of BASIC), and it only lacks a few commands
of the TRS-80 Model I/III's LEVEL II BASIC (PRINT USING, CSAVEM, ELSE, ???) but otherwise it can do pretty much everything they can do short of certain file I/O.

I found the keyboard usable because the keys are small enough large fingers have room, but you can't touch type at speed like on the CoCo II keyboard or even the mushy C64 keyboard - I sat in front of both for hours coding bitd.

 

I was disappointed when the MC-10 was discontinued and the CoCo III came out, because of the potential for semi-graphics that the MC-10 had and which incidentally were neglected on the GIME emulation for the CoCo III, VDG not fully emulated. This was unfortunate because bigger pixels are better and allow for more Atari looking games with bigger pixels and more colors - 9 colors as opposed to 4 - as well as mixing of fine resolution character graphics with the semi-graphics.

 

Here is a cool page with techniques one MC-10 programmer is using that interestingly resemble C64 peeks and pokes to get to the hidden semigraphics modes that exist on the MC-10. 

[potatohead]

There is a case for it all ending up with peeks and pokes for those wanting more than the BASIC allows for.

 

The BBC got this right with meaningful inline assembly.

 

Apple has a line assembler and monitor, the three of which can be used to develop sophisticated programs, though the process is a bit more convoluted.

 

On C64, it is hard core.  Hand assemble, or run one to get object code.  Then proceed. 

 

Back in the day, on the Apple, I would assemble to a spare page, sometimes test with the monitor, then BSAVE.

 

In the main program, BLOAD, then CALL, or hook into Applesoft via &.  I never did the latter, but results are good when others do.

 

Here is a double low res library done that way:

 

http://www.golombeck.eu/index.php?id=48&L=1

 

The C128 came back with a similar environment.  Seems like it would be fun to use.  I never have.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by potatohead

[JamesD]

17 hours ago, potatohead said:

There is a case for it all ending up with peeks and pokes for those wanting more than the BASIC allows for.

 

The BBC got this right with meaningful inline assembly.

 

Apple has a line assembler and monitor, the three of which can be used to develop sophisticated programs, though the process is a bit more convoluted.

 

On C64, it is hard core.  Hand assemble, or run one to get object code.  Then proceed. 

 

Back in the day, on the Apple, I would assemble to a spare page, sometimes test with the monitor, then BSAVE.

 

In the main program, BLOAD, then CALL, or hook into Applesoft via &.  I never did the latter, but results are good when others do.

 

Here is a double low res library done that way:

 

http://www.golombeck.eu/index.php?id=48&L=1

 

The C128 came back with a similar environment.  Seems like it would be fun to use.  I never have.

 

 

The Plus/4 includes a monitor, and I think it has an assembler.
The Alice supposedly took advantage of the unused 8K of space reserved for ROM in the MC-10 memory map to add a built in assembler & monitor.
If you want to learn assembly, it could certainly help back in the day, but I have to think that 99% of people that bought these machines never used that feature,
and the ROM space might have been used for something else more people would have used.
An assembler written it BASIC would probably be easier than the built in ones.
Now there are better cross development tools and emulators that let you step through the code while you can still see what is on the computer's screen, and you can set breakpoints for when certain events happen.
The VMC-10 emulator has one of the best built in debuggers I've seen, and it gives you the same features in circuit emulators I've used for embedded system development. 
The next closest emulator when it comes to the debugger is Altirra for the Atari.
If you can find an emulator for the machine you want to program with the same features, I'd say that is the best way to get started in assembly.
It's not the retro experience, but I think people will find it to be much less frustrating, and they will be more productive.
If you can't find a system specific emulator with such a debugger, you can use M.A.M.E.
M.A.M.E. isn't exactly the friendliest emulator, but it supports a lot of machines, and it has a decent debugger.
If you wanted a 6502 system that is easy to learn on, the Acorn Atom might be the easiest, but the debugger in the emulator isn't as good
 

[potatohead]

3 hours ago, JamesD said:

If you can find an emulator for the machine you want to program with the same features, I'd say that is the best way to get started in assembly.

Definitely.

 

The built in tools are good for quickies.   True today as well as back then.

 

The first assemblers I used were in BASIC.  For programs of any size, they were easier.  First one was on the CoCo.

 

 

[Keatah]

On 10/8/2020 at 11:36 AM, potatohead said:

I just got a FastChip from a2heaven in Bulgaria.  They included a nice post card and put a 65816 on it for me so I could have that CPU in my //e.  Check one youthful upgrade off the list.  I think it tops out at 14, 16Mhz?  Will have to check.

I've ordered from Plamen before, too. And preparing to do so again. So there are "unspoken" 65C02 and 65C816 versions of this upgrade?

 

On 10/8/2020 at 11:36 AM, potatohead said:

One day, it will be almost all FPGA and emulation.  I feel putting that off as long as possible is good for everyone.

I'm happy to have all my original Apple II paraphernalia. It's all about the sentimentality and ease-of-access to the hardware. Emulating the other systems of the day suits me just fine.

[potatohead]

1 hour ago, Keatah said:

So there are "unspoken" 65C02 and 65C816 versions of this upgrade?

Yes.  Plamen is great!  Love his stuff, and it works.

 

He hints at it in the docs.  65C02/65816

 

If you ask, he will do one with the '816.  That does mean doing things like bringing your CFFA firmware up to date, but works otherwise.

 

I am pretty sure he does the 65C02 for everyone because it will always just work.

 

I think the 816 can access the RAM directly too.  Not sure yet.  

 

 

Edited October 11, 2020 by potatohead