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

[+OLD CS1]

2 hours ago, Mr SQL said:

Lots of interesting perspective, cool this thread is still going like the Energizer Bunny!  

 

I think that reading BYTE Magazine and seeing the colorful history of home computing from it's inception in the 70's through the 80's might help prospective retro users select the right dream machine.

 

There's lots of foresight in BYTE articles that are still misunderstood, this looks like the Apple Watch from the perspective of 1981 leading Tech:

Computer Magazines were important for home computer support and were an integral part of the retro computing experience evolving from the early computer clubs and their Newsletters. 

 

HOLY SHIT!

 

I have a very vivid memory of a dream I had in third grade (would be 1982-1983) and also the time I explained the dream to a friend as we were standing in line waiting for our hearing tests.  The dream was of a TI calculator watch with what looked like tiny CDs that held math libraries for things like accounting and engineering.  You would slide the discs into the watch as illustrated in the picture.  Now, I do not remember ever seeing that issue of byte, nor do I recall ever seeing Byte Magazine until about fourth grade.  Maybe I caught it in a glance on a shop rack or somewhere, I do not know.  But now, damn near 40 years later, I see a picture which almost fits that dream perfectly and I am a little of both excited and bugged out about it.

[AtariNostalgia]

Well, If the VIC-20 made it here, than I would seriously also look at the TI-99/4A. Lots of expandability options (mostly modern but also vintage), and great quality software.

[DistantStar001]

13 hours ago, AtariNostalgia said:

Well, If the VIC-20 made it here, than I would seriously also look at the TI-99/4A. Lots of expandability options (mostly modern but also vintage), and great quality software.

While I agree the the Ti-99/4A offers a lot of advantages similar to the VIC-20, it also has a lot of disadvantages that could make it a bit off putting for the novice collector.  The slow BASIC, and uncomfortably small keyboard being the most immediate that I encountered.

 

Personally, one of the attractions of retro computing is working with older technology.  However (owning a Ti-99), I've been really put off by the expense of period expansions.  I've pretty much given up on finding/affording a PEB.  And forget finding the standalone floppy drives.  Even the joysticks are expensive (and not that good).  Not only were the set I bought more than twice the price of their Atari counterparts, but the didn't even work.  I'm still looking for flex circuits to fix them.  And yes I did get an adapter.  With case, it ended up being around three times the price of the average Atari stick at the time.  Then you have to buy the joysticks on top of that.

 

I know I could get a modern SD, and expansion solutions.  But the thing is, it's just not as much of a priority since almost anything I get for my VIC-20 also works for my C64s.  Effectively, I can upgrade/expand two computers for the price of one.  For me, this is the big advantage of the VIC-20.  Once I had a good setup for it, I was all set for a C64, AND have a pretty good start for a C128 or any of the TED machines!  Should I find them for a price I can afford.  

 

That's why I think the VIC-20 makes a good entry computer to retro collecting.  For the most part, it's more reliable than the C64, while its peripherals open the user to the wider world of Commodore.  The same could be argued for the Apple IIs and Atari 8-bits, even if they are a lot more expensive. Collecting for the Ti-99, on the other hand, really locks you into that system with no real bridges to anything else.

[Omega-TI]

Being an avid TI-99/4A owner, I can attest to the fact that the basic console by itself sucks big time, in fact it's nearly worthless.  However with a TIPI/32K with an inexpensive Raspberry Pi ZERO installed...

 

 

... and with a FinalGROM (multicart) installed you'll be able to 99.5% of everything.

 

 

[AtariNostalgia]

The TI-99 with modern solutions like the TIPI, NanoPEB, 32K expansion, and FinalGrom makes it a really worthwhile system. The keyboard although on the small side, feels fantastic to type on. And the TI Extended BASIC is a dream to program on. Great games as well.

[Hwlngmad]

On 12/11/2020 at 10:29 PM, DistantStar001 said:

Finally, as many have mentioned before, the VIC-20 is an excellent first retro computer.  While, like the C64, the prices have been climbing, the VIC-20 is still cheeper (and from my experience, more reliable).  And while yes, it may have a smaller software library than either the C64, Atari, or Apple II, it's vintage catalog is by no means small.  And there is a dedicated modern fanbase that has been developing new games and hardware that push many of the boundaries of the VIC's hardware.  All and all, I'd say that the VIC-20 is a very approachable computer that makes a perfectly reasonable compromise between capabilities and cost without compromising enjoyment at all!  

 

I tend to agree with you here.  However, Bill does make some valid points and I think if you can swing getting a C64 that would probably be the preferable route.  Still, the Vic-20 is no slouch and a lot of fun can be had with it for sure.

[Mr SQL]

It's surprising the TI-99/4A did not endure longer; a good friend had a TI growing up and I liked the graphics and variety of genres particularly Adventures on the TI.

 

The Apple II did endure possibly because it initially shipped with Atari paddles included and a fast colorful game maker BASIC for "making games like Pong" as advertisements described it initially in 1977.

 

Excellent idea to get both a VIC-20 and a C64 to not miss the earlier years; I had a Commodore PET that was even earlier and also very cool, but I think color computers with multiple voice sound are more fun than BW silent or nearly silent retro computers.

 

 

[Keatah]

Wikipedia has some general historical information on Integer Basic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_BASIC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applesoft_BASIC

 

It was good to read how grass-roots Woz's BASIC was back then. Not only was the hardware bare metal hobbyist material, so was the software and firmware.

 

Amusing that Apple made it a sales point to give away the languages for free.

 

Amazing that the Apple II became refined to stay relevant though the very early 1990's. All the while remaining compatible.

[potatohead]

Look at FujiNet.  It does bump the Atari 8 bit computers up the list some.

 

Just saying.  That project is under cool, and it puts 8 bitters online in a relevant and accessible way.  

[oracle_jedi]

Back when retro computers were just, well, computers, and there was a wide selection, and a constant release of new ones, few of which were compatible with anything other than themselves, the question of "which should I buy?" was a common theme in the letters sections of the publications of the day. 

 

The best advice I saw in response to this question was; find the software you want, buy the machine it runs on.

 

I think that still applies today.

 

If you want a large quantity of 8-bit quality arcade and RPG games, the C64 is the obvious choice.  If you are more into programming or exploring esoteric apps, then maybe an Apple II or an Acorn BBC.  If collecting cartridges if your thing, the Atari 8-bit, VIC20 and TI99/4A are all good choices.  I would also suggest to our would-be retro hacker to start with machines that are still well supported by active groups, have a display output you can deal with, and have a relatively simple PC/Mac to target transfer system so that software downloaded from the web can be executed on the original hardware.  Regional concerns also play a part here.   The ZX Spectrum and Amstrad might be great choices for a European, but less so in the Americas.  Likewise the TRS80 CoCo and TI were huge here, but fared less well in Europe.  MSX did well in Asia Pacific etc. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by oracle_jedi

[phoenixdownita]

Wrt BASIC and some old computers:

 

 

Give it time, let it play, he tests a very small BASIC program (nested sums) on CPC, TI99/4A, Vic20, C64, QL ... and the results are ... interesting (that segment starts at 5:25mins or just about).
He also explains the TI99/4A internal architecture etc... it's an enjoyable video and very informative imho.
 

Spoiler

CPC is the fastest of the bunch, the Vic20 beats the C64, the ZX Spectrum is dog slow etc....

I agree the benchmark is very specific etc... still never had such a startling view of them 8 bitters.
And wrt TI99/4A ... look mom, no poke(s) ....  say what? 

[+OLD CS1]

3 hours ago, oracle_jedi said:

The best advice I saw in response to this question was; find the software you want, buy the machine it runs on.

 

I think that still applies today.

It does. This is part of the advice I give people when they ask "Mac or Windows?"

[AtariNostalgia]

9 hours ago, OLD CS1 said:

It does. This is part of the advice I give people when they ask "Mac or Windows?"

When they ask me that, my answer is, "how much do you want to spend?"

[+OLD CS1]

1 minute ago, AtariNostalgia said:

When they ask me that, my answer is, "how much do you want to spend?"

"...on repairs due to engineering defects the manufacturer refuses to admit exist?"

 

Also, MacBooks seem to be quite hydrophilic.

[Arnuphis]

2 hours ago, OLD CS1 said:

"...on repairs due to engineering defects the manufacturer refuses to admit exist?"

 

Also, MacBooks seem to be quite hydrophilic.

This. I was a hard core Apple fan from 2002-2012. I will never buy another Apple product again. Burnt too many times by substandard hardware design and refusal to admit the problems until class action suits are filed. And of course their continued attack on right to repair and 3rd party repairers.

 

But Apple II/IIGs are great and a good choice for retro computing.

 

[potatohead]

I have a 2012 Mac Book Pro.  Frankly, I love that computer whether it is running Windows or Mac OS.

 

But, it got a coffee spill event, took out the keyboard.

 

So, I ordered (very questionably legal) parts from Asia, took a day, rebuilt it.  Back in business!

 

A week later, family knocked water on it, aaaaand yeah.  Took out the keyboard.

 

Not doing that surgery again, so now it is a backup, software build machine, with a USB keyboard.

 

Way too delicate.  And that repair was tough!  Not something people want to, or maybe can do.  I was very seriously challenged!  Crazy tech, small, things glued together, screws with odd pitches and heads...  

Edited December 15, 2020 by potatohead

[fimbulvetr]

17 hours ago, phoenixdownita said:

I agree the benchmark is very specific etc... still never had such a startling view of them 8 bitters.

Interesting comparison. Just for fun, I ran this on my CoCo3, TRS-80 Model 100, and Apple IIc as those weren't in the test. They took 58 sec, 66 sec, and 35 seconds, respectively. 

 

Mind you, I didn't try the speed-up poke on the CoCo3.

[AtariNostalgia]

6 hours ago, OLD CS1 said:

"...on repairs due to engineering defects the manufacturer refuses to admit exist?"

 

Also, MacBooks seem to be quite hydrophilic.

I used to be an big fan of Apple. My last was a MBP 2012 Retina. With their current prices, especially their denials of defects, I am not buying another Mac again. I prefer throwing my money on vintage stuff.

[christo930]

I think the answer might differ based on where you are.  In America, the easiest 8 bit computers to get into are the Commodore 8-bit computers and the Atari 8-bit computers.  Both have pretty large libraries, they both sold in the millions, both have well used cartridge slots and both use commonly available joysticks that also sold in the many millions and are broadly supported and the computers include the ports. None require a special monitor.  The C64 has the disadvantage of a giant brick power supply that are known to be failing in such a way that destroys the computer.

 

16 bit computers are just out of the question. I wouldn't want to be the one to make such a recommendation. They can figure that out on their own.

 

The people I knew with computers back in the day (which was few)  used cartridges first.  If someone has zero experience with retro computers, cartridges are a nice way to get your feet wet.  There is no shortage of cartridges on ebay of the most common and popular games. The barrier to entry is just a lot lower with cartridges.  Then, once they have all that squared away and that inevitable call comes "How do I play X?" where X is a disk only game, they have the basics down.

 

I would also create YouTube playlists of the most common cartridge games for each system.  They can get a feel for what the games on that particular computer look and sound like.

I would strongly encourage them to use an NTSC CRT TV unless their flat screen had a composite or better still, an NTSC tuner (presumably this will not have a delay).  RF is fine. I completely disagree with anyone who says otherwise. These are low resolution devices, especially playing games in multi-color mode. The games were designed to be played through RF on a CRT TV.  If you have it and you like RGB, SCART, composite or S-Video, good for you. But it is absolutely not a requirement. These same people are usually the ones hooking them up to a high def ATSC flat screen.

 

For DOS, I would tell them to just buy the fastest DOS computer they can find. Or better still, just use DOS box.  I have a pretty old PC, a Core 2 Duo with a bottom of the line onboard video and everything I have ever tried to run on it works fine full speed.

[christo930]

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, Arnuphis said:

 

 

But Apple II/IIGs are great and a good choice for retro computing.

 

In what sense?  I can't think of a single good quality for either machine (for the purposes of being a retrogaming computer platform. Not in general.). Both are expensive. Both are disk only.  IIG doesn't have many games. They use oddball joysticks. I'm pretty sure the IIgs requires a monitor (but I could be wrong).  The Apple II is not a competent game machine (where the GS is a very competent game system, but few games). It has no sound and no sprites.  While there are a ton of games for it, the library is smaller than say the Commodore 64 and where a game is on both systems, it usually looks and sounds better on a 64.

Edited December 27, 2020 by christo930
clarification

[Keatah]

Back in my day today's retro hardware was brand new and fully functional out of the box. Today that isn't so. Repairs, tweaks, adjustments, and finding a working display device are all issues someone getting into the hobby has to contend with.

 

I still recommend Apple II because its modular compared to the Atari and Commodore offerings. And many of the popular games were first written on the Apple II and then eventually ported to other platforms. And while the II doesn't have any graphics or sound chips, it certainly makes up for it with variety, historical provenance, documentation, and ease of repairs.

 

Apple II is a very inviting blank slate. Encouraging you to discover computing in whatever direction you want to go.

 

Next is the PC. There's excellent documentation and parts a-plenty. And the whole damned thing is modular. Way more than anything else in town. You pick your own parts, you design your own rig.

 

I would never ever ever recommend a 16bit rig. Configurations changed too much during the era, often breaking software that came before, or not extending far enough into the future. Complete opposite of PC and Apple II. Amiga's various Workbenches and Kickstarts just begin to highlight the problem. 16 bitters are ok for more advanced beginners, not first timers. IMHO.

 

[Keatah]

I started out with red-led calculators and Mattel handhelds. AutoRacing, FootBall, Baseball, and more. Then I got a VCS/Intellivision/Colecovision, a TRS-80 Pocket Computer, and an Apple II. I stayed with that till the PC era was well underway. Played with the C64, Amiga, and Atari800 also, but those two never became "mainstream" for me. By mainstream I mean I never did computery stuff on them. It was always the Apple II for programming.

 

I kinda let the currents of industry blow me around. And played with hardware that fit the moment. And that's what worked.

 

[christo930]

10 hours ago, Keatah said:

Back in my day today's retro hardware was brand new and fully functional out of the box. Today that isn't so. Repairs, tweaks, adjustments, and finding a working display device are all issues someone getting into the hobby has to contend with.

 

I still recommend Apple II because its modular compared to the Atari and Commodore offerings. And many of the popular games were first written on the Apple II and then eventually ported to other platforms. And while the II doesn't have any graphics or sound chips, it certainly makes up for it with variety, historical provenance, documentation, and ease of repairs.

 

Apple II is a very inviting blank slate. Encouraging you to discover computing in whatever direction you want to go.

 

Next is the PC. There's excellent documentation and parts a-plenty. And the whole damned thing is modular. Way more than anything else in town. You pick your own parts, you design your own rig.

 

I would never ever ever recommend a 16bit rig. Configurations changed too much during the era, often breaking software that came before, or not extending far enough into the future. Complete opposite of PC and Apple II. Amiga's various Workbenches and Kickstarts just begin to highlight the problem. 16 bitters are ok for more advanced beginners, not first timers. IMHO.

 

You are singing the praises of the Apple II as a computer, not as a retrogaming computer.  The Apple II is a real 8-bit computer and in that sense, miles ahead of the toys sold in dept stores so many of us cut our teeth on.  While they were computers in a certain sense, they just weren't good computers as computers, whereas the Apple was.    Most people who bought one of the dept store computers used them primarily for games and most people who bought an Apple II used it primarily to do work of some sort. Just like you can do useful work on a Commodore machine, you could play games on an Apple (and obviously many did).

 

I am assuming that the person who gets the recommendation has no experience. If they did, they would be using what they had experience with and would not be asking me.  Whatever you recommend, whatever goes wrong is going to involve a phone call to you.  Maybe you just know better people than I do, but the people I know if they asked about a retro-computer and I recommended an Apple II, when it arrives after they have bought it will call me talking about "I got my computer, now what?"  I cannot even tell you how many times I went through this when the general public started buying windows computers. I can't tell you how many people asked me 'should I buy computer X" to which my answer was "HELL NO!"  Then a month and a half later the call comes... "Remember that computer you told me not to buy?  Well, I complete disregarded your advice that I sought out in the first place and bought it anyway. Now can you help me with this problem I am having?"  Any answer other than "sure" is going to involve an argument and possibly losing of your friend/acquaintance. At least back then there wasn't a twitter to tell everyone what an asshole you are for not helping them.

 

I am also running under the assumption that the primary purpose for the interest in retro-computing is the games.  Only an insane person would try to use a retro-computer to do real work with, work they get paid for.  There's always emulation too. That's just a whole lot easier.

[potatohead]

15 hours ago, christo930 said:

The Apple II is not a competent game machine

Oh I don't know about that.  

 

These days, setting an Apple up isn't terribly difficult.  One gets a drive emulator, and a lot of the good stuff is packaged up, ready to go!  Total Replay is a labor of love that really does present a great retro experience in an easy way.  For many, it's connect all the bits together, make sure the package is on the card, turn the machine on, and select from the menu, go!

 

https://archive.org/details/TotalReplay

 

I've put kids and other adults on mine, and they had a blast!  

 

It's a different kind of games machine.  Somewhat like the Beeb, or Spectrum.  Bitmap games.  DOS.  

 

Now make no mistake, I keep a VCS and an Atari 8 bit or two for those frame locked experiences.  People, who experience that today, notice!  Low latency and all that.  But, in the scope of gaming, a whole lot happened on the Apple.  And Apples were used to develop for other machines due to being "a real 8 bit computer", in the sense of having a high density text display, fast storage and flexible, simple hardware that made building interfaces fairly easy.

 

RPG type games are excellent on Apple computers.  And some arcade ports are amazing!  Try both the DOS and Apple 2 ports of ROBOTRON, for example.  Killer!  

 

There is a lot out there.  We all have our faves.  For me, it's been interesting.  I played a ton of Atari and kind of stalled.  Went back to the Apple and it's a whole new round of fun, and I've enjoyed the machines for the last decade or so now.  

 

People, who get into this, are gonna start somewhere.  As was said by several, myself included, it really depends on what sparks their interest really.  Whatever that is gets them going.  If they are into it at all, they will want to check the era out and when they do, others will need to help out some.

 

Maybe that happens on real machines.  I think probably not, unless they are super serious.  But, having one real machine can be the anchor for making the FPGA projects, for example, or emulation as another example, relevant.

 

It's all getting simpler across the board.  An Atari, with FujiNet is looking sweet!  Apples have their game server, audio connection which just isn't all that hard, and many different storage devices people can drop files onto and go.  I have not kept up with the C64 options, but I do see similar devices for that one that look pretty easy too.

 

Frankly, if someone is interested, I'm game.  Let's hook it up and do some stuff, learn some stuff, play some games, whatever.  If we want this hobby to endure at all, that's what it will take.

 

In any case, the Apple is totally a competent gaming machine.  All of these computers have a sweet spot.  For some, it's pretty big, others smallish.  But, they all nail a couple things and it's the differences from there which made the era so damn much fun in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by potatohead

[AtariNostalgia]

The prices on eprey for Apple IIs are out of this world. Even 800XL are going for higher prices now. I still think the TI is a good bet, but so is the VIC-20