Jump to content
bluejay

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

Recommended Posts

My first pc was a packard bell 66mhz pentium that ran Windows 3.1. That wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno.. I ... (and my poor, scarred hands) remember Packard Bell.

 

I swear to the unholy god of technology, those people who made those things had no fucking clue what a deburr tool was.

(or that external cache on anything newer than a 386 is NOT OPTIONAL, regardless of what the spec sheet says.)

 

So many painful support memories from Packard Bells.  I would not wish that on somebody who is young and unsuspecting.  Give them a nice period Dell instead.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 9:13 AM, Hwlngmad said:

Throwing my two cents in, these are my thoughts on the matter.  The options for each category are as follows:

 

1. Price: Atari 600XL, Atari 800XL, C64, Vic-20, TI-99/4a, Coco 2

2. Game library: A8, C64, Apple II, CoCo 2, Amiga, ST, Mac, MS-DOS / PC clone

3. Ease of file transfers to/from modern devices: A8, C64, and CoCo 2 have dead simple SD card solutions of some kind

4. Powerfulness (or whatever you call it) of the computer: A8, C64, Apple II, Amiga, ST, Mac, MS-DOS / PC clone

5. Ease of use: A8, C64, and CoCo 2 (due largely in part to #3)

6. Reliability: Atari 600XL, Atari 800XL, Apple II, CoCo 2, MS-DOS / PC clone

7. Video output: A8, C64, MS-DOS / PC clone

8. BASIC: Apple II, Vic-20, C64, CoCo 2

 

Obviously my take on this is from a U.S. perspective and just my opinion.  Other machines to consider if one lives abroad could include ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPC, MSX, and Dragon 32/64 machines, apart from the Amiga and ST which I believe are easier and cheaper to find abroad, especially in England.

 

Regardless, there are lots of good options out there.  It is just a matter of what one likes, what one is willing to pay, and what one wants to do.  There are lots of computers for some good gaming, but perhaps not as much for more serious computing, or so it seems to me.

 

Hopefully this list and the other comments help someone out.

Exactly what do you mean by powerfulness?

The CoCo 1/2 can RUN at double speed when accessing the ROM area which is also where game carts are located. 
This speeds up BASIC by around 30%, making it one of the faster machines out there in BASIC, and it can speed up game carts though I think only 1 cart has used that.
The CoCo 3 can RUN at double speed all the time (1.77MHz) while still offering backwards compatibility.
The 6809 has a hardware multiply instruction. Microsoft didn't use it in their BASIC, but I created a patch to replace the floating point multiply with one that uses it.
I haven't benchmarked the CoCo 3 patch, but my MC-10 BASIC rewrite uses it, and math intensive programs like 3D plots are over 40% faster.
The MC-10 with my BASIC can complete Ahl's benchmark (BASIC) in 1:06, where the Apple II & C64 take about 1:53.  The MC-10 is clocked at 0.89MHz.
You can swap out the 6809 for a 6309, and once native mode is enabled, 6809 software can run at over 20% faster, 6309 software can run 30% faster. 
The 6309 extends the 6809's 16 bit support, it adds some 32 bit support, has memory move instructions, additional registers, and it has a hardware divide.
The FLEX OS and can run on 64K CoCos.  It's a CP/M like OS available for 6800 or 6809 machines with a lot of programs (programs are CPU specific).
OS-9 Level 1 runs on any 64K CoCo, and OS-9 Level II runs on the CoCo 3. 
It's a fully multitasking OS with some powerful applications that brought preemptive multitasking to micros years before the Amiga. 
Trying to multi-task on a 6502 is dreadful, but the 6809's fully relocatable code, relocatable direct page (Page 0 to you 6502 fans) makes it easy.
Dynacalc is one of the best spreadsheets ever created for an 8 bit, and it has CoCo DOS & OS-9 versions.
On Level II OS-9, you can run a CP/M emulator, and it's programs as well at the same time as OS-9 programs. 
CP/M programs can continue to run in the background while you do something else, so if you print from Wordstar, it can continue to print while you do something else.
You can even run multiple CP/M programs at once.
The CoCo 3 has 2MB RAM expansions that OS-9 can already use, and there are larger expansions on the way.  There were 2MB OS-9 machines back in the day.
There is a GIME chip (CoCo 3) upgrade in beta test that adds additional graphics modes, VGA output, and an even higher speed mode.
There are word processors, data bases, etc... that can run on a CoCo 1/2 that will display text in 51/64/81 characters per line using graphics (81 is for page formatting only, 64 is only readable on monochrome composite output)
Many of these applications offer 80 column versions for the CoCo 3.
There are graphical word processors similar to Mac Write, Desktop Publishers, music composition software with MIDI support, etc...
 

Edited by JamesD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is meant in "Subjective 'I start workload, and system does not drop into a coma trying to do it' metrics of power.  Some of the 68k processors were hands-down better designs than their x86 peers, for instance-- as regards how they accessed memory, did memory mapping and protection, etc--- but the complex instructions inside actual x86 chips of the time could accomplish certain kinds of compute-heavy workloads in fewer cycles.

 

Like anything in the real world, the devil is in the details.  Early amigas for instance, were highly timing-cycle optimized, with lots of support chips doing all kinds of heavy lifting.  This was both beneficial, and detrimental, depending on how you look at it. (Beneficial in that the CPU was not having to slog through pedestrian tasks, like graphics data IO,  but on the other hand, it meant that future upgrade paths were limited and hindered, as later series chips were developed.)

 

All those older systems had areas where they shined, but they did it by accepting warts somewhere else.  It was the era of compromise all around-- you had to decide where you wanted to compromise, and then buy appropriately.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wierd_w said:

I think it is meant in "Subjective 'I start workload, and system does not drop into a coma trying to do it' metrics of power.  Some of the 68k processors were hands-down better designs than their x86 peers, for instance-- as regards how they accessed memory, did memory mapping and protection, etc--- but the complex instructions inside actual x86 chips of the time could accomplish certain kinds of compute-heavy workloads in fewer cycles.

 

Like anything in the real world, the devil is in the details.  Early amigas for instance, were highly timing-cycle optimized, with lots of support chips doing all kinds of heavy lifting.  This was both beneficial, and detrimental, depending on how you look at it. (Beneficial in that the CPU was not having to slog through pedestrian tasks, like graphics data IO,  but on the other hand, it meant that future upgrade paths were limited and hindered, as later series chips were developed.)

 

All those older systems had areas where they shined, but they did it by accepting warts somewhere else.  It was the era of compromise all around-- you had to decide where you wanted to compromise, and then buy appropriately.

 

 

Look up the clock cycles for instructions on an 8088.  It's horrible.  The only advantage was if you added a math coprocessor, which most machines didn't have.
The 68000 instruction set is more orthogonal, more memory efficient, offered a nicer memory model, was less of a PITA to program, etc... but IBM chose intel, and developers coming from CP/M could easily port their code to the 8088.
Later 680x0 CPUs were faster per clock cycle than the same generation intel chips, but Motorola fell behind in MHz, and developing new generations of CPUs.
People assumed a higher MHz always meant faster than a lower one.
One thing the Amiga had going for it, is that it's OS was much more responsive than Windows.  If you put the two side by side, a 68000 felt faster than much faster intel CPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, wierd_w said:

I dunno.. I ... (and my poor, scarred hands) remember Packard Bell.

 

I swear to the unholy god of technology, those people who made those things had no fucking clue what a deburr tool was.

(or that external cache on anything newer than a 386 is NOT OPTIONAL, regardless of what the spec sheet says.)

 

So many painful support memories from Packard Bells.  I would not wish that on somebody who is young and unsuspecting.  Give them a nice period Dell instead.

We referred to them as Packard Hell when I was selling computers.  No, we didn't sell them, but we had to repair them once in a while.
There was another big brand that was a nightmare, but I forget which.  (*edit*  Blue Chip?)

One year I took a temporary job activating licenses for Turbo Tax the first year they started doing online license activations.
When I started, I was trained as an activation specialist (monkey that can type) but so many people had problems with activation, that some of us had to be switched to tech support... which we weren't trained for.
Half my tech support calls were Packard Bells (you have to change the hardware config in the bios to blah blah blah), and the other half were probably people trying to use a friend's or pirate copy.
We ended out handing out new licenses right and left, and told people that wouldn't happen the next year.
In the last few days to file on time, there were some people that sounded like they were in tears.

Edited by JamesD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wierd_w said:

Like anything in the real world, the devil is in the details.  Early amigas for instance, were highly timing-cycle optimized, with lots of support chips doing all kinds of heavy lifting.  This was both beneficial, and detrimental, depending on how you look at it. (Beneficial in that the CPU was not having to slog through pedestrian tasks, like graphics data IO,  but on the other hand, it meant that future upgrade paths were limited and hindered, as later series chips were developed.)

That's right. I used to believe custom chips were the end all be all. Each one was a God above all gods. When used in the core of a machine they wowed the user at low cost, till it came to upgrade. The world turned an ominous black. Suddenly all sorts of limitations and exceptions came into place. Enough that only the original engineers could effect change with the stratospheric prices of redesigning the whole system.

 

When used as add-ons (outside the core, on the bus) they were/are quite T.H.E. shit. Sound cards, MIDI cards, 2D accelerators, 3D accelerators. Bring it on! Old Betsy has seen 5 or 6 graphics boards in her lifetime. Each one being significantly more powerful than its predecessor. She also worked with 2 kinds of FireWire cards and 3 soundcards.

 

A core philosophy, intentional or not, is that Wintel machines had very simple architectures. Very much like the Apple II if not exactly the same.

 

You would have the processor and the memory. A little bit of bus interface glue. And some firmware to get the whole shebang started. Everything else outside of that little circle was a peripheral. And the programmer really only had to care about what was happening in the processor and the results it spit out.

 

The processor and memory was the whole thing. And its arguable the memory would also be transparent, too. Thus the processor was the essence of the computer.

 

Add a soundcard, fine, you add some software in the form of drivers and treat it as an external device. Same went for graphics and everything else.

 

Upgrading these Wintel systems for speed was easy for the consumer. All the heavy lifting of inventing new features like cache, translate-lookaside-buffers, bus-interface-units, branch predictors, pipelined execution units, and the hundreds of other subunits that make up a modern processor, was done by a team of hundreds or even thousands of engineers. They did their best to keep things compatible and made sure the instructions in the new processors worked like the ones in the old. And of course they added new instructions while not breaking that all important compatibility with the existing ones.

 

Intel had been doing this since the 1970's. It would be foolish to overlook that kind of infrastructure.

Edited by Keatah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamesD said:

The 68000 instruction set is more orthogonal, more memory efficient, offered a nicer memory model, was less of a PITA to program, etc... but IBM chose intel, and developers coming from CP/M could easily port their code to the 8088.

Not too sure consumers and users and marketing cared much about memory efficiency as it pertains to instruction sets and memory models. But those three groups did care significantly about upgrading.

 

If something was easy to port, it meant much less work than developing from scratch and the necessary testing. This allowed for significant savings that could be reinvested in new features and R&D. Something that propelled the industry whether we recognize it or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamesD said:

We referred to them as Packard Hell when I was selling computers.  No, we didn't sell them, but we had to repair them once in a while.
There was another big brand that was a nightmare, but I forget which.  (*edit*  Blue Chip?)

One year I took a temporary job activating licenses for Turbo Tax the first year they started doing online license activations.
When I started, I was trained as an activation specialist (monkey that can type) but so many people had problems with activation, that some of us had to be switched to tech support... which we weren't trained for.
Half my tech support calls were Packard Bells (you have to change the hardware config in the bios to blah blah blah), and the other half were probably people trying to use a friend's or pirate copy.
We ended out handing out new licenses right and left, and told people that wouldn't happen the next year.
In the last few days to file on time, there were some people that sounded like they were in tears.

 

In my case, I was the "child computer prodigy" (ahem), and had an early summer job at a local slave-pit (erm, small operator computer store), doing grueling benchwork and phone support.

 

From the early to mid 90s, through the early 2000s, I was there in the trenches, getting my hands cut the hell up by those abominations.  Seriously, when you have to wear welding gloves and go over all the metal edges with the blade of a screwdriver to take all the burrs off, JUST so you can safely work inside it, there is a problem from the factory. 

 

Throw into that, the obscenely nasty habit that manufacturer had of putting SRAM sockets on the boards for external CPU cache, and then NEVER POPULATING THEM, and setting the jumper to "No cache", (in the days when SRAMS were still pretty expensive)-- it got real tiresome, real fast, trying to explain to the customer why the fancy new overdrive CPU they had installed, still ran like it had a concrete butt plug holding back a dumptruck load of wet cement.

 

"What do you mean I need to add 256kb of cache memory? It's got 4mb installed!!"

 

and other such glorious groaners-- and then they would see the prices for SRAM and about soil themselves.

 

The sad part, is that these same customers could have been vastly better served had they just bought a cheap assed MSI, TDK, KDS, or Shuttle motherboard, and a modular case.  The price difference was not worth the pain.  It really wasn't.  Those systems were subsidized on pure pain and suffering, for both the user, and the support people they INEVITABLY took them to, while those generic board makers actually installed at least a token amount of cache memory, and the boards were actually rather solid (most of the time anyway) (And the people making modular cases knew what a deburr tool was! I am serious, I have MF-ing scars on my hands from those PB bastards!)

 

 

You have no idea how happy I was when that company went out of business.  No idea at all.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JamesD said:

...
OS-9 Level 1 runs on any 64K CoCo, and OS-9 Level II runs on the CoCo 3. 
It's a fully multitasking OS with some powerful applications that brought preemptive multitasking to micros years before the Amiga. 
Trying to multi-task on a 6502 is dreadful, but the 6809's fully relocatable code, relocatable direct page (Page 0 to you 6502 fans) makes it easy.
Dynacalc is one of the best spreadsheets ever created for an 8 bit, and it has CoCo DOS & OS-9 versions.
On Level II OS-9, you can run a CP/M emulator, and it's programs as well at the same time as OS-9 programs. 
CP/M programs can continue to run in the background while you do something else, so if you print from Wordstar, it can continue to print while you do something else.
You can even run multiple CP/M programs at once.
The CoCo 3 has 2MB RAM expansions that OS-9 can already use, and there are larger expansions on the way.  There were 2MB OS-9 machines back in the day.
There is a GIME chip (CoCo 3) upgrade in beta test that adds additional graphics modes, VGA output, and an even higher speed mode.
There are word processors, data bases, etc... that can run on a CoCo 1/2 that will display text in 51/64/81 characters per line using graphics (81 is for page formatting only, 64 is only readable on monochrome composite output)
Many of these applications offer 80 column versions for the CoCo 3.
There are graphical word processors similar to Mac Write, Desktop Publishers, music composition software with MIDI support, etc...
 

This all seems very impressive.  Sounds like it could compete with amiga.  How much did os9 cost.

 

Was the cp/m emulator a z80 based cartridge or software emulation?

 

3 hours ago, Keatah said:

Not too sure consumers and users and marketing cared much about memory efficiency as it pertains to instruction sets and memory models. But those three groups did care significantly about upgrading.

 

If something was easy to port, it meant much less work than developing from scratch and the necessary testing. This allowed for significant savings that could be reinvested in new features and R&D. Something that propelled the industry whether we recognize it or not.

 

I don't think porting cp/m software was what IBM had in mind when choosing intel.  The motorola 68000 was actually more compatible with the processors ibm was using but it simply wasn't ready.

 

 

----------------

One thing I'm amazed with is that even the most maligned, unsuccessful computers of the 1980s have a healthy support community today.

Edited by mr_me
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JamesD said:

Exactly what do you mean by powerfulness?

The CoCo 1/2 can RUN at double speed when accessing the ROM area which is also where game carts are located. 
This speeds up BASIC by around 30%, making it one of the faster machines out there in BASIC, and it can speed up game carts though I think only 1 cart has used that.
The CoCo 3 can RUN at double speed all the time (1.77MHz) while still offering backwards compatibility.
The 6809 has a hardware multiply instruction. Microsoft didn't use it in their BASIC, but I created a patch to replace the floating point multiply with one that uses it.
I haven't benchmarked the CoCo 3 patch, but my MC-10 BASIC rewrite uses it, and math intensive programs like 3D plots are over 40% faster.
The MC-10 with my BASIC can complete Ahl's benchmark (BASIC) in 1:06, where the Apple II & C64 take about 1:53.  The MC-10 is clocked at 0.89MHz.
You can swap out the 6809 for a 6309, and once native mode is enabled, 6809 software can run at over 20% faster, 6309 software can run 30% faster. 
The 6309 extends the 6809's 16 bit support, it adds some 32 bit support, has memory move instructions, additional registers, and it has a hardware divide.
The FLEX OS and can run on 64K CoCos.  It's a CP/M like OS available for 6800 or 6809 machines with a lot of programs (programs are CPU specific).
OS-9 Level 1 runs on any 64K CoCo, and OS-9 Level II runs on the CoCo 3. 
It's a fully multitasking OS with some powerful applications that brought preemptive multitasking to micros years before the Amiga. 
Trying to multi-task on a 6502 is dreadful, but the 6809's fully relocatable code, relocatable direct page (Page 0 to you 6502 fans) makes it easy.
Dynacalc is one of the best spreadsheets ever created for an 8 bit, and it has CoCo DOS & OS-9 versions.
On Level II OS-9, you can run a CP/M emulator, and it's programs as well at the same time as OS-9 programs. 
CP/M programs can continue to run in the background while you do something else, so if you print from Wordstar, it can continue to print while you do something else.
You can even run multiple CP/M programs at once.
The CoCo 3 has 2MB RAM expansions that OS-9 can already use, and there are larger expansions on the way.  There were 2MB OS-9 machines back in the day.
There is a GIME chip (CoCo 3) upgrade in beta test that adds additional graphics modes, VGA output, and an even higher speed mode.
There are word processors, data bases, etc... that can run on a CoCo 1/2 that will display text in 51/64/81 characters per line using graphics (81 is for page formatting only, 64 is only readable on monochrome composite output)
Many of these applications offer 80 column versions for the CoCo 3.
There are graphical word processors similar to Mac Write, Desktop Publishers, music composition software with MIDI support, etc...
 

To answer your question, I guess what I mean by 'powerfulness' is concerning the graphical and/or processing capabilities.  But, that can be very subjective as obviously 16-bit machines like the Amiga and/or ST will beat 8-bit machines.  That being said, some 8-bit machines can be powerful enough depending on what a user is wanting to do.  I hope that makes sense.  Also, definitely in no way was I trying to slight and/or intentionally leave out the CoCos.  CoCos are very good computers, no doubt about it.  If I were to recommend one, I would say the CoCo 2 with 64k as the CoCo 3 is a really good machine, but getting to be a little expensive nowadays.  And again, I was just throwing in my quick, two cents on some machines that would qualify in the categories.  It was not meant to be a comprehensive list, but at least something to give different possibilities as there are plenty of good retro computers to start with, that's for sure!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mr_me said:

This all seems very impressive.  Sounds like it could compete with amiga.  How much did os9 cost.

 

Was the cp/m emulator a z80 based cartridge or software emulation?

 

I don't think porting cp/m software was what IBM had in mind when choosing intel.  The motorola 68000 was actually more compatible with the processors ibm was using but it simply wasn't ready.

 

 

----------------

One thing I'm amazed with is that even the most maligned, unsuccessful computers of the 1980s have a healthy support community today.

*edit* By the time you bought a CoCo 3, disk drive, and OS-9, you were getting close to Amiga pricing.
If they had sold a bundle for a cheaper price, then maybe.
What's more significant IMHO, is that OS-9 was out years before the Amiga, so people were taking advantage of multitasking years earlier.

I think OS-9 Level 1 was $99 .  I'm not sure about OS-9 Level 2.
When I was in college, the local Radio Shack carried OS-9 Level 1, Level 2, PASCAL, C, and BASIC-09. 
You could also get COBOL but I never saw that in a store.
I vaguely remember them offering some blowout prices in the late 80s with stuff 30% to 50% off. 
Even at half off, buying OS-9 + Pascal and/or C was out of my budget.
There is an OS-9 remake called Nitros-09 that is an improvement on the original OS.

The CP/M emulator is software.
The emulator was NOT available back in the day, but it was clearly possible.
Emulation speed isn't blindingly fast, but the new GIME's high speed mode, or an CoCo 3 FPGA system should run it much faster than this.
Note that this is running on a 6809, it would run faster on a 6309.



I wasn't suggesting IBM was considering the porting CP/M software in their decision, that was software houses
 

The 68000 wasn't ready? 
The 68000 was supposedly released in 1979, and the PC wasn't started until 1980.
IBM introduced a 68000 based system the same year as the IBM PC, but it wasn't a personal computer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System_9000
So???  I have no idea.


 

Edited by JamesD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IBM starting testing processors for their PC in 1978.  They are very thorough.

 

18 minutes ago, JamesD said:


I wasn't suggesting IBM was considering the porting CP/M software in their decision, that was software houses

My comment about porting cpm software was in response to someone else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mr_me said:

 

 

I don't think porting cp/m software was what IBM had in mind when choosing intel.  The motorola 68000 was actually more compatible with the processors ibm was using but it simply wasn't ready.

 

 

 

 

I think the idea of IBM WAS to have a port of CP/M for their PC.    In addition CP/M has been release also for IBM PC in the 80's.  But was more expensive than MSDOS for almost the same thing...

 

I suggest you (and the others) looks to this very interesting video :  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, youki said:

 

I think the idea of IBM WAS to have a port of CP/M for their PC.    In addition CP/M has been release also for IBM PC in the 80's.  But was more expensive than MSDOS for almost the same thing...

 

I suggest you (and the others) looks to this very interesting video :  

...

 

CP/M and CP/M-86 are not the same thing, and wanting CP/M-86 was about wanting an OS, not wanting CP/M applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A PAL C64 and an SD2IEC and quality aftermarket power supply would be my recommendation.

 

1) It supports composite and svideo without modification, and most TVs these days have no problem with PAL.  (If a TV doesn't have composite input, I'd recommend that person get a RetroTINK, which will open the door to exploring a ton of retro hardware.)

2) The SD2IEC couldn't be simpler to operate, and just works.

3) Because the C64 supports hardware scrolling and sprites, a lot of its games have aged comparatively well.  Anyone who grew up playing console games should be able to appreciate what the C64 is doing.

4) It's an all-in-one solution.  No need to go find a separate monitor, keyboard, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replying to original question, I would choose 3 computers:

Atari 800 and similar

C64

Amiga 500

 

Atari 800 and family with SIO2SD, easy to load and play games, sub $200 for both devices.

C64 with floppy emulator boards, too many to list, $150 to $200 for both.

Amiga 500 with GOTEK drive and RF adapter, plenty of games, easy load. $250 and up, depends on a week and how lucky you are.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, amiman99 said:

Amiga 500 with GOTEK drive and RF adapter, plenty of games, easy load. $250 and up, depends on a week and how lucky you are.

Can't the a500 output regular composite? Why would you want rf(especially for PAL systems)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have too much room to sacrifice for your retro computer, I'd actually recommend the Tandy t-series laptops(preferably the Tandy 200, but the 102 or 100 is fine as well). They're cheap, they never break, they're pretty powerful, they have a bunch of built in applications, they don't require any external storage device for permanent storage, file transfers are easy with things like mComm, they have a really nice version of BASIC built in, and to top it all of, they're cheap. Really, the only drawback is the lack of games, which is the internal LCD's limitation. I'd recommend this as a secondary computer, unless their intention is anything other than gaming, then I'd recommend this as their first retro computer.

 

For now, I've put together this:

 

<$50......TRS-80 Color Computer

<$100....Commodore 64

<$150....Commodore 64+SD2IEC/pi1541 zero

<$200....Amiga

<$250....Amiga+GOTEK

<$300....Commodore 128

>$300....Refurbished Commodore 128+Ultimate 1541 II+1571x2+1902+new power supply

 

Whattaya think?

Edited by bluejay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bluejay said:

If you don't have too much room to sacrifice for your retro computer, I'd actually recommend the Tandy t-series laptops(preferably the Tandy 200, but the 102 or 100 is fine as well). They're cheap, they never break, they're pretty powerful, they have a bunch of built in applications, they don't require any external storage device for permanent storage, file transfers are easy with things like mComm, they have a really nice version of BASIC built in, and to top it all of, they're cheap. Really, the only drawback is the lack of games, which is the internal LCD's limitation. I'd recommend this as a secondary computer, unless their intention is anything other than gaming, then I'd recommend this as their first retro computer.

 

For now, I've put together this:

 

<$50......TRS-80 Color Computer

<$100....Commodore 64

<$150....Commodore 64+SD2IEC/pi1541 zero

<$200....Amiga

<$250....Amiga+GOTEK

<$300....Commodore 128

>$300....Refurbished Commodore 128+Ultimate 1541 II+1571x2+1902+new power supply

 

Whattaya think?

The CoCoSDC is $58 if you want to add an SD drive the CoCo.  That's without the plastic case which is sold separately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamesD said:

The CoCoSDC is $58 if you want to add an SD drive the CoCo.  That's without the plastic case which is sold separately.

 

I mean, as much as I love the CoCo, it just can't beat the c64 which is only slightly more expensive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bluejay said:

Can't the a500 output regular composite? Why would you want rf(especially for PAL systems)?

A500 outputs in grayscale and RGB only, so you need a RF adapter, that has RF and Composite out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...