Hacker News Reader

Comment by jhallenworld | Hacker News Reader

People should really get retro crazy about the TI-99/4A, now hear me out..

It's generally the cheapest retro computer you can buy, and it's really weird, not some easy computer like the C64 or Atari 800:

The TI-99/4A BASIC interpreter is written in another byte-code interpreted language. This is because the BASIC ROM is not directly accessible to the CPU, you have to read it indirectly through a port. Likewise, the 16K of dedicated video RAM is also only accessible through a port. Now keep in mind this is a 16 KB computer, so your BASIC program is stored in the video RAM. It only has 256 bytes of 16-bit native RAM (unless you have the PEB...)

Now it uses a pretty good 16-bit CPU (but weird mind you- its registers are kept in external RAM), but massively crippled like this to keep the cost down, but also to prevent the home computer from competing with TI's minicomputer line. TI made millions of them.

View on HN

While there are many reasons why people should be retro crazy for the TI-99/4A, the Commander X16 is unique for a bunch of reasons that would make it difficult to recreate for other systems:

- Some of the hardware reflects 1980's designs. For example, it uses a CPU that was used back then and is still available. (Edit: or rather a variation of the CPU.)

- Some of the software is from the 1980's. That requires rights holders who are willing to license that software.

Those two criteria alone would limit the systems this type of project could reimagine. Then you have to consider:

- The people behind this project. Creating your dream computer in hardware takes skill and determination. The people following through decided to use the Commoder 64 as their model.

- A large part of the rationale is that it is "easy" and lacks weirdness. Many of the people interested in retro computers are looking for something more engaging than games. They want hardware that is simple enough for them to understand and develop software for at a low level.

Yet I suspect that the biggest reason why the C=64 was reimagined has to do with the community around it today. For whatever reason, Commodore computers have attracted a following of hardware and software tinkerers (this goes for the Amiga as well). I haven't seen quite the same thing to a similar degree of dedication on other platforms, aside from some particularly dedicated 68k Macintosh hardware presevationists and 8-bit Atari software developers.

I basically agree with you, just trying to get people interested in something other than C64. It's impressive that they got permission to use Commodore BASIC (and Kernal?).

That is a great thing in the sense that many of the less popular systems encapsulate ideas that are mostly forgotten, presents a more balanced view of the early personal computer industry, and represents a greater cross section of society.

On the other hand, we are also dealing with limited resources so we have to pick our battles. It seems as though society views Apple, IBM, and Microsoft as the creators of the computer industry. At best, that is a partial truth. In a sense, this perhaps disproportionate interest in Commodore offers an opportunity to demonstrate that these nearly forgotten companies played a significant role in the development of computers rather than being simple failures.

If we go beyond that handful of companies, there are other factors that we should consider. The computer industry is usually painted in very American terms. It's understandable. American firms were, by in large, the winners. At the same time it neglects what was happening in Europe, the eastern bloc, and Asia. While those regions receive some attention, Africa, Australia, and South America seem to be nearly ignored.

Pretty interesting thread you two. The history of computers is fascinating.

The thing with my own interest is this: I owned a C64 when I was a kid. I had a friend with a Spectrum. A friend of my dad (a grown up) had a C128. That's it. I can't feel nostalgic about computers I never saw as a kid. For example, I never knew anyone who owned an Amiga, so -- fabulous as that machine is reported to have been -- it means nothing to me.

... Though the relatively recent post here on HN about someone who picked up an Apple II from the trash and repaired it did get my some weird nostalgic vibes. Is there a word for nostalgia of something you never experienced? ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sehnsucht ?

I had one as kid and picked up one a few years ago. Would have been interesting to see what TI could have done in early computer market if they hadn't crippled the machine (intentionally or not) and not fought third party development.

A game that might interest some here is Tunnels of Doom http://www.ridingthecrest.com/edburns/classic-gaming/tunnels... https://hbfs.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/tunnels-of-doom/

http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2014/03/game-140-tunnels-of-d...

The 994A had amazing potential but TI crippled it too far.

What it should have been able to grow into was the Geneve 9640. https://www.ninerpedia.org/wiki/Geneve_9640

I'd love to see an FPGA re-implementation of one of those.

> People should really get retro crazy about the TI-99/4A

As someone who grew up with one, I'd advise against it. It's not that they're bad, it's just that everything else from the same era was a lot better.

There's some real perversity about the hardware, and that sounds fun, but I wonder if there's anything about it that would actually be fun to program today in C or assembly. It seems more like needless difficulty than adventure. And if you're feeling nostalgic about TI BASIC or Extended BASIC you're suffering from a head injury and should seek medical attention immediately.

On the other hand... it would be amusing to use one of the modern embedded SOCs that people are recommending here and set it up to talk to one of the TI's wacky peripherals, like the speech synthesizer. Some amount of bit banging would probably result in something interesting happening.

> but also to prevent the home computer from competing with TI's minicomputer line

It used the same CPU. That's one of the reasons it has so little RAM - it only supported static RAM.

Owned one back in the day and with the extended BASIC cartridge it was not bad. Ending up selling it and buying a C64.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com