liam_on_linux | Why are hobbyist 21st century 8-bit computers so constrained?

I learned about a new DIY machine to me, the Cody Computer.

It looks kind of fun, but once again, it does make me wonder why it’s so constrained. Extremely low-res graphics, for instance. TBH I would have sneered at this for being low-end when I was about 13 years old. (Shortly before I got my first computer, a 48K ZX Spectrum.)

Why isn’t anyone trying to make an easy home-build high-end eight-bit? Something that really pushes the envelope right out there – the sort of dream machine I wanted by about the middle of the 1980s.

In 1987 I owned an Amstrad PCW9512:

4MHz Z80A
512 kB RAM, so 64kB CP/M 3 TPA plus something over 400kB RAMdisc as drive M:
720 x 256 monochrome screen resolution, 90 x 30 characters in text mode

Later in 1989 I bought an MGT SAM Coupé:

6MHz Z80B
256 kB RAM
256 x 192 or 512 x 192 graphics, with 1/2/4 bits per pixel

Both had graphics easily outdone by the MSX 2 and later Z80 machines, but those had a dedicated GPU. That might be a reach but then given the limits of a 64 kB memory map, maybe a good one.

Another aspirational machine was the BBC Micro: a expandable, modular OS called MOS; an excellent BASIC, BBC BASIC, with structured flow, named procedures, with local variables, enabling recursive programming, and inline assembly language so if you graduated to machine-code you could just enter and edit it in the BASIC line editor. (Which was weird, but powerful – for instance, 2 independent cursors, one source and one destination, eliminating the whole “clipboard” concept.) Resolution-independent graphics, and graphics modes that cheerfully used most of the RAM, leaving exploitation as an exercise for the developer. Which they rose to magnificently.

The BBC Micro supported dual processors over the Tube interface, so one 6502 could run the OS, the DOS, and the framebuffer, using most of its 64 kB, and Hi-BASIC could run on the 2nd 6502 (or Z80!) processor, therefore having most of 64 kB to itself.

In a 21st century 8-bit, I want something that comfortably exceeds a 1980s 8-bit, let alone a 1990s 8-bit.

(And yes, there were new 8-bit machines in the 1990s, such as the Amstrad CPC Plus range, or MSX Turbo R.)

So my wish list would include…

At least 80-column legible text, ideally more. We can forget analog TVs and CRT limitations now. Aim to exceed VGA resolutions. 256 colours in some low resolutions but a high mono resolution is handy too.
Lots of RAM with some bank-switching mechanism, plus mechanisms to make this useful to BASIC programmers not just machine code developers. A RAMdisc is easy. Beta BASIC on the ZX Spectrum 128 lets BASIC declare arrays kept in the RAMdisc, so while a BASIC program is limited to under 30 kB of RAM, it can manipulate 100-odd kB of data in arrays. That’s a simple, clever hack.
A really world-class BASIC with structured programming support.
A fast processor (double-digit megahertz doesn’t seem too much to ask).
Some provision for 3rd party OSes. There are some impressive ones out there now, such as SymbOS, Contiki, and Fuzix. GEOS is open source now, too.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thanks for this, and for taking the time to reply!

You don't actually spell out who Cody is or was, either here or in the homepage. I had a glance at the PDF of the manual and I see a photo which tells me a little more, but still is not unambiguous or unequivocal. Cody is/was your dog?

I sort of see your points. I do see the appeal of something very simple and minimal, and that one can build oneself from just a few ICs. (Not that that's something I'd particularly want to do, myself.)

I think we have personally got mutually opposed philosophies about this, and some of them I coincidentally expressed in a recent article of mine, which has gone on to do rather well. You might find it interesting.

How a good business deal made us underestimate BASIC.

Young Americans in the '80s maybe got to explore computers via a C64, and aside from the pricy Apple II -- which wasn't better in every way, just more expandable -- that was home computing. (I don't know; I wasn't one.)

Young Brits probably got a Sinclair Spectrum, with much weaker graphics and sound, but a much better BASIC. But unless their parents were rich, if they dabbled in BASIC as I did, they probably aspired to a BBC Micro.

My take is this: give kids a good BASIC and a fairly unconstrained environment if you can. (The BBC Micro had hardware-driven "MODE 7" graphics using a Teletext chip, so you got most of the paltry 32kB RAM free. Most users chose that, and wrote programs that flipped into graphics mode as required. The cut-down Electron machine didn't have the Teletext chip, was thereby crippled, and flopped.)

The take here seems to be that '80s American kids' take away was "the Vic-20 was awful and the C64 not much better, but I got here fine, so that's enough."

My take, as an '80s Brit kit, "my BASIC was pretty good and I could get Beta BASIC, and given that, I did fine. I would give kids absolutely the best BASIC and graphics I could fit, and tailor my machine to fit that."

Does that make sense?

Why are hobbyist 21st century 8-bit computers so constrained?

Re: Intentional constraints