Talk:Retrocomputing

message: I deleted request for expansion template call. It looked ugly on a page that introduces a subject properly and is fairly well written. It should be on this talk page instead but the request for expansion template is under discussion for deletion. Requests for expansion would properly be made in the WikiProject Computer science, to be noted by a willing editor. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted template 

message: I think I have a problem with that. Right now, I have a working Windows ME next to an XP with a Windows 95 about to be networked... well, at least I know what it is called! This is quite an informative article.   74.184.188.59 (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrocomputing... 

message: The intro paragraph, perhaps unintentionally, tries to validate the belief that
:“formerly expensive fantasy systems like IBM Mainframes, DEC Superminis, SGI workstations, and Cray Supercomputers have become affordable on the used computer market”
I'd like to drop the reference to Cray supercomputers from that list.  While obtaining and setting up an older SGI workstation for home / hobby use is certainly possible, a Cray supercomputer is an entirely different matter.  I suspect that the idea arose when various Cray-1 processor and memory circuit boards were offered as memorabilia, like this one.  But the typical retrocomputing hobbyist may not realize that, even if they were to somehow receive an entire complete and working system for free, the logistics of installing it and running it would be prohibitive.  (The one person who did purchase their own Cray-1, for $10,000, didn't even try to set it up — he's the one who created the memorabilia!)
We're not doing anyone a service by perpetuating this ultimately-disappointing illusion, and the high-end fantasy machines aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article.  Any objection to deleting the reference to Cray from the intro?  How about the “IBM mainframe” item as well, for the same reasons?
206.205.52.162 (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, the two-word Cray reference is dropped.  98.218.86.55 (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to adjust the IBM 1130 entry from “mostly via an emulator” to simply “via an emulator”, unless/until there is any evidence of a retrocomputing hobbyist who actually has one of those 45-year-old systems still running — in which case, that remarkable situation can itself be cited in this article!  76.100.23.153 (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

text:  Although not a hobbyist system, it seems there is at least one IBM 1130 in fully-operational condition at the University of Stuttgart Computer Museum.  76.100.23.153 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantasy machines

message: I just reverted the removal of the Retrocomputing category from the Alto article.  Since people do have them running, and also more than one emulator, that should be pretty obvious, but I notice it isn't mentioned here. 
Should there be separate retrocompuing articles for emulation, and for vintage hardware?  Gah4 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alto 

message: It seems to me that, while emulation  is not considered to be retrocomputing by some, it does make a reasonable definition for retrocomputing.  That is, if someone goes to the work of writing and debugging (and distributing) an emulator, that machine should be in the Retrocomputing category.  That often depends on access to software that ran on the original hardware, and not so much on access to old hardware.  Sometimes the actual hardware isn't available (the B5500 as I understand it), or is too expensive when it does appear ( IBM System/360 and IBM 704).  Many of the old machines need too much power for home use, even if one could bring one home.  Gah4 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''This is not considered to be retrocomputing by some'' 

message: I was thinking of adding a bullet for this machine which was quite popular at the time and has spawned many modern kits since the chip is still available from Harris. But I did notice that there are few if any computers of its class mentioned. KIM-1, SYM-1, for example, are absent. Only the Apple I is listed as a caseless single board computer that would require a terminal to do, say, BASIC or other "PC" tasks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4304:A33:B72E:932:624:FC28 (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCA COSMAC 1802 

message: This article is massively underdeveloped and it's partly due to the fact that it has been written from a North American perspective which is fine as a starting point. I'm by no means good at editing Wikipedia so I invite anyone reading this to look into already existing articles for the computers with unique firmware and OS'es that I listed on the headline. They were very popular in Europe (X68k in Japan) and have enthusiasts in the modern day that create FPGA accelerators (CPU replacements) for them and standalone FPGA implementations of them (ie: Apollo Vampire for the Amiga does both). I suspect there might also be a language barrier that hampers their exposure on Wikipedia as most of their fan bases have first languages other than English. I'm sure there are even more computer lines that deserve a mention but this article in its current state lists multiple IBM compatibles and does not mention Motorola-based machines that aren't Apple. That's not OK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.159.35.xxx (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commodore, Amiga, Atari ST, Sharp X68000  

message: >There is at least one remake of the Commodore 64 using an FPGA configured to emulate the 6502
Which is an impressive technical feat, considering the '64 used a 6510, and later, the 8502.
49.198.215.187 (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-One 

message: The section on vintage computers has become unmanageable. It is more of a list than an article section. While this could potentially be moved to list of... I'm of the opinion that the lack of sources mentioning these specific machines in the context of retrocomputing would lead to creation of a list without a clearly defined focus. I suggest deleting the entire section or moving it to draft / user space. Thoughts? --mikeu talk 20:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead of the section is potentially useful. In order to properly preserve that, I suggest to delete the sections of the section (MITS Inc., IMSAI, etc.). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vintage computers