Talk:List of home computers by video hardware

message: Is not everything on wikipedia a 'work in progress'?
Let me first say I totaly agree that this would become a gigantic list, or rather a rather large table, as I intend to use a table not a list, the list is just a temporary solution.
But be assured that I won't let others do the work, I intend to do it myself.
I do have the information available, I have a rather large library of older computer magazines and other material, so (most) of the information is available from a relaible source. Other detailed information can be found on the web or from the relevant pages of each system/ 
At the moment my main concern is how to convert the list to a table, but that is a technicality.
I intend to create something like List of Intel chipsets, and I do think that it is of encyclopedic value.
Of course you might disagree, but a table (list) like this is not an unicum, there is even a category for lists like these.
I simply want to compile available information in a simple to use table so thatgives an overview of the technical details of the video hardware of old home computers. The list will likely become shorter than the "list of home computers" because many variants of systems share the same basic video system.   
Mahjongg 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks Madlobster, to show I am serious I started and created the table. I will continue working on it, and even will add a few home computers that are not on the list of home computers (yet). Mahjongg 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't even paper encyclopaedias technically WIPs? The version you buy is just a snapshot of where their research was at on publishing deadline day.... :)  Any of them that don't continually update and refine become history books. I daresay if this had a "publishing deadline" it would be tidied up into smart form pretty fast - OR quietly dropped from publication until it was ready for a later version. 193.63.174.210 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in progress?

message: The stated speedy rationale, which I have reproduced in full below, is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Take it to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed db tags 

message: the image of a "typical home computer" is sort of dated. Anyone have a new one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.154.237 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole concept of a home computer is "sort of dated", as home computers were a thing of the eighties and early nineties. The picture is therefore quite representative of the genre. Mahjongg 10:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer picture? 

message: :Moved the citation below from the article to here, because it belongs here, not in the articles body.
(Actually, this is not entirely true, as the Atari ST also uses a video shifter chip as well. In fact, it is far more advanced than the CDP1861. So, the CDP1861 is really NOT the only video shifter chip to exist in a home computer.)
:It might be true that the ST also had a chip that was called the "video shifter", but that is irrelevant. in the case mentioned (CDP1861) the "video shifter" was the -only- video hardware used. The ST's video hardware contained much more than just a simple sync signal generator and shift register. If I count the ST chip as a "video shifter", Ill have to do that to halve the other video chips too. Ill try to make the point more clear in the article. Mahjongg (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In opinion the Apple I uses video shift registers -- Polluks ★ 21:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Think also about later 1040ST can have Blitter chip like Mega ST in extra socket. That Blitter can not only operate in video memory, it can operate in the full RAM adress room of the CPU. Also the enhanced features of the STE are completely missing, like Blitter integrated, 4096 colors, hardware scrolling and so on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.222.154 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: ST uses video shifter

message: I think your statement that "the 64 used the weekest of the mentioned processors" should be removed as it is misleading. If anything, most people would agree that it is the most powerfull of the three. Especially because of the pipelining that allows it to operate at almost four times the speed of the Z-80 at an equivelent Mhz rating.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.138.174 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not unintentionally used the prefix (arguably), as complete "wars" were fought at the time, over which processor was "the fastest", or the "best". What makes a CPU fast, is much more complicated than the simplistic take you put on it, even forgetting that indeed the 6502 was only available in 1MHZ versions, while the Z80 had a 4MHZ version. But so many other factors are more important, the general architecture, the number of registers, the flexibility of "addressing modes", the stack architecture, far too many factors to single just one out as you do. But as a matter of fact I am agnostic to the issue, My first system used a 6502, and my second a Z80, but the general understanding of the time was that the Z80 had a "more powerful and serious" architecture than the 6502, which was seen as a "cheap copy of the 6800", and that the "6809" had the best instruction-set (especially stack management) but lacked in availability of software. All that is (understandably) debatable, but that was what the general take on things was around 1985. Enough said, for every person who claims the 6502 "is the fastest", another will claim with the same amount of zeal, that the Z80 was "better". In the end, it seems that it counts more which CPU had the most and the most zealous users than any "facts". As far as I know the issue has never been resolved in any meaningful way by a neutral body with enough clout to finalise the matter, so the statement expressed here is just a "general indication of the common denominator of publications etc of the time.".Mahjongg (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weakest Processor? 

message: The Amiga has no text mode at all (in the sense of storing and displaying an array of characters in/from video memory). The only modes it can display are planar bitmaps (140, 70 & 35 ns pixels, color depth of 1 to 8 bits), all text characters need to be rendered to bitmaps. If there are no objections I'll correct the table. -- Zac67 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm well aware the Amiga had no hardware text rendering features (I own several models) as you can see from reference #55. If you think you can add anything relevant go well ahead. The "text sizes" mentioned are sizes supported by the GUI OS, in combination with the screen resolution the GUI uses as a default. Obviously the smaller the Font bitmap size the more letter you can cram onto the screen at a certain screen resolution. Mahjongg (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amiga text mode 

message: The C128 is listed under "Systems using a Video Interface Controller", ostensibly because it has a VIC-IIe which is a derivative of the C64's VIC-II.
The C128 also has a derivative of the CRTC called the VDC (MOS 8563 for the C128, MOS 8568 for the C128D). This is acknowledged in the table, but not in the categories.
For the sake of the article's consistency, it should be listed under "Systems that fall into multiple classifications" since it has dual independent video generation chips.
188.252.198.9 (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, so moved the C128 to the multiple classification sector, might need some more cleanup. Mahjongg (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commodore 128 does not have a consistent entry