Talk:Retrocomputing

Use of the word Retro
I put into question the name for this article. "Retro" was originally used to mean some new object that had the appearance of something old. "Retro" is a current fashion or design style that denotes a bygone era. "Retro" items are new products that evoke the past. That is entirely different from what we have here. This hobby should be strictly referred to as vintage computing. We are using old machines. They are not new machines made to look old. Sadly, the word "retro" has been very much in vogue for the last ten years and no one wants to use the correct term which is vintage. These computers, software and peripherals are old. There is nothing about them that is "retro." The new Commodore 64x PC might be termed a retro computer. It is a modern PC made to look like a vintage Commodore 64. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.175.118 (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One, this article actually covers both cases &mdash; many machines which were originally created as stand-alone hardware, in decades past, have been reborn as emulators hosted on more recent hardware, making them &ldquo;retro&rdquo; in your sense of the word as well as in the article's original sense.
 * Two, this usage of &ldquo;Retrocomputing&rdquo; is not an invention of this Wikipedia article, it's an established term used elsewhere, for example at The Retrocomputing Museum or The Retrocomputing WebRing. Wikipedia is just describing the outside world.
 * Three, the &ldquo;fashion and design&rdquo; industry and follow-on subculture are, IMHO, notorious for form over function, passing fads, change for the sake of change, and gratuitous inflated self-importance. Citing that mindset as support hardly strengthens the claim.

76.100.23.153 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If no one wants to use the "correct" term then surely it's not the correct term? "Retro" in the sense you give is itself a neologism. No real reason its meaning should be set in stone. StormyTheRabbit (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some retrocomputing is done on old hardware, but much more is done on either software or hardware emulation. Even on old hardware, it is often done using, for example, emulated I/O.  Getting a 30 year old CPU running isn't so hard, getting a 30 year old disk or tape drive running is much harder.  When I first knew it, it was called compuarchaeology. Gah4 (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Why can't I add links to two podcasts about retrocomputing? Whenever I add them they get deleted.


 * Boring Beige Box Podcast covering retro computing from the late 1980s through the 1990s.
 * The Retrobits Podcast Podcast covering retro computing from the beginning of computing to 1980s.

Check out Harry Porter's Relay computer: http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/Relay/

Deleted template
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)

Retrocomputing...
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)

Fantasy machines
The intro paragraph, perhaps unintentionally, tries to validate the belief that
 * &ldquo;formerly expensive fantasy systems like IBM Mainframes, DEC Superminis, SGI workstations, and Cray Supercomputers have become affordable on the used computer market&rdquo;

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 &mdash; 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 &ldquo;IBM mainframe&rdquo; item as well, for the same reasons? 206.205.52.162 (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection, the two-word Cray reference is dropped. 98.218.86.55 (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to adjust the IBM 1130 entry from &ldquo;mostly via an emulator&rdquo; to simply &ldquo;via an emulator&rdquo;, unless/until there is any evidence of a retrocomputing hobbyist who actually has one of those 45-year-old systems still running &mdash; in which case, that remarkable situation can itself be cited in this article! 76.100.23.153 (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Snooping
Shouldn't we note that there are some who use vintage machines due to the belief they would be more secure from intelligence agency snooping?

Alto
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)

This is not considered to be retrocomputing by some
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)

RCA COSMAC 1802
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)

Commodore, Amiga, Atari ST, Sharp X68000
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)

C-One
>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)

Vintage computers
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)
 * 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)

No. you're saying something dumb. Read some other articles in Wikipedia sometime, especially something like "Thinkpad", which goes into detail on just about every Thinkpad, both from IBM and over 125 References. I'm not going to do it because I've given up writing articles because people complain about not enough citations and other frivolous complaints like this one. I plan on shooting myself in the head soon anyways. so long, suckers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.37.128 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Article split
It was suggested (in 2017!) that this article be split. It appears that a logical split would take the section on vintage computers and create a new article titled, aptly enough, “Vintage computers”. On the other hand, there’s almost no discussion of simulation of software older systems which, to me, seems at least as significant. Barring any objections, I will do both these things. Peter Flass (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Are the Vintage computers when they are not running, but retrocomputers when they are? Or when emulation of one is running? Some old computers are more interesting, have more following, then others. Gah4 (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (IMHO) Retrocomputing is the activity, which is involved with either vintage hardware or software, or both. I agree some old computers are more interesting than others. This article has a fair list. Obviously micros are more common, but there are people running old minis as well, probably up to the size of an 1130 - anything that doesn’t require a raised floor or special A/C. Anything bigger is in a museum. You’re probably familiar with the old software, and it’s a big list from IBM 709 up to 370s, Multics, Xerox CP-V, Burroughs MCP, etc. Peter Flass (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but is retrocomputing only on vintage computers? About 10 years ago I got a RX2600 Itanium based server for $100. They went from state of the art servers to retrocomputing in a very short time. Also, it can still be retrocomputing inside a museum. (Well, hopefully Living Computer Museum will open again.) Gah4 (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitions seem to be scarce. Peter Flass (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I went ahead and did this. I still need to provide the appropriate attributions in the talk pages, Both articles need cleanup to meet wikipedia standards. I was unable to find a definition of "vintage computer" - everyone seems to take it for granted. Peter Flass (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Facebook vintage camera page says 25 years. For computers, I would say vintage when it gets to the bottom of the price curve. That is, when they start being collectible, and the price starts going up.  But yes, I suspect everyone has their own definition. Gah4 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I went ahead and did this. I still need to provide the appropriate attributions in the talk pages, Both articles need cleanup to meet wikipedia standards. I was unable to find a definition of "vintage computer" - everyone seems to take it for granted. Peter Flass (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Facebook vintage camera page says 25 years. For computers, I would say vintage when it gets to the bottom of the price curve. That is, when they start being collectible, and the price starts going up.  But yes, I suspect everyone has their own definition. Gah4 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Facebook vintage camera page says 25 years. For computers, I would say vintage when it gets to the bottom of the price curve. That is, when they start being collectible, and the price starts going up.  But yes, I suspect everyone has their own definition. Gah4 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Facebook vintage camera page says 25 years. For computers, I would say vintage when it gets to the bottom of the price curve. That is, when they start being collectible, and the price starts going up.  But yes, I suspect everyone has their own definition. Gah4 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)