What computer would you recommend for people who are just getting into the hobby of retro computing?

[youxia]

Interesting take, @English Invader,  I wouldn't agree 100% though. I'm not sure every user has to learn how to code, even on simple - Basic - level, and you definitely don't need it to be "in control" of a system.

 

Secondly, Amiga extension market is not at all such a bewildering mess as you paint it. Well, it kind of is, but on the more modern level, 030 and up, and  that's a whole different kettle of fish. It has little to do with the retro Amiga experience, which is basically A500/A1200. For a starter A500 kit you really don't need anything but a Gotek (most come with 512k extension memory included). This will let you enjoy a huge amount of software without going the more complex CF Flash/accelerators/extra memory route needed for WHDload and proper WB. And it's definitely not any more complicated than Apple/Coco options mentioned above.

 

Overall, I agree that something like C64 is better for a complete beginner, but only slightly (the only thing more complex could be Gotek installation) and not exactly for the reasons you mention. It also depends on the person heavily, some people don't really dig the 8-bit aesthetics finding them too simplistic. Amiga is more on the VGA PC/16 bit console level in regard to that.

[Goochman]

8bit Id go with the C64, 800XL or 130XE as second choice

 

16bit go with the STe.  The ST is drop dead simple to operate and cheap and easy to add Mac and IBM emulation.  Has a great selection of games and productivity software.  Only drawback is getting a cable to connect to a VGA or LCD screen.

[IntelliMission]

As an Amstrad CPC 6128 fan, I guess I have to share this video here! ?

 

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by IntelliMission

[JamesD]

23 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

So maybe it's safe to say, overall, based on the OPs requirements:

 

North America Tier 1:
 

1 - C-64
2 - Atari 8-bit
3 - Apple II

UK and other parts of Europe Tier 1:

 

1 - C-64
2 - ZX Spectrum
3 - Amstrad CPC

 

I also think one thing we shouldn't really overlook with the C-64 is that it's basically one model of computer you have to think about (outside of different cosmetic variations). With the Atari 8-bit, Apple II, ZX Spectrum, CPC, etc., there can be a minefield of models and memory configurations to sort through and figure out which one to get, and varying degrees of compatibility at times. That relative homogeny on the C-64 side was certainly one factor in its success back in the day. The C-64 you bought in 1982 could be the same C-64 that you can still use today with 98% of the software released.

FWIW, the original post does list BASIC, and your top two suck in that category.
But since you insist...

If you want to learn programming for the C64, you can make your life easier with Simon's BASIC. 
It's non-standard, the added commands are largely unique to it so getting your code working on another machine would be more difficult, and to even let someone else run it would require them to have the cart as well.
If you can afford a C128, it includes the BASIC enhancements that were added to the Plus/4, but afford is the key word.  It also offers some capabilities the C64 doesn't have though.
And finally, there is a BASIC 3.5 extension for the C64.  It appears to add the same commands to the C64, but the original article is written in German, and I've never used it.
I think it loads from disk based on what I've read, so you could include it with any program that uses it, and other people wouldn't have to buy a cart.
The code should also be more easily ported to run directly on a Plus/4 or C128.

Atari BASIC isn't horrible, but it has some quirks.
The biggest possibly being how it treats strings, and it can make porting to/from Microsoft BASIC challenge.
I suggest getting an O.S.S. BASIC XE cart.  It's faster, it adds additional commands, and should make learning or porting code easier.
Turbo BASIC XE (XL?) is an option that doesn't require a cart, and many people swear by it.
 

[Bill Loguidice]

4 minutes ago, JamesD said:

FWIW, the original post does list BASIC, and your top two suck in that category.
But since you insist...
 

Suck is relative, my friend. They get the job done and you can do amazing stuff with the bog standard C-64 BASIC. It's not a limitation in any way for the vast majority of people, particularly someone casually getting into retro computing.

 

The C-128 is great and has an improved BASIC, yes, and doesn't cost that much more all things considered, but like a CoCo 3, you have to do more stuff to it to make sure you can take advantage of all of its modes and software options instead of using it like its predecessor systems.

[JamesD]

1 minute ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Suck is relative, my friend. They get the job done and you can do amazing stuff with the bog standard C-64 BASIC. It's not a limitation in any way for the vast majority of people, particularly someone casually getting into retro computing.

 

The C-128 is great and has an improved BASIC, yes, and doesn't cost that much more all things considered, but like a CoCo 3, you have to do more stuff to it to make sure you can take advantage of all of its modes and software options instead of using it like its predecessor systems.

Suck as in good for 1976... except other BASICs from that time let you set the screen position to print to without resorting to POKEs and ROM calls
There... fixed it

[JamesD]

The Amiga is a problem when it comes to the BASIC category.
AmigaBASIC didn't run on systems with expanded RAM.  Something about Microsoft not using 32 bit code.
You can compile the code with the AbsoftBASIC compiler (I think that was the compiler) and it would work fine, but it's an additional complexity.

The BASIC itself is quite powerful.  You can call system libraries to do most of the stuff you'd do from another language.
My ex partner wrote several commercial programs in it, and compiled them for release.  The results were very professional.
I wrote a library that loaded IFF ILBM pictures, and 8SVX sounds so any BASIC program could load title screens, backgrounds, play sampled sounds, etc...
If someone wanted to go with the Amiga, I could probably provide the library, and sample BASIC code if my A3000 will fire up.
 

[Bill Loguidice]

11 minutes ago, JamesD said:

Suck as in good for 1976... except other BASICs from that time let you set the screen position to print to without resorting to POKEs and ROM calls
There... fixed it

Yet you can still do pretty much anything with it. It's a full-screen editor and there's something to be said for what you can do with the various PEEKs and POKEs. It's not the best, not the fastest, doesn't take up the smallest memory footprint, but it does function as a viable BASIC. It's incredibly well-document and well-supported. And of course, like any other 8-bit computer worth its salt, countless other programming languages are available for it as well. So no, it doesn't really lack in this area, but if you want to dock it a few points for its BASIC, by all means, do so. It still doesn't change its overall ranking in any way.

[+x=usr(1536)]

4 hours ago, English Invader said:

 

I think starting off with a 16-Bit system is a bad idea for a number of reasons:

 

1) The emphasis shifted from encouraging people to learn how to program to selling expensive multimedia applications that relied on huge production teams.  This turned the computer user into a consumer and that doesn't seem like a good way to learn how to be in control of a system.

2) The Amiga has an appalling lack of standardisation for memory upgrades.  The expensive accelerators are catered for while the standard memory expansions are left behind.  An Atari STe is much better in this regard because it uses PC SIMM modules and a 4MB configuration will comfortably run a hard drive and the most resource hungry games in the ST library.  The Amiga upgrades market is the Wild West of the retro community - fine if you're Clint Eastwood but not the place for a beginner.

3 The beginner will get more out of a 16-Bit system if he or she serves an apprenticeship on an 8-Bit system first.  The user control ethos will be fostered from the outset and, if all goes well, the user will develop the hunger to learn how to program a 16-Bit system instead of being consumed by the proprietary applications.

Speaking as someone who went from the Atari 8-bit world to the ST (and still has machines from both eras), I completely agree with this.  That's not to say that the 16-bit world should be overlooked by any means, but the 8-bit apprenticeship before going into the 16-bit world is definitely an excellent idea.

 

One thing I will add is that ST hardware can be almost as scattergun as Amiga hardware depending on when it was manufactured, and if you don't know exactly what it is that you're looking for (or buying), you can end up with a machine that needs upgrades in order to make using it not a total pain.  This typically only applies to the earliest runs of ST hardware (OS on floppy rather than ROM, no internal floppy drive, RF modulator only, etc.), but even the differences between, say, an STFM and STE can be significant depending on what you may be looking to do.  The reason I mention this is that it can make it difficult to get inside the head of a machine when you're trying to overcome BITD issues rather than actually using and exploring it - but there is an argument to be made that that's all part of the experience.  It just depends on what your personal comfort level is.

 

And whatever you do, don't jump head-first into an Acorn Archimedes unless you have at least a basic understanding of the platform.  Yes, they are 32-bit, but as a contemporary of the ST and Amiga I'm giving them a bit of a pass into the 16-bit category.  Great machines and extremely historically-significant, but with a userbase that is almost entirely confined to the UK.  They do have good support behind them, but are very much niche machines.  This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but they are definitely in something of a category of their own.

Edited October 3, 2020 by x=usr(1536)

[Keatah]

I support the idea of starting on an 8-bit machine. Especially something like the Apple II where you get to see and play with all the parts straight away. A beginner need not spend days or weeks learning to program either. Just get the full effect of hands on, eyes on, experience with all the parts of a system and how they interact, what they do, when they do. Many concepts learned there apply to modern-day systems.

 

In some ways, if you really stretch the idea, the Apple II is like a very complex and advanced, consumerized, microprocessor trainer. Similar to the KIM-1 and other kits of the era. But capable of real world utility. It's a single-board and you can see everything. And the essence of the Apple II design encouraged creativity in both hardware and software.

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Keatah

[desiv]

8 hours ago, English Invader said:

I think starting off with a 16-Bit system is a bad idea for a number of reasons:

Yep, I agree with most of that.

Although I don't think there is much of an issue with memory expansion on the A500.

Not because you aren't correct.  You are.

But because I think the Amiga 500 is at its best as a machine with 512k (or 1M and the extra 512k expansions are standard) and a floppy drive. (So a Gotek for people not wanting to mess with floppies..)

Yes, you can expand your A500 (looks at the shelf at my A500 with 2M of CHIP RAM and 4M non-auto config FAST RAM), but I don't recommend that.  As you pointed out, it is all over the place and non-standard, and the revision of the A500 motherboard can make a difference.  So I think that is only for the people who like playing with that type of thing.

But, a 512k A500 will play most of the games out there...

Yes, you can really expand an Amiga, and if you want to do that, I think an A1200 is the way to go personally.  But again, that is more than retro...  Its fun (looking at my A1200 with 32M FAST RAM 28Mhz 030), but its a part of the hobby that is beyond...

For the average person, if the A500 had color composite (and so many of the better games weren't PAL), I'd recommend it.  I think it is just on the edge of plug and play retro fun.  It had BASIC (which I didn't like, but that's me).  It had great games.  It has history and an impact on the industry.  Great "what if" stories.

But those things, and the getting to higher costs, hold me back from a full recommendation over the 8 bit systems.

 

There was one great thing about AmigaBASIC tho.  I disliked it so much that it got me to look at other programming languages.  Modula II and then C. (Pascal was in there around that time, but that was on the PC.) 

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by desiv

[desiv]

4 hours ago, JamesD said:

Suck as in good for 1976... except other BASICs from that time let you set the screen position to print to without resorting to POKEs and ROM calls
There... fixed it

I totally don't understand the fear of POKE statements...

As someone who did most of my intro to BASIC on the Vic20/C64, I don't ever remember thinking "OH NO, I have to POKE"..

I remember seeing examples using POKEs and doing that....

 

I don't remember talking to any of my friends about Commodore BASIC programming and hearing them complain about POKEs and PEEKs.

 

I'm not saying having native commands for graphics and sound would have been bad.  I am only saying that having to use POKEs didn't seem like a problem; just an alternate way of doing things.  Some people liked those things and we had things like Simon's BASIC as a result.  But most people didn't use Simon's BASIC or things like that because we didn't think POKEs and PEEKs were any big deal or hardship at all.

Edited October 3, 2020 by desiv

[youxia]

On 10/2/2020 at 5:24 PM, desiv said:

My main concern about the Amiga 500 (And I am a HUGE Amiga fan here) for a first time user is cost and display.

You really want it to come with an RGB monitor (1084 series), which raises the cost.

Otherwise, the composite output it has is monochrome.  Great for word processing.   But...

And for a while, there were some good composite output options (I have an Amigamaniac composite/s-video adapter), but I am not sure they are that plentiful now, and you don't want the RF modulator that came with it for composite.  Quality is terrible..

Yeah, you can go GBS or some other RGB to something adapter, but there's added cost there.

So, with a 1084 (or a high end scan doubler) then it's an awesome choice, but getting spendy..

 

Just saw this, and a little correction is needed:

 

-cost: around here (Europe) you can get tested A500 with Gotek for 150-200 USD. That's more than C64 but not by much and defintely less than the likes of Apple.

-display: you absolutely do not need 1084 for it, which is a very costly option, prone to failure. You can simply output RGB to any SCART-capable TV, there

are also options for VGA monitors, going to component, etc..  And it's not like C64 has HDMI socket either...

 

About C64's Basic: it's a common knowledge it was the worst amongst the competition, at least when it comes to the ease of use, which is what this topic is about after all.

 

About Atari/CPC/ZX having lots of models and different configurations: not exactly true, at least in context of this thread. Getting an Atari 800XL-65XE, Spectrum 48/128K or CPC 464/6128 will also give you access to 98% of software.

 

That's not to say I don't agree with Bill's "ranking", it's just that we shouldn't demonize other machines and paint C64 as a 100% plug'n play, no fuss unit.

[desiv]

3 minutes ago, youxia said:

-display: you absolutely do not need 1084 for it, which is a very costly option, prone to failure. You can simply output RGB to any SCART-capable TV, there

are also options for VGA monitors, going to component, etc..  And it's not like C64 has HDMI socket either...

I do wish we had SCART here, but we don't.  ;-(

And I do think a GBS or something similar is a great option for getting an Amiga to VGA, but those options are either not inexpensive or not beginner friendly.

(I have a GBS-8200 myself that I use from time to time.)

 

And the C64 doesn't have HDMI, but it has color composite with just a cable, that is easy to acquire.

[youxia]

18 minutes ago, desiv said:

I do wish we had SCART here, but we don't.  ;-(

And I do think a GBS or something similar is a great option for getting an Amiga to VGA, but those options are either not inexpensive or not beginner friendly.

(I have a GBS-8200 myself that I use from time to time.)

 

And the C64 doesn't have HDMI, but it has color composite with just a cable, that is easy to acquire.

Amiga to VGA adapter costs ~12 USD. You don't also don't need GBS, handling of which is hardcore-level, but can get one of RetroTinks. C64's composite is no less (or more) awful than Amiga's - it's just composite. Luckily it also has S-Video. Again, I'm not saying 1st time buyer should do these things, it's just we shouldn't exaggerate these alleged difficulties. Many of the people who just get into retro computing are already quite experienced with electronic devices in general and don't need to be completely sheltered.

 

The PAL/NTSC divide should also be mentioned in these musings. For example, somebody who gets NTSC C64 in the States might then wonder why so many games and demos don't work well.

 

 

 

 

 

[desiv]

2 minutes ago, youxia said:

Amiga to VGA adapter costs ~12 USD. You don't also don't need GBS, handling of which is hardcore-level, but can get one of RetroTinks. C64's composite is no less (or more) awful than Amiga's - it's just composite. Luckily it also has S-Video. Again, I'm not saying 1st time buyer should do these things, it's just we shouldn't exaggerate these alleged difficulties. Many of the people who just get into retro computing are already quite experienced with electronic devices in general and don't need to be completely sheltered.

 

The PAL/NTSC divide should also be mentioned in these musings. For example, somebody who gets NTSC C64 in the States might then wonder why so many games and demos don't work well.

A basic Amiga to VGA adapter will only work if your VGA monitor syncs down to 15khz and not all of them do.

 

I thank you for helping prove my point on how many gotchas there are with this.

 

I actually don't think the GBS is hardcore level.  It's about $30 and all it needs is for you to make a cable.  It generally comes with one for the GBS side, but you need to solder on a DB-23 for the Amiga side.  Not terrible, but not beginner.

(Unless you want that extra quality and there are some GBS mods that are hardcore level!!)

 

Retrotinks and other similar devices are good options, but again, aren't cheap and you need to make / acquire a cable.

 

And yeah, I've mentioned the PAL/NTSC concern, as there are a lot of great PAL games that work.. er.. differently.. here in the US.

 

[bluejay]

Commodore BASIC 2.0 can do some pretty cool things if you know what you're doing. There are a lot of impressive programs that were written in CBM BASIC 2.0 such as the 8-bit guy's Tetris, a few demos, etc. Although the 128's BASIC 7.0 is much, much better, 2.0 isn't as bad as people say it is. Especially for beginners, the limitations matter even less. I haven't used an Atari computer, but I can't imagine it being any worse than Commodore BASIC 2.0 It's nothing impressive, but I don't think it's all that bad either.

[Bill Loguidice]

1 hour ago, youxia said:

 

That's not to say I don't agree with Bill's "ranking", it's just that we shouldn't demonize other machines and paint C64 as a 100% plug'n play, no fuss unit.

Make no mistake, I think we can all agree that every classic computer has its pluses and minuses and quirks. You'll have to put in some research and work and extra expense no matter what. The only way to avoid that is to get something like a The64 plug and play emulation machine (the full size one) which lets you play on a modern display and do some BASIC programming. It's limited otherwise, of course, but certainly that can be a painless and relatively inexpensive way to try a platform out (in this case the C-64) and is a tad more authentic and easier than straight up software emulation.

[youxia]

I agree, and as I said on the first page I'd also recommend C64. It's just, if I was new to the subject, reading some of the exaggerated remarks here could scare me off from other micros, hence my "corrections".

 

[bluejay]

I've come up with a new category: Documentation.

Apple computers, although not all that great in other categories compared to other computers, have amazing documentation that explains every bit of the computer in detail. With an Apple II with the original manuals, one would be able to learn everything from typing to programming in machine language!

[desiv]

10 minutes ago, bluejay said:

I've come up with a new category: Documentation.

Apple computers, although not all that great in other categories compared to other computers, have amazing documentation that explains every bit of the computer in detail. With an Apple II with the original manuals, one would be able to learn everything from typing to programming in machine language!

Good point!

 

I remember one of the best part of the Commodore series was their documentation as well...

The Commodore users guides / manuals were a great introduction to the C64 or Vic 20, and the Programmer's Reference manuals (although those didn't come with their respective computers) were great!  

[+x=usr(1536)]

3 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Make no mistake, I think we can all agree that every classic computer has its pluses and minuses and quirks. You'll have to put in some research and work and extra expense no matter what. The only way to avoid that is to get something like a The64 plug and play emulation machine (the full size one) which lets you play on a modern display and do some BASIC programming. It's limited otherwise, of course, but certainly that can be a painless and relatively inexpensive way to try a platform out (in this case the C-64) and is a tad more authentic and easier than straight up software emulation.

 

This comes close to a point regarding emulation that I think is important: it's a way to try before you buy.  It will never be 100% the same as sitting at the physical hardware, to be sure, but you can at least get a basic feel for the flavour of the machine.  Hopefully it's enough to help with making an informed decision before acquiring hardware.

 

We really are spoiled for choice these days.  Between homebrew hardware, decent emulation, and the communities around the various machines, we're able to do so incredibly much more with them now than we ever were when they were current technology.

[+x=usr(1536)]

41 minutes ago, bluejay said:

I've come up with a new category: Documentation.

Apple computers, although not all that great in other categories compared to other computers, have amazing documentation that explains every bit of the computer in detail. With an Apple II with the original manuals, one would be able to learn everything from typing to programming in machine language!

Absolutely!  I lived and breathed Mapping The Atari (both editions), De Re Atari, and others in the 8-bit days.  They contributed hugely to my understanding of how the machines worked and what they were doing.  Once we hit the 16-bit era, that type of documentation really seemed to dry up.  A pity.

[JamesD]

7 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Yet you can still do pretty much anything with it. It's a full-screen editor and there's something to be said for what you can do with the various PEEKs and POKEs. It's not the best, not the fastest, doesn't take up the smallest memory footprint, but it does function as a viable BASIC. It's incredibly well-document and well-supported. And of course, like any other 8-bit computer worth its salt, countless other programming languages are available for it as well. So no, it doesn't really lack in this area, but if you want to dock it a few points for its BASIC, by all means, do so. It still doesn't change its overall ranking in any way.

Other languages weren't mentioned in the original post, but BASIC was, and we are making a recommendation for a beginner.
Several BASICs have a full screen editor, so that's not exactly a unique feature. 
The TRS-80s are one of the few machines that use an EDIT command, and require learning how to move through a line, delete characters, insert, append, etc...
It's not as easy as a full screen editor, but you can fit more code on a line, so it's a trade off.

It's not that hard really.  D = delete  I=insert  etc... but it is definitely something else to learn.

It still doesn't change YOUR overall ranking in any way. 
You aren't king here, you don't get to decide your opinion is right, and other people's opinion is wrong.
You have your ranking, and I have mine. 
I'd ask them what they want to do before recommending a system.
If they just say game... then I'd back your suggestion. 
If they say learn how to program... see my first post in this thread.
 

2 hours ago, desiv said:

I totally don't understand the fear of POKE statements...

As someone who did most of my intro to BASIC on the Vic20/C64, I don't ever remember thinking "OH NO, I have to POKE"..

I remember seeing examples using POKEs and doing that....

 

I don't remember talking to any of my friends about Commodore BASIC programming and hearing them complain about POKEs and PEEKs.

 

I'm not saying having native commands for graphics and sound would have been bad.  I am only saying that having to use POKEs didn't seem like a problem; just an alternate way of doing things.  Some people liked those things and we had things like Simon's BASIC as a result.  But most people didn't use Simon's BASIC or things like that because we didn't think POKEs and PEEKs were any big deal or hardship at all.

Fear has nothing to do with it.  It's about simplicity, easy to follow code, code size, how easy it is to learn, etc...

How many of your friends with Commodores had ever programmed in any other BASIC?
Go look at the Fedora plot thread from a few years ago. 
I ported the code to several machines I'd never programmed before in a short amount of time, and that was possible because I didn't have to learn the hardware, or POKE my way around.
A few weeks ago I ported a program from the MC-10 (also works on the CoCo) to the Apple II, Plus/4, and C64 to do some benchmarks. 
Guess which port required the most research.  It wasn't that difficult, but then I'm not a beginner either.

Which leads to the following example of why I criticize C64 BASIC.
Here is the syntax for CoCo, Plus/4 & C128, Atari BASIC (if I read the manual right), Applesoft II, and C64 to print to a specific location on the screen.
PRINT@#
CHAR,#,#,"":PRINT
POSITION#,#:PRINT
VTAB(#):HTAB(#):PRINT
POKE214,#:POKE211,#:SYS58732:PRINT

Even the Sinclair ZX-80 BASIC which fits in 4K can print to a specific location on the screen without POKEs, and system calls.
PRINT AT #,#
It doesn't get much simpler than printing to the screen.

We can show the code to set up a graphics screen and draw some lines if you want to continue arguing about how the C64 BASIC doesn't suck, and POKEs are just fine.   

Yeah, if you only want to play existing games, the C64 and Atari are best, I already agreed to that, but the original post does mention BASIC.
If you want a beginner to try BASIC, which BASIC is most likely to make them quit?
Keep in mind, they aren't you, and may not be as technically inclined.
If all you expect them to do is type something like the following program, the C64 is fine, but so is any BASIC.  That's setting the bar pretty low.
10 PRINT"MY NAME IS BILLY!":GOTO 10

At least recognize that using some sort of BASIC add on would be beneficial to a beginner instead of blindly evangelizing what is probably the most primitive BASIC of any machine made since 1979 besides the VIC-20.
 

[desiv]

25 minutes ago, JamesD said:

Fear has nothing to do with it.  It's about simplicity, easy to follow code, code size, how easy it is to learn, etc...

I'll bypass the more condescending parts of your post and just say that, in my opinion, this is about appealing to beginners..

They don't generally use a bunch of different BASICs and look for the best.

The use the one they have, if it is simple enough for them to use and they enjoy it.

For us, Commodore BASIC was simple, easy to understand, and easy to learn.  And we enjoyed it and it started many of us happily on our way with computers.

 

You feel differently, and that is fine.

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by desiv