It seems as though they could associate with freeboxen and benefit greatly from it; that way end users can build their own, YNC has a source of hardware as well, and I have a single location I can ship all my defunct hardware to. Cool!
In downtown Portland, OR, there's a cd store called "Retrocade". They have about 40 old game boxes set up inside.
Robotron, Joust, Tempest, Joust, Pac-man, APB, Defender, Q-bert, a couple pinballs, etc.
I've spent close to $10 in quarters this past week walking home from work, and I'm currently the daily high scorer on Robotron. I missed arcades when I was growing up by just a couple years; now I can live that part of history over. Cool.
This is really starting to be annoying. We are completely holding ourselves back by emulating everything that we can get a hold of.
We aren't just creating new technologies - for instance, a processor that might be able emulate things faster than the original can run them - we're learning how to reproduce the set of rules that govern a given system without access to the rules that created that system. Perhaps you'd find that to be a useful skill when studying the physics of our world.
If I need to slowly run old DOS apps... I'l buy an old 486 for $30. If for some reason I want to run windows... I'll jsut buy a copy of windows.
You're perfectly welcome to do so; I'm guessing a few of those people creating the emulators have physical systems as well, for study (and fun). I would take an old C64 any day of the week if I could find and purchase one, but right now, that's not convenient. Should I not implement my cool new C64 idea because of that restriction - access to physical hardware?
Every step that we have taken forward lately is also a step back because we are refusing to let the legacy stuff be that... just a legacy. There is no need for ISA slots on a motherboard. We are so worried about vendors not recompiling software that we have kept the crappy x86 processors around WAY longer than they should have.
Absolutely; the farther back we step, the better we understand "legacy stuff", and so we make better informed decisions - this "stuff" must go, this "stuff" can still be supported, this "stuff" is still useful. Certainly, Intel may not have taken the best market path in processors - but we just started this computer age, it hasn't been a hundred years yet; I'm pretty sure someone is going to get right, and soon.
Just like the OpenWin project that was mentioned earlier, it's a waste of time and talent. There are so many areas of computing that could be impproved on but so many people just want to recode the same thigns over and over.
Because in the end, people will code on whatever makes them feel good. Let's say I want to improve this thing I call "Windows", and Microsoft hasn't provided me any method to do so - I can add extensions, sure, but I can't fix bugs in system DLLs. Argh, that's frustrating. Hey, maybe I can help one of these other Windows projects - I could replace my own someday, or maybe Microsoft will wise up and fix it. Cool.
Don't set restrictions on what people should program - that's reserved for the programmer alone. In a project, sure. In a job, sure. Coding is something that's done as randomly as poetry sometimes; I find out that I want to do something, pull up a window, and do it. Some people get their fun working on Windows debuggers. "What a total waste of time!", many would say. And yet they provide valuable tools to themselves and others, and make themselves as happy as
Slashdot Mirror
It seems as though they could associate with freeboxen and benefit greatly from it; that way end users can build their own, YNC has a source of hardware as well, and I have a single location I can ship all my defunct hardware to. Cool!
In downtown Portland, OR, there's a cd store called "Retrocade". They have about 40 old game boxes set up inside.
Robotron, Joust, Tempest, Joust, Pac-man, APB, Defender, Q-bert, a couple pinballs, etc.
I've spent close to $10 in quarters this past week walking home from work, and I'm currently the daily high scorer on Robotron. I missed arcades when I was growing up by just a couple years; now I can live that part of history over. Cool.
This is really starting to be annoying. We are completely holding ourselves back by emulating everything that we can get a hold of.
We aren't just creating new technologies - for instance, a processor that might be able emulate things faster than the original can run them - we're learning how to reproduce the set of rules that govern a given system without access to the rules that created that system. Perhaps you'd find that to be a useful skill when studying the physics of our world.
If I need to slowly run old DOS apps... I'l buy an old 486 for $30. If for some reason I want to run windows... I'll jsut buy a copy of windows.
You're perfectly welcome to do so; I'm guessing a few of those people creating the emulators have physical systems as well, for study (and fun). I would take an old C64 any day of the week if I could find and purchase one, but right now, that's not convenient. Should I not implement my cool new C64 idea because of that restriction - access to physical hardware?
Every step that we have taken forward lately is also a step back because we are refusing to let the legacy stuff be that... just a legacy. There is no need for ISA slots on a motherboard. We are so worried about vendors not recompiling software that we have kept the crappy x86 processors around WAY longer than they should have.
Absolutely; the farther back we step, the better we understand "legacy stuff", and so we make better informed decisions - this "stuff" must go, this "stuff" can still be supported, this "stuff" is still useful. Certainly, Intel may not have taken the best market path in processors - but we just started this computer age, it hasn't been a hundred years yet; I'm pretty sure someone is going to get right, and soon.
Just like the OpenWin project that was mentioned earlier, it's a waste of time and talent. There are so many areas of computing that could be impproved on but so many people just want to recode the same thigns over and over.
Because in the end, people will code on whatever makes them feel good. Let's say I want to improve this thing I call "Windows", and Microsoft hasn't provided me any method to do so - I can add extensions, sure, but I can't fix bugs in system DLLs. Argh, that's frustrating. Hey, maybe I can help one of these other Windows projects - I could replace my own someday, or maybe Microsoft will wise up and fix it. Cool.
Don't set restrictions on what people should program - that's reserved for the programmer alone. In a project, sure. In a job, sure. Coding is something that's done as randomly as poetry sometimes; I find out that I want to do something, pull up a window, and do it. Some people get their fun working on Windows debuggers. "What a total waste of time!", many would say. And yet they provide valuable tools to themselves and others, and make themselves as happy as