Amstrad CPCnext: Would you buy one?

[dodogildo]

I tend to the 3. but more like an Ultimate 64 principle. A fully CPC compatible design with modern connection (HDMI, network , USB e.g.) and an original expansion port to connect all the board you like today.

+1

[cwpab]

There are always these three types of demands:
1.) only the original CPC and not more; 128K might already be evil; but, please, old games should be selected and started in a very comfortable and fast way
2.) original CPC with all kind of "legal" expansions, which were already kind of available in the 80ies and still have modern versions (mainly RAM/ROM, mass storage, mouse, network interface and some more)
3.) enhanced CPC with faster CPU and really new features, especially graphic and sound, which didn't exist before, and of course all you have with [2]
For [1] you can use an old CPC + Gotek, M4Board, Usifac II; No need for developing a new machine.
For [2] you can use an old CPC + SF2, SF3, RSF3, Albireo, Ulifac, M4Board, Multiplay, Gemini etc.; when developing a new machines with such features it should have a HDMI output, too, for sure.
For [3] you could already use [2] + V9990, OPLx, MP3MSX etc.; Or you design something new like the Spectrum Next
If I got it correctly people in this thread like these types...
1: eto, abalore
1-2: dodogildo, cwpab
2: Gryzor, Anthony Flack, Cwiiis, ||C|-|E||
2-3: ZorrO, Prodatron
3: Neurox66, Gunhed, XeNoMoRPH
Please correct me, if I am wrong
My personal experience is, that having a new small and complete machine which already includes the most important expansions and an optionally faster CPU and is still expandable, makes much fun. Somehow the OCM is still my favourite MSX computer and now the Next will be my favourite Spectrum computer. Having a new compact CPC machine with the features of [2] or [3] would be cool and would follow the way, which the MSX and Spectrum guys already went.

Hey, it's the topic starter here. I'm glad this turned out to be a fun thread. I have a great ability to bring up topics that engage users and leave them actively discussing (not only in this forum). I wish I could dedicate to that professionaly somehow (fortunately my job is semi-fun too).

However, I'm not a hardware or sofware expert and I can only do some basic (VB) programming, so I'm afraid I'm not the guy some are looking for to start a CPCnext project (I received a PM about this). But I'm glad you liked my idea.

I have been classified as "1-2". It took me a while to understand that it was not clear if I was "1" or "2". I spent almost a minute looking for option "1-2".

So to clarify, I would be closer to option 2. But I think it would be interesting to explain my views further. I would basically just find accetable 2 options:

OPTION 1 (IMPOSSIBLE, PERHAPS ONLY AS VIRTUAL MACHINE): We would basically try to "pretend Amstrad released a successor to the CPC in the 16 bit era" and create a realistic machine based on that. But this is impossible for multiple reasons: 1) Amstrad didn't release their own non-PC and potentially CPC-compatible 16 bit computer back in the day for solid financial reasons, 2) I don't think you can make a CPC-compatible 16 bit machine with 90s components without including an actual CPC inside, which would make the machine even less realistic due to its price and size and 3) you can't even find today some of the components that were available 30 years ago, so you would need to manufacture them or emulate them somehow.

OPTION 2 (POSSIBLE, BUT NOT POPULAR AMONG YOU GUYS): So discarding option 1, that would only be possible via a "fantasy CPC2" but not in physical format and in any case it would always be unrealistic due to its price, the only remaining option would be to change the approach. What do I mean? What I mean is... Let's be honest, these machines are basically very powerful in some things and very limited in others. That's the reason why I instinctively reject them, just like I reject the fantasy console PIKO8 but I wouldn't mind a realistically designed, similar fantasy console that pretended to be desigend and manufactured in the 80s. It's like the ZXnext and potential CPCnext were trying to confuse our minds by using an old, unnecessary design and look so that we can forget about the computer neither being truly "old" nor "new"... a strange bastard. But what if, instead, we went all practical and released a MODERN computer that's actually USEFUL and offers NEW, ORIGINAL FEATURES that you can't find on Windows or Linux? And what if this computer had an FPGA inside to make it perfectly compatible with the CPC, but also offering a built-in Churrera and other easy visual programming environments? And what if the "modern mode" allowed to create 2D and 3D games in a very simple way (something that Unity probably already does?) to allign with Alan Michael Sugar initial CPC vision (he wanted a computer where people could easily program)? This computer woulnd't look so cute as the typical retro-inspired machine, but it could have AMSTRAD logos and most importantly, it could have a reason to exist besides nostalgia.

Of course, if what we want is artificial limitations to program games, then I suggest a fantasy console with 2 modes: one that's basically Vectrex-like with no colors and other that allows for multiple colors, but it's only on text mode. But that would be material for another topic. Yes, I also checked fantasy consoles... I saw a list of about 40 and started checking them, but 99% of them were cancelled and have 0 games for them. There are only 2 or 3 alive including PIKO8. I recommend watching this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHZi1JMjr4

[cwpab]

Here's another interesting video about fantasy consoles and more precisely PICO-8, a conference by the creator himself where he explains how he designed the whole thing:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87jfTIWosBw

[Gryzor]

To be honest I never saw the allure behind fantasy consoles, either. But at some point I bought Pico8 as part of a bundle and decided to take a look, and for a while I was hooked with all the awesome little games that came out for such a limited system...

[Anthony Flack]

I know that Joseph would have made his fantasy console even if nobody was interested... in fact he DID make it before anybody was interested. It was a natural evolution of the tools he was using to make his own games. The fact that other people jumped on the idea has muddied the water a bit, but the proof that PICO-8 was a good idea was that it achieved exactly what it set out to do... it is fun to use, has an identifiable style, there's lots of cool things written for it and they are easy to share. I particularly like Birds With Guns.

I know Joseph would have laboured for ages over the PICO-8 colour palette, and I do think it's about the best 16 colour palette I've seen anywhere. It's much more flexible than the CPC's 27 colour palette... and probably not a bad starting point if you were choosing a palette for a Plus game. 

[zhulien]

Instead of a Next I'd rather have a modern replica board for CPC Plus similar to Evolution 64,C64 Reloaded, or Ultimate 64 with modern connection ports added of course.

Zaxon already makes a range of such for CPC.  

[zhulien]

I think the mega65 is currently and potentially the best existing cpc next. It has the actual hardware everyone wants, or at least capable to implement it within its fpga.  It already has a spectrum core, oddly no cpc core yet.  If a core was ported perhaps from minimum but extended to support more CPC hardware, how awesome would that be?

4mb ram, 1mb rom, amdrum, mouse, play city, multiplay, m4 etc...

[Prodatron]

I like the Mega65 project but somehow it's too expensive (here you pay 800€), that's behind a psychological barrier I have for such actual copies/emulators of original old machines.

[GUNHED]

800 Euro an no CPC core? 

[zhulien]

For those who say an Amstrad CPC Next wouldn't be an Amstrad CPC - why do you say that?

Is a 2024 PC a PC?
is an Amiga 4000 an Amiga?
is an Amstrad 6128 Plus an Amstrad?

Is it because the company name?  Something else?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it as good as a duck?
Now... if that duck had the suit from the Aliens in the Greatest American Hero, is it still a duck?

[andycadley]

For those who say an Amstrad CPC Next wouldn't be an Amstrad CPC - why do you say that?

Is a 2024 PC a PC?
is an Amiga 4000 an Amiga?
is an Amstrad 6128 Plus an Amstrad?

Is it because the company name?  Something else?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it as good as a duck?
Now... if that duck had the suit from the Aliens in the Greatest American Hero, is it still a duck?

It's that it just wouldn't really be the same thing. You can slap the brand name on, but it doesn't really make it one.

Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

But, for the most part, whether it's a "real CPC" or not is kind of irrelevant. If you put enough memory, CPU power and other hardware extensions (ala the Spectrum Next) it just becomes boring to program for. Go too far beyond what stock 8-bit machines can do and all the challenge disappears and you might just as well be writing PC software.

[asertus]

It is funny what you say, for example, Macs have gone from x68000 and family, to PowerPc, to Intelx86, and now to Apple M processors.., and switching from Mac OS to X , very different OS. Is it a Mac yet?

I have seen projects like MSX VR... and, in the end, I prefer having a CPC while it last or emulator when not possible.. 

[andycadley]

Well PC and Mac were always fairly boring machines. They don't really fall into the "home computer" bracket, machines which were much more about squeezing every ounce of performance out of low cost hardware.

[eto]

When you try doing things with a 1985PC or 1985MAC, the experience is something totally different from a 2024 machine. The 2024PC and the 1985PC (or Mac) just share the "name". 

The question for me is: what would I do with a CPCnext? What would it solve? Would there be a reason for me to use the CPCnext and not the PC?

[Prodatron]

Would there be a reason for me to use the CPCnext and not the PC?

But why compare it with a PC? Pimped clones of other retro machines have nothing to do with a PC either.
A fully expanded CPC with all the new hardware we have now and an optional overclocked Z80 inside a neat case, I think that is what is meant with a CPCnext.

[ZorrO]

I suppose that sooner or later CPC-Next will be created and I am very curious how it will sell. Let's remember that Spectrums and clones were sold 20 million worldwide, and CPCs only 3-4 million. So they don't have as many fans.

[andycadley]

Would there be a reason for me to use the CPCnext and not the PC?

But why compare it with a PC? Pimped clones of other retro machines have nothing to do with a PC either.
A fully expanded CPC with all the new hardware we have now and an optional overclocked Z80 inside a neat case, I think that is what is meant with a CPCnext.

Because if you pimp it up as much as the Spectrum Next, that becomes the obvious comparison. When you start getting up to Amiga level graphics and beyond, or have huge amounts of RAM the question arises "Why not just code for the PC instead?" It just isn't like coding for an 8-bit machine any more.

I saw an interesting interview with the creator of the Pico 8 fake console and he spent a lot of time having to deliberately cripple what was possible, because adding too many capabilities made it boring. Being constrained by the "hardware" kept the possibility of being able to produce something as a lone developer that still feels impressive.

[GUNHED]

First we need the have an CPCultimate or PlusUltimate. Then we will see what we can do with it.

And about the PC discussion: Lots of tasks I perform with my expanded CPC / Plus setup and not with a PC - for good reasons.

[eto]

But why compare it with a PC? Pimped clones of other retro machines have nothing to do with a PC either.
A fully expanded CPC with all the new hardware we have now and an optional overclocked Z80 inside a neat case, I think that is what is meant with a CPCnext.

I am fully aware of that. What I meant is: I personally (very important, can be different for someone else) have no use-case for a 100x faster CPC. Well... not true... I would appreciate a nice and fast UI which is more or less a comfortable launcher application for all the great stuff. But I would not pay 800€ for that and I don't see a need (for myself) for anything serious on the CPCnext as there probably always my PC or Laptop will still win in terms of features or usability over anything that will happen on the CPCnext. 

Having said that: If someone else sees that differently, it's fine. Just don't expect everyone in the community will want one. 

[eto]

Regarding a Super-CPC: I somehow have the gut feeling this could be achieved with something similar to the PiStorm on the Amiga or Atari. Remove the CPU and connect a Raspberry based device to the expansion bus which simulates the Z80 + additional RAM and other hardware. GateArray inside of the CPC just continues to work, however the CPC-Storm would emulate it in parallel, so a connection to the HDMI of the Raspi shows a perfect CPC screen. While in compatible mode it behaves exactly like a CPC with 512K but enhance modes could leverage the full power of the PiStorm - more RAM, faster CPU or even a SuperGateArray mode with completely new possibilities, while using the rest of the CPC for I/O. Such a device would cost less than 50€ + Raspi, it would still "feel like a CPC" even if it's true power only can be leveraged with kind of emulation. 

But a lot of work required and a few people with the right skills, dedication and time would be required. Which is unlikely to happen...

[zhulien]

For those who say an Amstrad CPC Next wouldn't be an Amstrad CPC - why do you say that?

Is a 2024 PC a PC?
is an Amiga 4000 an Amiga?
is an Amstrad 6128 Plus an Amstrad?

Is it because the company name?  Something else?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it as good as a duck?
Now... if that duck had the suit from the Aliens in the Greatest American Hero, is it still a duck?

It's that it just wouldn't really be the same thing. You can slap the brand name on, but it doesn't really make it one.

Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

But, for the most part, whether it's a "real CPC" or not is kind of irrelevant. If you put enough memory, CPU power and other hardware extensions (ala the Spectrum Next) it just becomes boring to program for. Go too far beyond what stock 8-bit machines can do and all the challenge disappears and you might just as well be writing PC software.

Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

I am an Amiga fan, and...  I still use Amiga 500 and Mac Mini with MorphOS - and I would say other than the brand... the Mac Mini with MorphOS is an Amiga

[zhulien]

Well PC and Mac were always fairly boring machines. They don't really fall into the "home computer" bracket, machines which were much more about squeezing every ounce of performance out of low cost hardware.

To me you hit the nail on the head.  To me They are business machines and boring.  Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Spectrum, C64 and all the other cool home computers are home computers.  A Super CPC to me is still a home computer - with a CPC flavour.

[zhulien]

i REALLY want a cool home computer - and my favourite one is a CPC...  A modern more advanced CPC would be awesome.  I don't want more PCs.  I have them for my job - they are like a tool.  My CPC is for fun.  Like an XBox or a Playstation, they are fun also - but my CPC isn't only about games, but includes cool games too.  If XBox or Playstation had BASIC and a keyboard (like a Saturn and PS2), then maybe they would start to be more fun in the non-games arena.

[andycadley]

So if someone gave you an Amiga 500 and told you it was a "Super CPC" - would that be a satisfying solution?

If it is, why not just program for the Amiga? If not, what is it that makes the difference? Where is the point that just beefing the spec of the hardware stops it being a CPC? I'm not sure you'll ever get consensus on that point, but I do think it's interesting that some people don't seem to see a limit.

It's my opinion, though not everyone agrees, that the Spectrum Next goes too far. But I don't see the problem with machines like the CPC+ or SAM Coupé, to me they're faithful enough to the original design and not so far advanced that they're still "1 person project" machines. YMMV of course.

[GUNHED]

Launching UI...

We have a few of them already...

How would your ideal UI look a like?