 | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I'm not sure when this happened, but it seems we can't reference Kickstarter pages in citations at the moment - which is a pain, as they're the authoritative source for lots of information.
I'm asking for specific URLs to be whitelisted, and keeping a note of which references I can't add for restoration if and when whitelisting happens...
DuncanCorps ( talk) 22:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There's been a few recent edits which either diminish or entirely remove detail of the second Kickstarter campaign (and media coverage of it), describing it as "unnecessary detail". Since one of the justifications given for deleting this page was that there's negligible media coverage (indicating insufficient notability to justify having a Wikipedia page) I wonder if this could lead into another proposal to delete a page which seems to have value to others. I don't pretend to be... some kind of... boss of this page, but I should much prefer that content and information is improved or expanded, rather than summarily deleted. I'm sure we'd all welcome edits like that.
If there's a better form for the short paragraph outlining Ks2's success and media coverage of it then I'd love to collaborate on it here. DuncanCorps ( talk) 16:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to start pulling together a timeline in the the History section, with key dates in a bulleted or tabular form. It would include key announcements (inc. of problems) and delivery dates (inc. of each tranche, and delays). -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 09:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to add a section summarising the other computers which can be recreated in the
FPGA, stressing that they're unofficial/unlicensed and any legal questions are not the repsonsibility of Spec Next Ltd. etc.; I feel such a section would clearly emphasise how significantly
ZX Spectrum Next differs from any
ZX Spectrum, and underline its notability (beyond similar "bare hobbyist" boards). --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 09:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's underway! -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 09:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Great idea! Mitja i ( talk) 20:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Shall we standardise on the term "the Next", wherever appropriate, because it's less wordy/easier to read than "ZX Spectrum Next"? There's already precedent elsewhere in the page. I intend replacing most (e.g. not where it's the name of the model) occurrences of "ZX Spectrum Next" with "the Next" later today if no one objects. --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 09:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Done it... Looks nicer, on the whole, to have consistent wording. -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 21:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to reorder the sections... currently, to my mind, they don't "flow" thematically, and a couple could be merged. I'm thinking something like this;
- History
- Industrial design (renamed from Visual Design to match Rick Dickinson's description)
- Reception
- Models (with content refactored from Hardware Specifications)
- Operating Systems and software (expand with RAMS and NextDAW, depending on how unique and novel it is - Wikipedia is not a catalogue)
- Alternative FPGA cores (renamed from Other recreations and emulations and expandable)
- Clones and emulators
- Thoughts? I'm inclined to do this reordering by Sunday evening, if no one objects. --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 11:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't merge Other recreations and emulations with Operating systems and software, because Other recreations... have to do with FPGA cores rather than the software run on the machine. How about renaming it to something like Alternative FPGA cores or such? I've been planning to add some notable Next only software (like NexTel, NexDAW and some of the game creations/recreations by notable Spectrum developers) to the Software part. I'm not actually sure Models part is that important, they're all pretty much the same machine with some optional components added or left out. Visual Design could maybe also be embedded under some other subheading because it's fairly short, but where should we place that information? Maybe to the page top before History part? I mean it's certainly an important enough thing to be mentioned there, right?
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 15:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Good points, and exactly the sort of feedback I hope for! I kinda feel that Models is valuable as a concise overview of the different features and slight changes; the principle of bidirectional compatibility and upgradability can be emphasised (with a reference). Sticking the Visual Design content into History (renamed to match Dickinson's role) does feel right but maybe warrants a subsection... I've refined the suggested TOC. Will try skimming around similar computes' pages to see if conventions have emerged. -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 12:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't merge Other recreations and emulations with Operating systems and software, because Other recreations... have to do with FPGA cores rather than the software run on the machine. How about renaming it to something like Alternative FPGA cores or such? I've been planning to add some notable Next only software (like NexTel, NexDAW and some of the game creations/recreations by notable Spectrum developers) to the Software part. I'm not actually sure Models part is that important, they're all pretty much the same machine with some optional components added or left out. Visual Design could maybe also be embedded under some other subheading because it's fairly short, but where should we place that information? Maybe to the page top before History part? I mean it's certainly an important enough thing to be mentioned there, right?
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 15:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Done it! I think it looks better, with better-named, better-ordered, better-scoped sections thanks to 81.175.155.7. --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 22:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Good work, I also think it looks much better now. And thanks for fixing my typos and mistakes. English is my third language, so I sometimes make stupid mistakes with it :D 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 21:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- History
- FYI, when
MrMajors deletes content I take it as a hint to try to find a location in the page for it which he might feel is acceptable... or if I don't identify one, just restore it as-is pending some sort of discussion about it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DuncanCorps (
talk •
contribs) 10:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I find it rather interesting, that
MrMajors thought it important to remove the links to ZX Spectrum Next Kickstarter campaigns, while at the same time has seen no reason to perform similar removal of a link to Indiegogo page of the Vega+, the article which he apparently is a very significant contributor to. Surely there is a justifiable reason why WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM do not apply there?
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 22:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously one crowdfunding campaign is closed, while the other is still running.
MrMajors (
talk) 09:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've restored the link to the one which finished three and a quarter years ago, since it seems only the other one should be avoided. -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 10:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- In this case, may I suggest that
MrMajors would only remove the link that is in violation of the WP rules and no more. Furthermore, if you feel that something is done incorrectly and there is a more acceptable way of doing the same, please make an edit instead of needlessly removing content.
85.194.208.203 (
talk) 11:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- The original kickstarter is already linked from the main body of the article. Nothing has been "needlessly" removed.
MrMajors (
talk) 11:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are obviously very familiar with the WP rules
MrMajors, so may I suggest that you use that knowledge rather to improve and build upon peoples contrbutions and work in a more constructive way instead of simply destroying it. I belive the idea behind Wikis is that person x writes a thing and then person y improves and builds upon that. Not so much that person x writes a thing, person y deletes the writing, and person x tries to write it again in a way that not only statisfies the WP rules, but is also acceptable to person y.
85.194.208.203 (
talk) 11:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you and
DuncanCorps both need to make yourselves more familiar with WP rules in the first place. If you "write a thing" then it needs to be supported by sources. If you add external links then they need to conform with the rules on external links. If you're having to resort to adding links to Github, kickstarter pages and Facebook then it's a sign that you've run out of valid encyclopedic content for the page.
MrMajors (
talk) 13:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are most likely right about the need for (at least me) to get to know the rules better, and I absolutely agree that the text needs to be backed by credible sources, which I have tried to do to the best of my ability. We have no difference of opinion there. The article is, as I see it, very much a work in progress at the moment. I can't speak for others, but I, for one, have not used Facebook as a source for anything, nor have I linked Facebook anywere, as I don't even have a presence there. As for the links to gitlab and kickstarter, I thought that relevant links are valuable in pointing the reader to the right direction should (s)he requires more information about a certain subject. It has been my bad, that I didn't know exactly how to do this in a way that would be acceptable, so obviously there is a need for me to study the rules better. I do admit that I am a newbie here. However I still do not find your way of conducting your changes or your style of discussing very constructive or consistent. If you for example feel that sources on some issue are lacking, why not simply add citation needed instead of completely deleting the text? Perhaps open a discussion branch on the talk page about the subject? As far as I know, there is no requirement for every single article to be absolutely perfect from it's conception 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 16:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you and
DuncanCorps both need to make yourselves more familiar with WP rules in the first place. If you "write a thing" then it needs to be supported by sources. If you add external links then they need to conform with the rules on external links. If you're having to resort to adding links to Github, kickstarter pages and Facebook then it's a sign that you've run out of valid encyclopedic content for the page.
MrMajors (
talk) 13:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are obviously very familiar with the WP rules
MrMajors, so may I suggest that you use that knowledge rather to improve and build upon peoples contrbutions and work in a more constructive way instead of simply destroying it. I belive the idea behind Wikis is that person x writes a thing and then person y improves and builds upon that. Not so much that person x writes a thing, person y deletes the writing, and person x tries to write it again in a way that not only statisfies the WP rules, but is also acceptable to person y.
85.194.208.203 (
talk) 11:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- The original kickstarter is already linked from the main body of the article. Nothing has been "needlessly" removed.
MrMajors (
talk) 11:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously one crowdfunding campaign is closed, while the other is still running.
MrMajors (
talk) 09:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I find it rather interesting, that
MrMajors thought it important to remove the links to ZX Spectrum Next Kickstarter campaigns, while at the same time has seen no reason to perform similar removal of a link to Indiegogo page of the Vega+, the article which he apparently is a very significant contributor to. Surely there is a justifiable reason why WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM do not apply there?
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 22:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- We should probably mention Pentagon compatibility too?
93.106.122.21 (
talk) 09:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable... I feel that some content on the same topic - compatibility built into the standard Next core, OS, etc. - could be gathered from elsewhere in the page into, say, a subsection of Operating system and software as long as it's not just a list? Thoughts? --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 19:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well there is a feature called Personalities in the Next to deal with this kind of stuff. Maybe we should add a new heading for that between Operating systems... and Alternative FPGA Cores? I wouldn't place these things under Operating systems and software because it's more than that. Personalities also deal with timings, graphics modes, sound, memory and whatnot, in effect making it a different machine (like Pentagon, for example). 93.106.120.133 ( talk) 19:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable... I feel that some content on the same topic - compatibility built into the standard Next core, OS, etc. - could be gathered from elsewhere in the page into, say, a subsection of Operating system and software as long as it's not just a list? Thoughts? --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 19:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- More detail of the clones would be good... But concise so it doesn't swamp the article or undermine its true topic, highlighting
USPs rather than just becoming a list of other products. --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 19:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree about the desirability for additional information about the clones. However I see the topic or the scope of the article a bit differently here. I'd be hesitant to raise the selling points too much to focus, especially since the very existence of this article has been questioned previously because it looked too much like marketing. I think we need to steer well clear from that and aim for as neutral approach as possible. Furthermore, in my opinion the Next platform is as important here as the machine produced by the SpecNext, if not even more important. Having said this, I do agree with you that it would still be good to keep the part about the clones concise so as not to bloat the article.
93.106.120.133 (
talk) 20:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think we're broadly in agreement here. I wouldn't want anything which can be misconstrued as "buy this clone because..." (I didn't mean for focus on
USP's "selling" aspect :-\ ), but rather "this clone's notable distinct feature is...". In general, I'd like to increase the prominence of two of Next's distinct features to highlight why it's so notable - that it is actually a platform for recreating a number of things (the Alternative FPGA cores section, which I'd like filled out further) and that it's open for reimplementation by others (the Clones and emulators section) (and not just another Spectrum clone). --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 13:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I added the stuff about personalities and merged it with Alternative FPGA cores changing the heading to Personalities and alternative FPGA cores. I think it goes there rather naturally, since we're sort of talking about "sliding" off the standard Spectrum via Spectrum Clones to recreations of completely different machines here. Also I think it keeps the article more concise. Opinions/ideas/feedback on this? I'll try to find citation for the information added asap. 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 14:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think we're broadly in agreement here. I wouldn't want anything which can be misconstrued as "buy this clone because..." (I didn't mean for focus on
USP's "selling" aspect :-\ ), but rather "this clone's notable distinct feature is...". In general, I'd like to increase the prominence of two of Next's distinct features to highlight why it's so notable - that it is actually a platform for recreating a number of things (the Alternative FPGA cores section, which I'd like filled out further) and that it's open for reimplementation by others (the Clones and emulators section) (and not just another Spectrum clone). --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 13:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree about the desirability for additional information about the clones. However I see the topic or the scope of the article a bit differently here. I'd be hesitant to raise the selling points too much to focus, especially since the very existence of this article has been questioned previously because it looked too much like marketing. I think we need to steer well clear from that and aim for as neutral approach as possible. Furthermore, in my opinion the Next platform is as important here as the machine produced by the SpecNext, if not even more important. Having said this, I do agree with you that it would still be good to keep the part about the clones concise so as not to bloat the article.
93.106.120.133 (
talk) 20:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- How do we edit the article's Central description from Clone of ZX Spectrum, and what would be more correct (something like "Updated version of ZX Spectrum and other home computers", but shorter...)? -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 12:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC) (actually wrote that a while ago, forgot to sign it...)
History
"TBBLUE firmware" is probably more accurately described as the "TBBLUE circuit board", a pcb with interfaces surrounding an fpga which provided programmable logic to implement most of the system. The hardware on the TBBLUE board is very much geared toward implementing a Spectrum clone system. The statement further on that it was "initially intended to use the original ZX Spectrum's Z80 chip" is incorrect. The Z80 was always intended to be implemented on the fpga as can be seen from photos of the first publicly released TBBLUE iteration in 2016 ( https://victortrucco.com/TK/TBBlue/TBBlue ). There are several advantages to doing things that way. Aralbrec ( talk) 03:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Under industrial design there is no mention of Phil Candy. The concept art and initial design for the Spectrum Next case are Rick Dickinson's conception but his untimely passing left the job incomplete. His partner, Phil Candy, agreed to complete the case and keyboard design so that Rick's work would be completed. Aralbrec ( talk) 03:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
License for the hardware
While in chapter 4 "Operating system and software" speak about software license, the article does not speak about hardware license.
For example, seem the VHDL is available on Gitlab in GPL3:
https://gitlab.com/SpectrumNext/ZX_Spectrum_Next_FPGA
Seems much is derived from ZX-UNO core sources
http://zxuno.speccy.org/, though seems not attributed in last version of files.
I haven't found sources for schematics and PCB master, are they closed source? -- Efa ( talk) 21:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt that they're closed source, based on the fact that the SpecNext actively encourages creation of clone machines. Unfortunately I have no information about where the schematics can be found.
- They're on the spectrum next wiki, in some detail - the full schematic is here: Spectrum next scematic
2001:8B0:178:1:4586:2A07:660E:A0A1 ( talk) 19:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
93.106.120.133 ( talk) 19:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC) The article need a section specific on this topic, given the number of parts get somewhere (opencores, ZXUno, ...)-- Efa ( talk) 09:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I for one would definitely welcome that :) 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a hybrid open/closed license. That's a closed license. While the FPGA core is open source, everything else is not including the keyboard, motherboard and firmware.
- Well I would argue that the Next License is indeed such a hybrid license, with parts of the OS being closed source and some other parts open source. It's sort of an "umbrella license" for the parts that are under MIT license and other (closed source) licenses. In my view that certainly does not make the license closed, since parts of the software are still open source. I suspect that such a "weird" licensing model was chosen because of the old Spectrum ROMS that are included with Next. Not sure about that though, just guessing. Feel free to elaborate the OS licensing scheme further if you like. I don't know about the hardware license though, that's another story.
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 19:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- More correct term would probably be "mixed source" as described in Proprietary software under "Examples". Here's a quote: "Software distributions considered as proprietary may in fact incorporate a "mixed source" model including both free and non-free software in the same distribution.[54] Most if not all so-called proprietary UNIX distributions are mixed source software, bundling open-source components like BIND, Sendmail, X Window System, DHCP, and others along with a purely proprietary kernel and system utilities." 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Done--
Efa (
talk) 11:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding licensing, it is not possible to open the operating system since it contains Sinclair and Amstrad ROM code. The copyright remains with them and SpecNext only has permission to distribute those as binaries or derived binaries as part of the ZX Spectrum Next machine alone. With the exception of the Vega, no other hardware has permission to distribute the ROMs even though the community largely does this anyway and the copyright owners, if they know about it, turn a blind eye. To fulfill legal obligations and to maintain good will toward the community, licensees have to respect the license agreement to the letter. The fpga sources are GPL3 and many of the dot commands and other system-related software independent of the operating system are open but that is up to the authors of those utilities as not everything is developed by the team of volunteers working on the ZX Next, who committed to making the core machine as open as possible. The schematics are available as well and that has already been used to make one clone machine called the N-GO. Other things not available are case design and gerbers. Aralbrec ( talk) 03:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
References to OpenCores and ZX-UNO project are necessary as their licensing on derived work require attribution-- Efa ( talk) 13:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Disclosure: I am the current fpga developer for the ZX Spectrum Next. I don't feel like I should be editing the article but corrections would be appreciated.
All vhdl sources are fully attributed in the source files. The project has nothing to do with the ZX-UNO except for possibly sharing a couple of ideas. Exactly one source file, again properly attributed, has origins from the ZX-UNO project. When the ZX Next moved from Altera fpga to Xilinx, a ZX-UNO board was used for development until the first TBBLUE board using the Xilinx fpga was produced. At that time, a member of the ZX-UNO team provided some assistance in getting the sources ported to Xilinx. This one file from the ZX-UNO project remains.
The Z80 implementation has roots in opencores which was where the original T80 source was committed. However that source has not been maintained for many years and T80 cores in various states of correction are widespread on the internet since it is the most commonly used Z80 core in fpgas and some asic solutions. The most correct version can be found in the Mist repository where fixes for bugs discovered during the ZX Next development have been implemented and integrated by one of the Mist developers. The T80 core in the ZX Next project has origins from an unknown source (but with licensing information intact and ultimately from the original T80 at opencores) with fixes applied by various ZX Next contributors and finally brought up to be nearly consistent with the Mist repository by contributions from them. Obviously the Z80 extensions are only in the ZX Next project.
There are other open source individual contributors in some modules which can be seen in the sources. These have to do with standard interfaces like PS/2, HDMI, VGA and the AY chip, which is also widely used in the open source community. (Not necessarily an exhaustive list)
Aralbrec ( talk) 03:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. To be declared open source HW, can you please link where are publicly hosted the Schematics, PCB masters, Gerbers and case 3D CAD model of Next?
-- Efa ( talk) 13:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a link to the schematics of the 2B board at https://wiki.specnext.dev/Circuit_Diagrams . The case design can never be made open because it bears the name "Sinclair" which only licensees can use. Gerbers are also not open but the schematics are sufficient to reproduce the machine as is made evident by the N-Go clone.
I think you will find that any legal Sinclair / Commodore / Atari / whatever reproduction machine cannot be entirely open in the sense you are implying. The ownership of ROM code and trademarks are retained by the holder and despite the desire to make projects as open as possible, that cannot override that ownership. What is essential to produce a zx spectrum next clone are the schematics, the fpga logic and the operating system. Two out of three of these are under open source license with the exception being the operating system which can never be made open. The operating system and system software is downloadable for zx spectrum next users but as with everything else under copyright, including original roms, the community makes use of that hoping the owners continue to allow it. Aralbrec ( talk) 23:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- At the link you indicated https://wiki.specnext.dev/Circuit_Diagrams there is a PDF file composed of shot images. If you want to reproduce it, you should re-enter everything from scratch in the electronic CAD. It is as if someone made the C language source photograph and published only that instead of the real source file. It is at least a way to make life impossible for those who want to make a derived work and exact reproduction. What do you think about publishing the real source CAD file, something like KiCad, Eagle or so, like other open source hardware do?
- The same apply to PCB. If you pubblish the gerbers only, gerbers are a shot of the PCB master, one can produce the PCB, but cannot understand or modify the PCB. To do that without reverse engineering, you need to have the PCB master source file, the one from the CAD that generated the gerber files. Again KiCAD, Eagle or so. In other words, open mean free to edit the designs.
-- Efa ( talk) 16:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Personalities and alternative FPGA cores
It may help to clarify this further. There is one ZX Next hardware design and the personalities are in fact configurations of the ZX Next hardware. The ZX Next design is able to selectively disable internal peripherals as well as generate video timing of any of the original machines 48K/128K/+3 and the Russian Pentagon. A personality is a particular configuration that makes the ZX Next behave like one of the aforementioned machines.
The ZX80 and ZX81 support come by way of the ZX80/ZX81 emulators written by Paul Farrow for the 128K Spectrum. So running zx80/zx81 software is actually done on a software emulator running on 128K compatible hardware.
Alternate cores are, of course, new hardware loaded into the fpga which is a different thing from the above. Aralbrec ( talk) 04:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Clones and Emulators
There is in fact only one clone and that is the N-GO which is very close to an issue 2B ZX Next board with a couple of improvements solving issues surrounding board noise and hdmi backpower discovered in the 2B board. It can act as a replacement of an original 2A or 2B ZX Next board and can run the same software as well as use the same fpga hardware configuration developed for the ZX Next itself.
The other "clones" listed are probably more accurately called ports or adaptations. The architecture of the target board is just as important as whether the original hardware design fits into a target board's fpga. Because of differences with the ZX Next pcb, none of these other clones are 100% reproductions of the original ZX Next. All are missing some features and some will not be cycle accurate without additional hardware added. In all cases, keeping the implementations up to date with ZX Next development is the responsibility of the original porters. Aralbrec ( talk) 04:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sincere apologies to Mitja i; it's hardly surprising, given how notable ZX Spectrum Next is at the moment, it seems we were both trying to integrate coverage from BBC News at the same time... I think it'll happen again as the project nears 400% funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanCorps ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the importance of a any product in its cultural and historical context should not be solely determined by the wideness of it's commercial distribution. In the context of retro computing this is a hugely important and influential device. If the number of units sold were to be the only criteria, then for example the article about DMC De Lorean should also be considered for deletion as it sold around the same amount of units (this is just to point out that as criteria for evaluating the importance of a product, the number of units sold is utterly mindless).
Futhermore, the second kickstarter for ZX Spectrum Next reached it's funding goal of $325000 in around five minutes and is at the moment standing at around $1000000 after less than 24 hours of the kickstarter launch. The machine base is likely to at least double within the 12 months.
The claim that information about ZX Spectrum Next is already available on the ZX Spectrum page is false. The technical details of the two machines differ greatly and for example Next specifications are not listed on ZX Spectrum page.
Claim about the lack of coverage in third party publications is also false.
81.175.155.7 ( talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Vapula ( talk) 14:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
This page is obviously a Stub for which extra information is meant to be added.
Among other, detail about the designer being the original Spectrum designer, more details about the hardware, the specific architecture (memory mapping, new video modes, ...), and so on.
As there are significant differences to a "real" ZX Spectrum (including the support for other computer cores which don't already exists but are planned), integrating these specific details in the ZX Spectrum page would make it way too "invasive".
There are also other niche product that do have their own Wikipedia page and which, if you take the same criteria, should be deleted, for example, pages about some modern expansions to ancient computer that do mostly enumerate the various versions and nothing more. At least, here, there is room for enough comments.
Maybe leave some time to the page author to fill in extra information... That computer is still very recent after all so there has been very little chance to get many informations...
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... The spectrum next is one of the most popular 8 bit computer reboots. It's article needs expanding to include relevant information. There are thousands of them with thousands to come in the second kickstarter which is going to finanace a second run. The hardware and the software is unique and it is different enough to other platforms to deserve it's own page. The vega articles on the other hand probably arent worthwhile as they didnt even get delivered for the most part. -- 82.19.4.115 ( talk) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- 108.7.187.138 ( talk) 16:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi I'm just a random Internet user but I was able to find information that I wanted to find thanks to this page. It'd be really helpful if we didn't delete it.
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because I plan to add info very soon. This version of the page, made on 24 July 2020 is significantly different than that which was deleted in March. -- Mitja i ( talk) 16:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because much interest has been shown in the media (see: 'Reception'), in Facebook polls and on ebay. Unlike the Vega and Vega+ (less than 100 machines), this machine (and clones and emulators) has a healthy user base, which is likely to extend after the second Kickstarter campaign. People are asking for information about this machine all the time, and that's where Wikipedia comes in. -- 85.148.210.102 ( talk) 18:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... this machine has a growing fan base, which we would like to serve by presenting links to reviews and some history (to be written in this wiki) -- Marc NL ( talk) 18:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Cthutu ( talk) 01:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It is contested that this device should not be on the list of official ZX Spectrum clones. However, it is the most official clone since a) the name Sinclair ZX Spectrum has been licensed from the owner of the brand (Sky) and b) designed by one of the original people who designed the original Spectrum.
I also contest that a quick Google search does not bring up reliable references from third parties. A quick google search brings up these:
https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/zx-spectrum-next-accelerated-review https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/zx-spectrum-next-gives-the-classic-console-a-new-lease-of-life-featured-kickstarter-2953375 https://vintageisthenewold.com/first-days-with-the-zx-spectrum-next-this-is-not-a-review/ https://hackaday.com/2020/02/27/the-zx-spectrum-next-arrives/
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the ZX Spectrum Next is significant for a number of reasons:
* The last machine worked on by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Dickinson before his death * The Next was considered significant enough to be reported by UK news outlets like the Metro: https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/24/celebrate-the-sinclair-zx-spectrums-35th-anniversary-with-yet-another-retro-console-6594446/amp/. * The ZX Spectrum next stands out as it is featured on many famous Retro YouTube channels like Nostalgia Nerd, Retro Recipes, Cassette Comeback, TJ Ferreira and also specific magazine coverage like this year's 8 page article in Crash Annual. Volunteers also devoted time and effort to create the Wikipedia page, they for sure though it was important enough to write about. There is a lot of interest in this specific machine, more than any other spectrum since the Spectrum +3. * The limited amount of machines is mentioned a reason but there has only been one Kickstarter batch to date. Even that one was a great success, reaching its funding in hours, denoting the significance of this machine. A second Kickstarter will be called soon, this will significantly increase the number of machines in active use. How much interest is needed to deserve an own mention? * The ZX Spectrum Next's that are sold on eBay were sold for an insane amount of money, something like this has never been seen before for a retro respin. This fact alone deserves an own article. * For consistency since other official ZX Spectrum products like the Vega and Vega+ have pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:64:7E8E:297E:2450:316A:801C ( talk) 16:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
|
| This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I'm not sure when this happened, but it seems we can't reference Kickstarter pages in citations at the moment - which is a pain, as they're the authoritative source for lots of information.
I'm asking for specific URLs to be whitelisted, and keeping a note of which references I can't add for restoration if and when whitelisting happens...
DuncanCorps ( talk) 22:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There's been a few recent edits which either diminish or entirely remove detail of the second Kickstarter campaign (and media coverage of it), describing it as "unnecessary detail". Since one of the justifications given for deleting this page was that there's negligible media coverage (indicating insufficient notability to justify having a Wikipedia page) I wonder if this could lead into another proposal to delete a page which seems to have value to others. I don't pretend to be... some kind of... boss of this page, but I should much prefer that content and information is improved or expanded, rather than summarily deleted. I'm sure we'd all welcome edits like that.
If there's a better form for the short paragraph outlining Ks2's success and media coverage of it then I'd love to collaborate on it here. DuncanCorps ( talk) 16:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to start pulling together a timeline in the the History section, with key dates in a bulleted or tabular form. It would include key announcements (inc. of problems) and delivery dates (inc. of each tranche, and delays). -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 09:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to add a section summarising the other computers which can be recreated in the
FPGA, stressing that they're unofficial/unlicensed and any legal questions are not the repsonsibility of Spec Next Ltd. etc.; I feel such a section would clearly emphasise how significantly
ZX Spectrum Next differs from any
ZX Spectrum, and underline its notability (beyond similar "bare hobbyist" boards). --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 09:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's underway! -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 09:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Great idea! Mitja i ( talk) 20:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Shall we standardise on the term "the Next", wherever appropriate, because it's less wordy/easier to read than "ZX Spectrum Next"? There's already precedent elsewhere in the page. I intend replacing most (e.g. not where it's the name of the model) occurrences of "ZX Spectrum Next" with "the Next" later today if no one objects. --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 09:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Done it... Looks nicer, on the whole, to have consistent wording. -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 21:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to reorder the sections... currently, to my mind, they don't "flow" thematically, and a couple could be merged. I'm thinking something like this;
- History
- Industrial design (renamed from Visual Design to match Rick Dickinson's description)
- Reception
- Models (with content refactored from Hardware Specifications)
- Operating Systems and software (expand with RAMS and NextDAW, depending on how unique and novel it is - Wikipedia is not a catalogue)
- Alternative FPGA cores (renamed from Other recreations and emulations and expandable)
- Clones and emulators
- Thoughts? I'm inclined to do this reordering by Sunday evening, if no one objects. --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 11:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't merge Other recreations and emulations with Operating systems and software, because Other recreations... have to do with FPGA cores rather than the software run on the machine. How about renaming it to something like Alternative FPGA cores or such? I've been planning to add some notable Next only software (like NexTel, NexDAW and some of the game creations/recreations by notable Spectrum developers) to the Software part. I'm not actually sure Models part is that important, they're all pretty much the same machine with some optional components added or left out. Visual Design could maybe also be embedded under some other subheading because it's fairly short, but where should we place that information? Maybe to the page top before History part? I mean it's certainly an important enough thing to be mentioned there, right?
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 15:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Good points, and exactly the sort of feedback I hope for! I kinda feel that Models is valuable as a concise overview of the different features and slight changes; the principle of bidirectional compatibility and upgradability can be emphasised (with a reference). Sticking the Visual Design content into History (renamed to match Dickinson's role) does feel right but maybe warrants a subsection... I've refined the suggested TOC. Will try skimming around similar computes' pages to see if conventions have emerged. -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 12:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't merge Other recreations and emulations with Operating systems and software, because Other recreations... have to do with FPGA cores rather than the software run on the machine. How about renaming it to something like Alternative FPGA cores or such? I've been planning to add some notable Next only software (like NexTel, NexDAW and some of the game creations/recreations by notable Spectrum developers) to the Software part. I'm not actually sure Models part is that important, they're all pretty much the same machine with some optional components added or left out. Visual Design could maybe also be embedded under some other subheading because it's fairly short, but where should we place that information? Maybe to the page top before History part? I mean it's certainly an important enough thing to be mentioned there, right?
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 15:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Done it! I think it looks better, with better-named, better-ordered, better-scoped sections thanks to 81.175.155.7. --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 22:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Good work, I also think it looks much better now. And thanks for fixing my typos and mistakes. English is my third language, so I sometimes make stupid mistakes with it :D 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 21:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- History
- FYI, when
MrMajors deletes content I take it as a hint to try to find a location in the page for it which he might feel is acceptable... or if I don't identify one, just restore it as-is pending some sort of discussion about it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DuncanCorps (
talk •
contribs) 10:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I find it rather interesting, that
MrMajors thought it important to remove the links to ZX Spectrum Next Kickstarter campaigns, while at the same time has seen no reason to perform similar removal of a link to Indiegogo page of the Vega+, the article which he apparently is a very significant contributor to. Surely there is a justifiable reason why WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM do not apply there?
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 22:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously one crowdfunding campaign is closed, while the other is still running.
MrMajors (
talk) 09:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've restored the link to the one which finished three and a quarter years ago, since it seems only the other one should be avoided. -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 10:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- In this case, may I suggest that
MrMajors would only remove the link that is in violation of the WP rules and no more. Furthermore, if you feel that something is done incorrectly and there is a more acceptable way of doing the same, please make an edit instead of needlessly removing content.
85.194.208.203 (
talk) 11:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- The original kickstarter is already linked from the main body of the article. Nothing has been "needlessly" removed.
MrMajors (
talk) 11:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are obviously very familiar with the WP rules
MrMajors, so may I suggest that you use that knowledge rather to improve and build upon peoples contrbutions and work in a more constructive way instead of simply destroying it. I belive the idea behind Wikis is that person x writes a thing and then person y improves and builds upon that. Not so much that person x writes a thing, person y deletes the writing, and person x tries to write it again in a way that not only statisfies the WP rules, but is also acceptable to person y.
85.194.208.203 (
talk) 11:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you and
DuncanCorps both need to make yourselves more familiar with WP rules in the first place. If you "write a thing" then it needs to be supported by sources. If you add external links then they need to conform with the rules on external links. If you're having to resort to adding links to Github, kickstarter pages and Facebook then it's a sign that you've run out of valid encyclopedic content for the page.
MrMajors (
talk) 13:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are most likely right about the need for (at least me) to get to know the rules better, and I absolutely agree that the text needs to be backed by credible sources, which I have tried to do to the best of my ability. We have no difference of opinion there. The article is, as I see it, very much a work in progress at the moment. I can't speak for others, but I, for one, have not used Facebook as a source for anything, nor have I linked Facebook anywere, as I don't even have a presence there. As for the links to gitlab and kickstarter, I thought that relevant links are valuable in pointing the reader to the right direction should (s)he requires more information about a certain subject. It has been my bad, that I didn't know exactly how to do this in a way that would be acceptable, so obviously there is a need for me to study the rules better. I do admit that I am a newbie here. However I still do not find your way of conducting your changes or your style of discussing very constructive or consistent. If you for example feel that sources on some issue are lacking, why not simply add citation needed instead of completely deleting the text? Perhaps open a discussion branch on the talk page about the subject? As far as I know, there is no requirement for every single article to be absolutely perfect from it's conception 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 16:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you and
DuncanCorps both need to make yourselves more familiar with WP rules in the first place. If you "write a thing" then it needs to be supported by sources. If you add external links then they need to conform with the rules on external links. If you're having to resort to adding links to Github, kickstarter pages and Facebook then it's a sign that you've run out of valid encyclopedic content for the page.
MrMajors (
talk) 13:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are obviously very familiar with the WP rules
MrMajors, so may I suggest that you use that knowledge rather to improve and build upon peoples contrbutions and work in a more constructive way instead of simply destroying it. I belive the idea behind Wikis is that person x writes a thing and then person y improves and builds upon that. Not so much that person x writes a thing, person y deletes the writing, and person x tries to write it again in a way that not only statisfies the WP rules, but is also acceptable to person y.
85.194.208.203 (
talk) 11:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- The original kickstarter is already linked from the main body of the article. Nothing has been "needlessly" removed.
MrMajors (
talk) 11:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously one crowdfunding campaign is closed, while the other is still running.
MrMajors (
talk) 09:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I find it rather interesting, that
MrMajors thought it important to remove the links to ZX Spectrum Next Kickstarter campaigns, while at the same time has seen no reason to perform similar removal of a link to Indiegogo page of the Vega+, the article which he apparently is a very significant contributor to. Surely there is a justifiable reason why WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM do not apply there?
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 22:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- We should probably mention Pentagon compatibility too?
93.106.122.21 (
talk) 09:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable... I feel that some content on the same topic - compatibility built into the standard Next core, OS, etc. - could be gathered from elsewhere in the page into, say, a subsection of Operating system and software as long as it's not just a list? Thoughts? --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 19:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well there is a feature called Personalities in the Next to deal with this kind of stuff. Maybe we should add a new heading for that between Operating systems... and Alternative FPGA Cores? I wouldn't place these things under Operating systems and software because it's more than that. Personalities also deal with timings, graphics modes, sound, memory and whatnot, in effect making it a different machine (like Pentagon, for example). 93.106.120.133 ( talk) 19:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable... I feel that some content on the same topic - compatibility built into the standard Next core, OS, etc. - could be gathered from elsewhere in the page into, say, a subsection of Operating system and software as long as it's not just a list? Thoughts? --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 19:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- More detail of the clones would be good... But concise so it doesn't swamp the article or undermine its true topic, highlighting
USPs rather than just becoming a list of other products. --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 19:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree about the desirability for additional information about the clones. However I see the topic or the scope of the article a bit differently here. I'd be hesitant to raise the selling points too much to focus, especially since the very existence of this article has been questioned previously because it looked too much like marketing. I think we need to steer well clear from that and aim for as neutral approach as possible. Furthermore, in my opinion the Next platform is as important here as the machine produced by the SpecNext, if not even more important. Having said this, I do agree with you that it would still be good to keep the part about the clones concise so as not to bloat the article.
93.106.120.133 (
talk) 20:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think we're broadly in agreement here. I wouldn't want anything which can be misconstrued as "buy this clone because..." (I didn't mean for focus on
USP's "selling" aspect :-\ ), but rather "this clone's notable distinct feature is...". In general, I'd like to increase the prominence of two of Next's distinct features to highlight why it's so notable - that it is actually a platform for recreating a number of things (the Alternative FPGA cores section, which I'd like filled out further) and that it's open for reimplementation by others (the Clones and emulators section) (and not just another Spectrum clone). --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 13:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I added the stuff about personalities and merged it with Alternative FPGA cores changing the heading to Personalities and alternative FPGA cores. I think it goes there rather naturally, since we're sort of talking about "sliding" off the standard Spectrum via Spectrum Clones to recreations of completely different machines here. Also I think it keeps the article more concise. Opinions/ideas/feedback on this? I'll try to find citation for the information added asap. 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 14:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think we're broadly in agreement here. I wouldn't want anything which can be misconstrued as "buy this clone because..." (I didn't mean for focus on
USP's "selling" aspect :-\ ), but rather "this clone's notable distinct feature is...". In general, I'd like to increase the prominence of two of Next's distinct features to highlight why it's so notable - that it is actually a platform for recreating a number of things (the Alternative FPGA cores section, which I'd like filled out further) and that it's open for reimplementation by others (the Clones and emulators section) (and not just another Spectrum clone). --
DuncanCorps (
talk) 13:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree about the desirability for additional information about the clones. However I see the topic or the scope of the article a bit differently here. I'd be hesitant to raise the selling points too much to focus, especially since the very existence of this article has been questioned previously because it looked too much like marketing. I think we need to steer well clear from that and aim for as neutral approach as possible. Furthermore, in my opinion the Next platform is as important here as the machine produced by the SpecNext, if not even more important. Having said this, I do agree with you that it would still be good to keep the part about the clones concise so as not to bloat the article.
93.106.120.133 (
talk) 20:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- How do we edit the article's Central description from Clone of ZX Spectrum, and what would be more correct (something like "Updated version of ZX Spectrum and other home computers", but shorter...)? -- DuncanCorps ( talk) 12:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC) (actually wrote that a while ago, forgot to sign it...)
History
"TBBLUE firmware" is probably more accurately described as the "TBBLUE circuit board", a pcb with interfaces surrounding an fpga which provided programmable logic to implement most of the system. The hardware on the TBBLUE board is very much geared toward implementing a Spectrum clone system. The statement further on that it was "initially intended to use the original ZX Spectrum's Z80 chip" is incorrect. The Z80 was always intended to be implemented on the fpga as can be seen from photos of the first publicly released TBBLUE iteration in 2016 ( https://victortrucco.com/TK/TBBlue/TBBlue ). There are several advantages to doing things that way. Aralbrec ( talk) 03:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Under industrial design there is no mention of Phil Candy. The concept art and initial design for the Spectrum Next case are Rick Dickinson's conception but his untimely passing left the job incomplete. His partner, Phil Candy, agreed to complete the case and keyboard design so that Rick's work would be completed. Aralbrec ( talk) 03:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
License for the hardware
While in chapter 4 "Operating system and software" speak about software license, the article does not speak about hardware license.
For example, seem the VHDL is available on Gitlab in GPL3:
https://gitlab.com/SpectrumNext/ZX_Spectrum_Next_FPGA
Seems much is derived from ZX-UNO core sources
http://zxuno.speccy.org/, though seems not attributed in last version of files.
I haven't found sources for schematics and PCB master, are they closed source? -- Efa ( talk) 21:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt that they're closed source, based on the fact that the SpecNext actively encourages creation of clone machines. Unfortunately I have no information about where the schematics can be found.
- They're on the spectrum next wiki, in some detail - the full schematic is here: Spectrum next scematic
2001:8B0:178:1:4586:2A07:660E:A0A1 ( talk) 19:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
93.106.120.133 ( talk) 19:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC) The article need a section specific on this topic, given the number of parts get somewhere (opencores, ZXUno, ...)-- Efa ( talk) 09:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I for one would definitely welcome that :) 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a hybrid open/closed license. That's a closed license. While the FPGA core is open source, everything else is not including the keyboard, motherboard and firmware.
- Well I would argue that the Next License is indeed such a hybrid license, with parts of the OS being closed source and some other parts open source. It's sort of an "umbrella license" for the parts that are under MIT license and other (closed source) licenses. In my view that certainly does not make the license closed, since parts of the software are still open source. I suspect that such a "weird" licensing model was chosen because of the old Spectrum ROMS that are included with Next. Not sure about that though, just guessing. Feel free to elaborate the OS licensing scheme further if you like. I don't know about the hardware license though, that's another story.
81.175.155.7 (
talk) 19:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- More correct term would probably be "mixed source" as described in Proprietary software under "Examples". Here's a quote: "Software distributions considered as proprietary may in fact incorporate a "mixed source" model including both free and non-free software in the same distribution.[54] Most if not all so-called proprietary UNIX distributions are mixed source software, bundling open-source components like BIND, Sendmail, X Window System, DHCP, and others along with a purely proprietary kernel and system utilities." 81.175.155.7 ( talk) 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Done--
Efa (
talk) 11:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding licensing, it is not possible to open the operating system since it contains Sinclair and Amstrad ROM code. The copyright remains with them and SpecNext only has permission to distribute those as binaries or derived binaries as part of the ZX Spectrum Next machine alone. With the exception of the Vega, no other hardware has permission to distribute the ROMs even though the community largely does this anyway and the copyright owners, if they know about it, turn a blind eye. To fulfill legal obligations and to maintain good will toward the community, licensees have to respect the license agreement to the letter. The fpga sources are GPL3 and many of the dot commands and other system-related software independent of the operating system are open but that is up to the authors of those utilities as not everything is developed by the team of volunteers working on the ZX Next, who committed to making the core machine as open as possible. The schematics are available as well and that has already been used to make one clone machine called the N-GO. Other things not available are case design and gerbers. Aralbrec ( talk) 03:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
References to OpenCores and ZX-UNO project are necessary as their licensing on derived work require attribution-- Efa ( talk) 13:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Disclosure: I am the current fpga developer for the ZX Spectrum Next. I don't feel like I should be editing the article but corrections would be appreciated.
All vhdl sources are fully attributed in the source files. The project has nothing to do with the ZX-UNO except for possibly sharing a couple of ideas. Exactly one source file, again properly attributed, has origins from the ZX-UNO project. When the ZX Next moved from Altera fpga to Xilinx, a ZX-UNO board was used for development until the first TBBLUE board using the Xilinx fpga was produced. At that time, a member of the ZX-UNO team provided some assistance in getting the sources ported to Xilinx. This one file from the ZX-UNO project remains.
The Z80 implementation has roots in opencores which was where the original T80 source was committed. However that source has not been maintained for many years and T80 cores in various states of correction are widespread on the internet since it is the most commonly used Z80 core in fpgas and some asic solutions. The most correct version can be found in the Mist repository where fixes for bugs discovered during the ZX Next development have been implemented and integrated by one of the Mist developers. The T80 core in the ZX Next project has origins from an unknown source (but with licensing information intact and ultimately from the original T80 at opencores) with fixes applied by various ZX Next contributors and finally brought up to be nearly consistent with the Mist repository by contributions from them. Obviously the Z80 extensions are only in the ZX Next project.
There are other open source individual contributors in some modules which can be seen in the sources. These have to do with standard interfaces like PS/2, HDMI, VGA and the AY chip, which is also widely used in the open source community. (Not necessarily an exhaustive list)
Aralbrec ( talk) 03:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. To be declared open source HW, can you please link where are publicly hosted the Schematics, PCB masters, Gerbers and case 3D CAD model of Next?
-- Efa ( talk) 13:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a link to the schematics of the 2B board at https://wiki.specnext.dev/Circuit_Diagrams . The case design can never be made open because it bears the name "Sinclair" which only licensees can use. Gerbers are also not open but the schematics are sufficient to reproduce the machine as is made evident by the N-Go clone.
I think you will find that any legal Sinclair / Commodore / Atari / whatever reproduction machine cannot be entirely open in the sense you are implying. The ownership of ROM code and trademarks are retained by the holder and despite the desire to make projects as open as possible, that cannot override that ownership. What is essential to produce a zx spectrum next clone are the schematics, the fpga logic and the operating system. Two out of three of these are under open source license with the exception being the operating system which can never be made open. The operating system and system software is downloadable for zx spectrum next users but as with everything else under copyright, including original roms, the community makes use of that hoping the owners continue to allow it. Aralbrec ( talk) 23:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- At the link you indicated https://wiki.specnext.dev/Circuit_Diagrams there is a PDF file composed of shot images. If you want to reproduce it, you should re-enter everything from scratch in the electronic CAD. It is as if someone made the C language source photograph and published only that instead of the real source file. It is at least a way to make life impossible for those who want to make a derived work and exact reproduction. What do you think about publishing the real source CAD file, something like KiCad, Eagle or so, like other open source hardware do?
- The same apply to PCB. If you pubblish the gerbers only, gerbers are a shot of the PCB master, one can produce the PCB, but cannot understand or modify the PCB. To do that without reverse engineering, you need to have the PCB master source file, the one from the CAD that generated the gerber files. Again KiCAD, Eagle or so. In other words, open mean free to edit the designs.
-- Efa ( talk) 16:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Personalities and alternative FPGA cores
It may help to clarify this further. There is one ZX Next hardware design and the personalities are in fact configurations of the ZX Next hardware. The ZX Next design is able to selectively disable internal peripherals as well as generate video timing of any of the original machines 48K/128K/+3 and the Russian Pentagon. A personality is a particular configuration that makes the ZX Next behave like one of the aforementioned machines.
The ZX80 and ZX81 support come by way of the ZX80/ZX81 emulators written by Paul Farrow for the 128K Spectrum. So running zx80/zx81 software is actually done on a software emulator running on 128K compatible hardware.
Alternate cores are, of course, new hardware loaded into the fpga which is a different thing from the above. Aralbrec ( talk) 04:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Clones and Emulators
There is in fact only one clone and that is the N-GO which is very close to an issue 2B ZX Next board with a couple of improvements solving issues surrounding board noise and hdmi backpower discovered in the 2B board. It can act as a replacement of an original 2A or 2B ZX Next board and can run the same software as well as use the same fpga hardware configuration developed for the ZX Next itself.
The other "clones" listed are probably more accurately called ports or adaptations. The architecture of the target board is just as important as whether the original hardware design fits into a target board's fpga. Because of differences with the ZX Next pcb, none of these other clones are 100% reproductions of the original ZX Next. All are missing some features and some will not be cycle accurate without additional hardware added. In all cases, keeping the implementations up to date with ZX Next development is the responsibility of the original porters. Aralbrec ( talk) 04:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sincere apologies to Mitja i; it's hardly surprising, given how notable ZX Spectrum Next is at the moment, it seems we were both trying to integrate coverage from BBC News at the same time... I think it'll happen again as the project nears 400% funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanCorps ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the importance of a any product in its cultural and historical context should not be solely determined by the wideness of it's commercial distribution. In the context of retro computing this is a hugely important and influential device. If the number of units sold were to be the only criteria, then for example the article about DMC De Lorean should also be considered for deletion as it sold around the same amount of units (this is just to point out that as criteria for evaluating the importance of a product, the number of units sold is utterly mindless).
Futhermore, the second kickstarter for ZX Spectrum Next reached it's funding goal of $325000 in around five minutes and is at the moment standing at around $1000000 after less than 24 hours of the kickstarter launch. The machine base is likely to at least double within the 12 months.
The claim that information about ZX Spectrum Next is already available on the ZX Spectrum page is false. The technical details of the two machines differ greatly and for example Next specifications are not listed on ZX Spectrum page.
Claim about the lack of coverage in third party publications is also false.
81.175.155.7 ( talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Vapula ( talk) 14:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
This page is obviously a Stub for which extra information is meant to be added.
Among other, detail about the designer being the original Spectrum designer, more details about the hardware, the specific architecture (memory mapping, new video modes, ...), and so on.
As there are significant differences to a "real" ZX Spectrum (including the support for other computer cores which don't already exists but are planned), integrating these specific details in the ZX Spectrum page would make it way too "invasive".
There are also other niche product that do have their own Wikipedia page and which, if you take the same criteria, should be deleted, for example, pages about some modern expansions to ancient computer that do mostly enumerate the various versions and nothing more. At least, here, there is room for enough comments.
Maybe leave some time to the page author to fill in extra information... That computer is still very recent after all so there has been very little chance to get many informations...
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... The spectrum next is one of the most popular 8 bit computer reboots. It's article needs expanding to include relevant information. There are thousands of them with thousands to come in the second kickstarter which is going to finanace a second run. The hardware and the software is unique and it is different enough to other platforms to deserve it's own page. The vega articles on the other hand probably arent worthwhile as they didnt even get delivered for the most part. -- 82.19.4.115 ( talk) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- 108.7.187.138 ( talk) 16:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi I'm just a random Internet user but I was able to find information that I wanted to find thanks to this page. It'd be really helpful if we didn't delete it.
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because I plan to add info very soon. This version of the page, made on 24 July 2020 is significantly different than that which was deleted in March. -- Mitja i ( talk) 16:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because much interest has been shown in the media (see: 'Reception'), in Facebook polls and on ebay. Unlike the Vega and Vega+ (less than 100 machines), this machine (and clones and emulators) has a healthy user base, which is likely to extend after the second Kickstarter campaign. People are asking for information about this machine all the time, and that's where Wikipedia comes in. -- 85.148.210.102 ( talk) 18:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... this machine has a growing fan base, which we would like to serve by presenting links to reviews and some history (to be written in this wiki) -- Marc NL ( talk) 18:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Cthutu ( talk) 01:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It is contested that this device should not be on the list of official ZX Spectrum clones. However, it is the most official clone since a) the name Sinclair ZX Spectrum has been licensed from the owner of the brand (Sky) and b) designed by one of the original people who designed the original Spectrum.
I also contest that a quick Google search does not bring up reliable references from third parties. A quick google search brings up these:
https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/zx-spectrum-next-accelerated-review https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/zx-spectrum-next-gives-the-classic-console-a-new-lease-of-life-featured-kickstarter-2953375 https://vintageisthenewold.com/first-days-with-the-zx-spectrum-next-this-is-not-a-review/ https://hackaday.com/2020/02/27/the-zx-spectrum-next-arrives/
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the ZX Spectrum Next is significant for a number of reasons:
* The last machine worked on by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Dickinson before his death * The Next was considered significant enough to be reported by UK news outlets like the Metro: https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/24/celebrate-the-sinclair-zx-spectrums-35th-anniversary-with-yet-another-retro-console-6594446/amp/. * The ZX Spectrum next stands out as it is featured on many famous Retro YouTube channels like Nostalgia Nerd, Retro Recipes, Cassette Comeback, TJ Ferreira and also specific magazine coverage like this year's 8 page article in Crash Annual. Volunteers also devoted time and effort to create the Wikipedia page, they for sure though it was important enough to write about. There is a lot of interest in this specific machine, more than any other spectrum since the Spectrum +3. * The limited amount of machines is mentioned a reason but there has only been one Kickstarter batch to date. Even that one was a great success, reaching its funding in hours, denoting the significance of this machine. A second Kickstarter will be called soon, this will significantly increase the number of machines in active use. How much interest is needed to deserve an own mention? * The ZX Spectrum Next's that are sold on eBay were sold for an insane amount of money, something like this has never been seen before for a retro respin. This fact alone deserves an own article. * For consistency since other official ZX Spectrum products like the Vega and Vega+ have pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:64:7E8E:297E:2450:316A:801C ( talk) 16:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)