If an original part is unavailable, yeah, I'd replace it with a more modern replacement. I prefer that it remains functional more than keeping it 100% original. But I would still first try to find an original part. And I'd feel somewhat disappointed, and the computer would feel a little less appealing to me, if I could only find an FPGA based replacement. I know that's bizarre, and I can't rationally explain it, so I guess I agree with you in a way.

I can get preferring to stick to "real" parts if available, even though it's not something I really care about. I draw arbitrary lines too, I just generally feel it's worth being pragmatic about them if the alternative is losing functionality, which it sounds like you are too.

No it is not bizarre, it is normal and typical feeling in retro community. Check prices on Apple-I or NOS analog components. I'd say it is quite unusual to be indifferent to the period accuracy among those who are interested retro tech.

I think it must be bizarre for why people want original artwork, and do not value replicas. You folks, _bizarrely_ fail to understand what is _historical value _ and what is _period-correct_ _substitute_.

First of all neither FPGA's nor MCU are not going to "react the same way to electric signals", cause contrary to what many think, FPGA's are not tabula rasa you can put any digital design to - there are limitations to what can be synthesized. Secondly, 6526 to 8251 is not only period correct, but also a change made by manufacturer themselves, therefore has almost zero historical impact.

There is no way a new design, with almost everything replaced by FPGA's can be called Commodore 64, as much as a Ford-T with a brushless electric motor and lithium baterries can be called Ford-T. You can call it replica, and sell it to those who to pretend they own a historical car, but for everyone who truly understand value of old and antique, that would be laughable.

> I think it must be bizarre for why people want original artwork, and do not value replicas. You folks, _bizarrely_ fail to understand what is _historical value _ and what is _period-correct_ _substitute_.

No, I understand it, but yes, I think it is absolutely bizarre. Both can be true at the same time. To me the value in an original over a replica is purely whether or not a bunch of purists are willing to pay more for the original, which I find both bizarre and hilarious. To me the original has no additional value over the resale value - if anything it's value may often be lower if I suspect its age means a higher risk of having to replace components down the line. So, sure, if I were to buy one for the sake of potential financial value I'd value original, working parts because I know some proportion of others care. But if I bought one to use and found some parts had been replaced, I wouldn't stop calling it a Commodore 64 whether or not the replacement parts were original.

But in this case, the price for a Commodore 64 is still low; not even purists are willing to pay much for them.

> First of all neither FPGA's nor MCU are not going to "react the same way to electric signals", cause contrary to what many think, FPGA's are not tabula rasa you can put any digital design to - there are limitations to what can be synthesized. Secondly, 6526 to 8251 is not only period correct, but also a change made by manufacturer themselves, therefore has almost zero historical impact.

For the fidelity required for a 6526, it very much is reacting close enough or it wouldn't work as a drop-in replacement. I don't care if there's some sort of deviation that is small enough that it has no relevance to it's correct functioning in the real hardware. As for "period correct", I couldn't give the tiniest little shit, as the long as it works, as unlike the SID or VIC, there's no "works correctly but the output is different enough to affect my enjoyment of the machine".

> There is no way a new design, with almost everything replaced by FPGA's can be called Commodore 64, as much as a Ford-T with a brushless electric motor and lithium baterries can be called Ford-T. You can call it replica, and sell it to those who to pretend they own a historical car, but for everyone who truly understand value of old and antique, that would be laughable.

Of course there is every way in which something with everything replaced can be called a Commodore 64: All it takes is people choosing to do so. For me, whether or not I'd call it a Commodore 64 would come down to a subjective assessment of how similar it is. If you changed the physical appearance, that'd be a no for me, but replacing a part that doesn't affect the way the machine works? Sure. I wouldn't try to pass it off as an original, but I also wouldn't care one bit that it's not original, because I don't have any interest in a "historical artefact" but in the nostalgia of being able to use something which feels like the original.

I don't care about signalling anything to anyone. I grew up with a Commodore 64, and to me the value on a Commodore 64 is primarily nostalgia.

A connection to history is irrelevant to me. Something which triggers my nostalgia and which I enjoy using is not, and that does not require perfect accuracy (if anything, nostalgia often favours avoiding perfect accuracy on favour of avoiding nuisances)

I certainly do have no interest in "investing", no, because investment or history is not the point to me.

If I had the choice between an electric Ford T and an authentic one, I'd certainly prefer the electric one. That's be an interesting curiosity - Ford worked on one which was never launched, and his wife drove an electric car -, while an original one would be something I'd have no interest in outside a museum.

Then you should get worked up so much, about not calling it C64. You should be fine then it is not Commodore 64, but just a gimmick that has nostalgic value for you, but not in any way actual Commodore 64 (which it clearly is not).

BTW, good luck reselling your model T as actual model T LOL.

I don't care what you call it, but to me it's still a Commodore 64, and not a gimmick, and I could just as well tell you not to get so worked up over someone else not caring about your purist insistence it is not.

Reselling an actual model T with an electric motor as an actual mode T with an electric motor would work just fine. Some would lose interest because it's been changed, some would find it more attractive. For my part, I'd find it far more interesting and be willing to pay more for something esoteric like that.

I not being worked up about your opinion, you are entitled to. What I am saying that it should not be advertised as a real thing, as a brand new C64. As simple as that.