27 Dec
2015
27 Dec
'15
5:47 a.m.
Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
From PC-World
"
The new Commodore 64 <http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_C64.aspx> is,
like the old 64, an entire system inside a (rather thick) keyboard. The
old Commodore 64
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/195094/ccs64_turns_your_pc_into_a_commodore_64.html>
originally cost $595 and featured an MOS Technology 6510
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_6510> microprocessor, an
impressive 64KB of RAM, and VIC-II
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_VIC-II> graphics that
supported a screen resolution of 320 by 200 pixels.
The new system, which also starts at $595, is a little more modern: it's
got a Dual Core 525 Atom processor, an Nvidia Ion2 graphics chipset, 2GB
of RAM (upgradeable to 4GB), a 160GB hard drive, and built-in Wi-Fi. On
the left side of the keyboard there's a slot or tray-load DVD
(upgradeable to Blu-ray), and on the right side there's a multi-format
card reader, along with a USB 2.0 port. The rear features four
additional USB 2.0 ports; mouse and keyboard PS/2 ports; DVI, VGA, and
HDMI ports; Ethernet; and support for 6-channel HD audio. It runs Linux,
but you can install Windows if you like.
Pretty cool for a computer that looks like it's from the 80's. Of
course, if you just want the look--and you want to throw your own stuff
inside--you can also order the "Barebones" package on the new Commodore
64 Website. The Barebones package costs $250 and gets you the case,
chassis, keyboard, and multi-format card reader with USB 2.0 port. On
the other hand, if you'd like to go all out, there's also an $895
"Ultimate" package that includes a Blu-ray drive and a 1TB hard drive.
The new Commodore 64 begins shipping at the end of this month, but you
can order yours now
<http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_C64Select.aspx>--go get your BASIC
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC> on! "
I myself am going to buy one just for a collector sake. The new
Commodore phone seemes to be selling like hotcakes from the research I
have done on it. There is also a switch in the back to boot the original
C-64 I think It will be a fun computer to 0wn.
What are your thoughts I will be wait a year or so because 545.00 is a
bit much for me to spend on it but anyway Like I said what are your
thoughts on it Ill post a youtube link below with the newC-64 review...
Video Link here -------> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Lo9Q0RiX0
27 Dec
27 Dec
12:10 p.m.
Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
No (and not just because I am (mainly) a Commodore enthusiast).
To me a computer is not defined by what it looks like. It is defined
by the electronics, the firmware, etc. This is not even close to a C64,
or in fact to any classic computer. It has no interest to me whatsoever.
-tony
12:41 p.m.
Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
No (and
not just because I am (mainly) a Commodore enthusiast).
"new" Commodore 64??!?
although, I do have to admit that Jeri Ellsowrth's new Commodore 64 (built
into joystick) was tempting.
I like her cup-holder,
and her flip-card mechanical digital wristwatch.
I lke her.
2:16 p.m.
Who doesn't? Beyond being so clever, shhe is just beautiful! <3 <3 <3
Enviado do meu Tele-Movel
Em 27/12/2015 15:41, "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com> escreveu:
Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
No (and not just because I am (mainly) a
Commodore enthusiast).
"new" Commodore 64??!?
although, I do have to admit that Jeri Ellsowrth's new Commodore 64 (built
into joystick) was tempting.
I like her cup-holder,
and her flip-card mechanical digital wristwatch.
I lke her.
12:22 p.m.
The manufacturer links are all 404 and the video was from 2011.
--
Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net>
http://www.nf6x.net/
5:07 p.m.
Yeah, Commodore USA folded years ago, far as I can tell.
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Mark J. Blair <nf6x at nf6x.net> wrote:
The manufacturer links are all 404 and the video was
from 2011.
--
Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net>
http://www.nf6x.net/
2:42 p.m.
Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
The new system, which also starts at $595, is a little
more modern:
it's got a Dual Core 525 Atom processor, an Nvidia Ion2 graphics
chipset, 2GB of RAM (upgradeable to 4GB), a 160GB hard drive, and
built-in Wi-Fi. [...]
No, I would not buy this. It's not a "new Commodore 64"; it's a peecee
in a C=64ish case.
I would also take a good deal of convincing to see it as on-topic for
this list, so I'm not going into it further here.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
28 Dec
28 Dec
11:13 a.m.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015, Mike wrote:
Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
No. The company folded years ago after the founder and driving force
behind the whole mess, died.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
1:56 p.m.
On 2015-12-28 12:13 PM, geneb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015, Mike wrote:
The man who founded Commodore, Jack Tramiel resigned from the company in
1984, Commodore went on for another 10 years before declaring bankruptcy
in 1994. Tramiel died of heart failure in 2012.
Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
No. The company folded years ago after the founder and driving force
behind the whole mess, died.
g.
2 p.m.
On 12/28/2015 12:56 PM, Paul Berger wrote:
On 2015-12-28 12:13 PM, geneb wrote:
He meant the founder
of Commodore USA (Barry Altman)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_USA
--
Jim Brain
brain at jbrain.com
www.jbrain.com
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015, Mike wrote:
The man who founded Commodore, Jack Tramiel resigned from the company
in 1984, Commodore went on for another 10 years before declaring
bankruptcy in 1994. Tramiel died of heart failure in 2012. Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
No. The company folded years ago after the founder and driving force
behind the whole mess, died.
g.
3:25 p.m.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015, Paul Berger wrote:
On 2015-12-28 12:13 PM, geneb wrote:
I'm well aware of that (as are most if not all Commodore nerds). I was
referring to the guy that stood up Commodore USA to build PCs in a similar
form factor to the original breadbox C-64. He died unexpectedly and the
company folded. It would have likely done so anyway, but Barry Altman's
untimely death hastened it.
Don't try to teach your grandmother how to steal sheep.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015, Mike wrote:
The man who founded Commodore, Jack Tramiel resigned from the company in
1984, Commodore went on for another 10 years before declaring bankruptcy in
1994. Tramiel died of heart failure in 2012. Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
No. The company folded years ago after the founder and driving force
behind the whole mess, died.
g.
1 Jan
1 Jan
1:50 a.m.
On 12/28/2015 03:25 PM, geneb wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015, Paul Berger wrote:
Thank you G for the info that guy was quite young. . . So now I guess
Ill buy the SD card addon but the only problem is that I have seen you
can only use a 2 gig SD card in them is that right?
On 2015-12-28 12:13 PM, geneb wrote:
I'm well aware of that (as are most if not all Commodore nerds). I
was referring to the guy that stood up Commodore USA to build PCs in a
similar form factor to the original breadbox C-64. He died
unexpectedly and the company folded. It would have likely done so
anyway, but Barry Altman's untimely death hastened it.
Don't try to teach your grandmother how to steal sheep.
g.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015, Mike wrote:
The man who founded Commodore, Jack Tramiel resigned from the company
in 1984, Commodore went on for another 10 years before declaring
bankruptcy in 1994. Tramiel died of heart failure in 2012. Would you buy the new Commodore 64 ? ? ?
No. The company folded years ago after the founder and driving
force behind the whole mess, died.
g.
2:03 p.m.
On 1/1/2016 12:50 AM, Mike wrote:
Thank you G for the info that guy was quite young. . .
So now I guess
Ill buy the SD card addon but the only problem is that I have seen you
can only use a 2 gig SD card in them is that right?
Can you clarify? I'm not
aware of a SD card add-on for the C64 that can
only do 2GB SD cards.
Jim
--
Jim Brain
brain at jbrain.com
www.jbrain.com
2:54 p.m.
On 01/01/2016 11:03 AM, Jim Brain wrote:
On 1/1/2016 12:50 AM, Mike wrote:
I've seen this on digicams with CF cards. 2GB is the "official" limit
to FAT16 filesystems. However, XP and later can format 4GB cards to
FAT16 as well--and it seems to work very well with my older cameras,
which do not understand FAT32.
--Chuck
Thank you G for the info that guy was quite
young. . . So now I
guess Ill buy the SD card addon but the only problem is that I have
seen you can only use a 2 gig SD card in them is that right?
Can you clarify?
I'm not aware of a SD card add-on for the C64 that
can only do 2GB SD cards.
3:25 p.m.
On 1/1/2016 1:54 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 01/01/2016 11:03 AM, Jim Brain wrote:
I understand that, but the OP was talking about a SD card add-on (I
assume for the 64) that only accepts 2GB cards. AFAIK, all of them
accept FAT32 now. Since I sell one of the variants, and I have snarky
people ask me how big a SD card mine will handle, I have here a 64 with
a 128GB SD-card equipped drive :-). Works fine, though the root dir
listing takes a LOOONG time :-)
(Yes, the card came formatted as exFAT, which is not supported. Luckily,
it is trivial to format a SD card as FAT32 no matter the size)
Jim
On 1/1/2016 12:50 AM, Mike wrote:
I've seen this on digicams with CF cards. 2GB is the "official" limit
to FAT16 filesystems. However, XP and later can format 4GB cards to
FAT16 as well--and it seems to work very well with my older cameras,
which do not understand FAT32.
--Chuck
Thank you G for the info that guy was quite
young. . . So now I
guess Ill buy the SD card addon but the only problem is that I have
seen you can only use a 2 gig SD card in them is that right?
Can you clarify?
I'm not aware of a SD card add-on for the C64 that
can only do 2GB SD cards.
3:50 p.m.
On 01/01/2016 12:25 PM, Jim Brain wrote:
I understand that, but the OP was talking about a SD
card add-on (I
assume for the 64) that only accepts 2GB cards. AFAIK, all of them
accept FAT32 now. Since I sell one of the variants, and I have
snarky people ask me how big a SD card mine will handle, I have here
a 64 with a 128GB SD-card equipped drive :-). Works fine, though the
root dir listing takes a LOOONG time :-)
Oh, okay--based on experience with older gear, I was curious if it was a
FAT16/32 issue.
If that 128GB SD card is such a bother, I'll trade a 2MB CF card for
it--it shouldn't take very long for a directory listing... :)
--Chuck
3:58 p.m.
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, Chuck Guzis wrote:
If that 128GB SD card is such a bother, I'll trade
a 2MB CF card for it--it
shouldn't take very long for a directory listing... :)
I'll raise that 2MB offer to a 2GB card! (is Micro-SD + adapter OK?)
When it seemed likely that 2G would be going away, I stocked up on some
for the few devices that relally couldn't handle >31 bit memory address.
3:36 p.m.
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I've seen this on digicams with CF cards. 2GB is
the "official" limit to
FAT16 filesystems. However, XP and later can format 4GB cards to FAT16 as
well--and it seems to work very well with my older cameras, which do not
understand FAT32.
While, at the time, 2G seemed "infinite", even then, I was amused at the
2G limitation being due to the use of a SIGNED 32 bit number. The size
can be anywhere from -2147483648 to 2147483647.
By switching to an UNSIGNED 32, NT and the like made the limit 4G.
I had a few hard drives that were getting crowded, so I stomped on
DIRectory entries on some floppies and made some files with negative file
sizes. I confirmed empirically that copying a file with a negative size
to the drive did NOT increase free space.
3:52 p.m.
On 1/1/2016 2:36 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I think it was actually the sectors per cluster number, which was -64 to
63, I believe and then got changed to 0-128, meaning cluster sizes of
128 512-byte sectors, or 64K clusters
I know folks will hate on the format, but I am extremely impressed with
the FAT format. To go all the way from floppies to 4TB drives is
impressive.
Jim
--
Jim Brain
brain at jbrain.com
www.jbrain.com
I've seen this on digicams with CF cards. 2GB
is the "official" limit
to FAT16 filesystems. However, XP and later can format 4GB cards to
FAT16 as well--and it seems to work very well with my older cameras,
which do not understand FAT32.
While, at the time, 2G seemed "infinite", even then, I was amused at
the 2G limitation being due to the use of a SIGNED 32 bit number. The
size can be anywhere from -2147483648 to 2147483647.
By switching to an UNSIGNED 32, NT and the like made the limit 4G.
4:28 p.m.
> While, at the time, 2G seemed
"infinite", even then, I was amused at the 2G
> limitation being due to the use of a SIGNED 32 bit number. The size can be
> anywhere from -2147483648 to 2147483647.
> By switching to an UNSIGNED 32, NT and the like made the limit 4G.
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, Jim Brain wrote:
I think it was actually the sectors per cluster
number, which was -64 to 63,
I believe and then got changed to 0-128, meaning cluster sizes of 128
512-byte sectors, or 64K clusters
Quite likely more than one place with limits. It seems likely.
There was probably a tendency to treat all numbers as signed.
I do know that the 32 bit file size field in the DIRectory entries was
processed by some DOS operations, including DIR as a signed number.
Replacing those four bytes with FF FF FF FF would result in a reported
file size of -1 bytes. Replacing it with 00 00 00 80 (LSB first) gave a
reported file size of -2147483648
I know folks will hate on the format, but I am
extremely impressed with the
FAT format. To go all the way from floppies to 4TB drives is impressive.
I think that it is just fine. I prefer it over a list of blocks, that
might result in needing multiple directory entries, such as CP/M or
TRS-DOS. I much prefer it over the need for contiguous space
(UCSD p-system)
Even the original Macintosh disk format was essentially the same
algorithms as MS-DOS FAT.
Besides MS-DOS, Microsoft made some "Stand-Alone BASIC" designs that used
the same idea of DIRectory and separate linked list. Albeit at seek
center instead of track 0. Radio-Shack Color Computer, NEC, Okidata,
etc. I've even seen a disk from a Russian computer with that type of
format.
Some of the histories of MS-DOS say that Tim Paterson, in building his
QDOOS ("Quick and Dirty OS") place-holder while waiting for CP/M-86, got
the idea for FAT from seeing Microsoft Stand-Alone BASIC "for NCR" at
Microsoft's West Coast Computer Faire booth. I was at that show, and saw
NEC machines with it, but I've never seen an NCR Stand-Alone BASIC - did
the histories goof?
3:57 p.m.
On 01/01/2016 12:36 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
While, at the time, 2G seemed "infinite",
even then, I was amused at
the 2G limitation being due to the use of a SIGNED 32 bit number.
The size can be anywhere from -2147483648 to 2147483647. By switching
to an UNSIGNED 32, NT and the like made the limit 4G.
I had a few hard drives that were getting crowded, so I stomped on
DIRectory entries on some floppies and made some files with negative
file sizes. I confirmed empirically that copying a file with a
negative size to the drive did NOT increase free space.
I was under the impression that, in FAT16, 2GB was still the limit to
*file* size, but a 4GB *volume* size was okay. It, as far as I know,
isn't so much a limitation on 32-bit numbers, but rather the combination
of the FAT and cluster sizes that dooms it.
What's funny is that in the old pre MS-DOS 3.3 days, one of the ways to
trick DOS into supporting larger volumes was to increase the (apparent)
sector size with code to block up 512 byte sectors into larger (1024,
2048, etc.) apparent ones--and a few DOS patches.
--Chuck
4:35 p.m.
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, Chuck Guzis wrote:
What's funny is that in the old pre MS-DOS 3.3
days, one of the ways to trick
DOS into supporting larger volumes was to increase the (apparent) sector size
with code to block up 512 byte sectors into larger (1024, 2048, etc.)
apparent ones--and a few DOS patches.
Another way, starting with PC/MS-DOS 3.10 was using MSCDEX, or equivalent.
I think that there used to be some very strange patches around to let a
hard drive impersonate a CD-ROM.
A CD-ROM (2/3 G) was not a local drive to the OS! It was presented as
being a "drive-like" object on a network.
That is a VERY LOCAL area network.
4:59 p.m.
On 01/01/2016 01:35 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Another way, starting with PC/MS-DOS 3.10 was using
MSCDEX, or
equivalent. I think that there used to be some very strange patches
around to let a hard drive impersonate a CD-ROM. A CD-ROM (2/3 G) was
not a local drive to the OS! It was presented as being a
"drive-like" object on a network. That is a VERY LOCAL area network.
It really was amazing how quickly hard drive sizes overran system
vendors' expectations. You'd think that system software authors would
anticipate very large drives right from the start. But stumbling along
with 16MB, then 32MB drive size limits just illustrates how
backward-thinking folks were. CP/M 2.2 had, what, an 8MB hard drive
limit initially? That was backward even for 1980.
And then you get a surprise every once in awhile. I was incredulous
that one of my "devices" had a limit of 2GB on a CF drive, but the thing
actually understood a DOS partition table. So you could take a 4GB or
more drive, partition off the first 2GB and you're still gold. Can't
swap partitions--the thing just takes the first one in the table, but
still pretty surprising.
--Chuck
2 Jan
2 Jan
1:19 a.m.
On 01/01/2016 01:35 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Another way, starting with PC/MS-DOS 3.10 was using
MSCDEX, or
equivalent. I think that there used to be some very strange patches
around to let a hard drive impersonate a CD-ROM. A CD-ROM (2/3 G) was
not a local drive to the OS! It was presented as being a
"drive-like" object on a network. That is a VERY LOCAL area network.
Yup, DOS networking "hooks". The interesting thing is that DOS doesn't
deal with allocation or nasty things like that--all of the file access
is essentially in the network interface. I did a couple of those
drivers for some really strange (sector != multiple of 256) alien
filesystems.
--Chuck
3105
days inactive
3111
days old
23 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
alexandre.tabajara＠gmail.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
brain＠jbrain.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
drlegendre＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
nf6x＠nf6x.net -
phb.hfx＠gmail.com -
tulsamike3434＠gmail.com