

Commodore to relaunch 21st century version of C64 - nhebb
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=135891

======
atldev
I see this story about every 3 years. For a few seconds I think "wouldn't that
be awesome." Then I realize that a modern C64 (or Amiga) will never be as good
as my childhood memories. In fact, modernizing it would probably destroy it
for me. Let me keep the memories of notching 5.25"s, BBSs, and LOAD "*",8,1

~~~
rbanffy
You can always use VICE.

Or MESS, but I never quite got that one to work.

Still, a modern PC in a C64-like box would be sweet. It's like a casemod
without sacrificing a real C64.

We cannot preserve those machines forever - they'll end up breaking. This may
be an economically viable way to preserve the experience of using a C64, as
well as a source of mechanically compatible parts.

The joysticks of my Atari XE were manufactured 20 years after the computer.

------
hugh3
This could use a helluva lot more information on what the product will
actually be. A clone of the original C64? A new-style Windows box in a
keyboard form factor? A machine with a Commodore-branded special-purpose
Linux-based OS?

~~~
code_duck
I'd heard something about this a couple months back, but don't recall what it
was all about. I think your latter guess is closer than the former.

Oh, here we go:
[http://www.pcworld.com/article/191896/commodore_64_awakes_fr...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/191896/commodore_64_awakes_from_slumber_with_makeover.html)

------
jvdh
Progress really smacked me in the face when I bought a C64 emulator a couple
of years ago.

What used to require a large keyboard with extra room for the computer, a
large diskdrive, an expansion slot and a drawer full of floppies now
completely fits into the size of one of those original joysticks. You hook up
the joystick directly to the TV and it contains about 100 games.

~~~
Luyt
I have one of those too. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C64_Direct-to-TV> . You
can even solder a PS2 keyboard connector to it and hook up a keyboard, then
use it as a C64 and do a POKE 53280,0 or write a basic program ;-)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ellsworth> designed it. An interesting talk
by her is at
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1053309060448851979...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1053309060448851979#)
in which she also tells about how she got interested in electronics.

------
motters
Just rebranding or remarketing something isn't the same as actual innovation.
The home computers of the 1980s, such as the C64, were fun in part because
they represented something genuinely new and innovative in technology. Taking
some PC hardware and slapping a Commodore sticker onto it isn't quite the
same.

~~~
rbanffy
In 1982, you could build a computer with 4-bit color at 320x200 graphics, a 3
voice synthesizer, without any software to run on it at the right price and
have a huge hit.

You just can't do it now. If you build a computer that uses anything but an
x86 processor, you won't be able to sell it to people who like Windows. You
could go for 1080p screens, but many high-end home PCs surpass that. You could
run a complete Linux desktop, but that would face some user resistance.

It kills me but there seems to be no space for innovation in the desktop PC
market.

~~~
anigbrowl
Perhaps it's that barriers to entry on the net are so high. I think you could
usefully sell a $30 computer (simple to program, cheap to make, flexible
enough to be useful) in places like Africa etc to people who could not afford
to have one otherwise but even a basic web browsing experience needs a lot of
CPU cycles nowadays. Of course there are text-based browsers, but you might as
well go with the $100 price point like OLPC and just look for subsidies. I
have heard nothing about how programmable those are, for young hackers in poor
countries, I hope there's access to python, js, or similar.

Closer to home, I would have quite liked to use the Playstation 3 as a
computer, to the point that I learned quite a lot about the Cell chip inside
it and started thinking about Linux distros again. But Sony made it non-
expandable (boo), with no access to the GPU (WTF), were late with driver
support (argh) and finally ditched the OS loader option entirely. They briefly
hinted at giving away their 3d modeling engine but changed their minds about
that too.

Now, I know they recoup the hardware development costs from royalties on the
games and have an investment to protect, but with a little more patience,
support, and faith in their own engineering instincts they would have been
rewarded with PS3s popping up up at every science fair. People are nostalgic
about their 80s computers out of all proportion to their quality because they
were easy to do things with if you wanted.

I do think there's still room for lightweight and hackable products. One which
missed the mark by going down the x86 route and overloading price and spec was
the eee keyboard PC ([http://www.tomshardware.com/news/eee-eee-keyboard-eee-
pc-wir...](http://www.tomshardware.com/news/eee-eee-keyboard-eee-pc-wireless-
hdmi-atom,10416.html)). Imagine if it had been $99-200 and run android or so!

~~~
rbanffy
> I have heard nothing about how programmable those are

They are excellent. They come with a Red Hat OS, with Python, Smalltalk and
lots of goodies.

> But Sony made it non-expandable (boo)

They needed to do it because they sell (sold) it at a loss. They want you to
buy games, not to browse the web or crunch numbers. I would pay for an
expandable, non-subsidized PS3 (extra geek points if they resurrect the News
name). I bet it wouldn't be that expensive now. And I wouldn't ask for PS3
compatibility.

~~~
anigbrowl
If you can make a credible application (eg academic or sw publishing
involvement) to <http://develop.scee.net/> my understanding is that a test
unit + SDK is under $2k. It won't play commercially available games/DVDs/blu-
rays or dump the hypervisor, but I doubt that's why you want it. Twice the
super-fast RAM (or maybe expansion slots for same), RSX access & Linux-
compatibility. As it seems quite secure there is a limited trade in used
units, which I've seen for under $1000.

If you can live without access to the graphics core, older Linux-compatible
models can be had cheap on eBay, like $3-400. Sadly the Cell doesn't seem to
have much future outside of industrial-scale computing.

------
cmer
64 as in 64 bit I guess? ;-)

~~~
code_duck
Yes, actually. From the article I linked to above: "The computer will be an
all-in-one keyboard, with Intel's 64-bit quad-core microprocessors and 3D
graphics capabilities, according to the site."

~~~
listic
Not quad core. Dual-core Intel Atom D525 1.83 GHz with GMA 3150 GPU on-chip
integrated graphics.

GameSpy article on new C64:
<http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/111/1116901p1.html>

Intel's CPU specs:
[http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=49490&processor=D52...](http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=49490&processor=D525&spec-
codes=SLBXC)

Wikipedia's list of Intel Atom CPUs:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocess...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocessors)

~~~
code_duck
That makes more sense! A quad core sounded a bit excessive for this sort of
system. That article is from a few months after the one I linked to, so I
assume Commodore had clarified the specs a bit more by then. This all still
seems quite vague, though.

