Prev: Phantom drive?
Next: Jack Tramiel's organization of manufacturing
From: Nick on 15 Nov 2009 09:12
> Looking around though, I notice that there's very few breadboxes on
> offer but plenty (relatively) of C64c machines. Am curious - is that a
> reflection of reliability, or is it just co-incidence? Were the newer
> designs significantly better?

Based on my sampling:
79 Breadbox C64's ==> 67% working
54 C64c's ==> 80% working
14 C128 ==> 86% working
12 C128D(CR) ==> 92% working

The above is based on external appearances of the C64 not internals,
as have seen newer short boards also fitted to the breadboxes, and
vice versa. So the newer technology would appear to be more reliable.
Most C64 failures are
"black screen" jobs. Also, doesn't include those I've accidently
zapped or repaired - status is as they came to me over the years...

However, I would agree with the sentiment that it is dodgie PSUs that
can take a C64. Had repeat failures on both variants in the late 80's
due to the one PSU (stopped once the PSU was replaced).

My personal machine is old board (one of the B? series) with the new
casing (requires some mods to the keyboard support brackets) or one of
the Aussie made low profile cases that resembled the C64c case but
took the older boards.

Hope this helps,
Nick
From: Rudolf Harras on 15 Nov 2009 15:34
Nick @ 64HDD schrieb:

Hi! Here my experience:

>Based on my sampling:
>79 Breadbox C64's ==> 67% working

Had one which had the "black screen" one day.

>14 C128 ==> 86% working

Mine still working. I had to exchange one chip one time because sprits
were corrupted as long es the chip was not warm enough.

I forgot the number of the chip I replaced but I think it was some
controller chip which appears two times in the C128.

>12 C128D(CR) ==> 92% working

Mine still working but it has no red color in the 80 column mode. The
cable is ok.


Also one of the two C128s had the problem that the randomizer in the
game "Oerm" did not work, I had always the same obstacles. :-D
AFAIR it was the same bug that was responsible that the datasette port
did not work. I think it was just a fuse.
From: ramswell on 16 Nov 2009 21:25
On Nov 9, 5:35 am, winston19842005 <bjjlya...(a)NOSPAMbellsouth.net>
wrote:
> On 11/9/09 8:24 AM, in article
> dd3e6137-a4d8-4653-aa7f-5a0dfed1e...(a)g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "David
>
>
>
>
>
> Murray" <adri...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> offer but plenty (relatively) of C64c machines. Am curious - is that a
> >> reflection of reliability, or is it just co-incidence? Were the newer
> >> designs significantly better?
>
> > Well, I had both as a kid because my C64 broke and my parents bought
> > us a new one and it was a 64c.   I always liked the styling better and
> > I could type more comfortably on the 64c.   Given the choice, I'd
> > rather use a 64c than a breadbox any day.   In fact, I currently own
> > both kinds but when I get one out and play with it, it is almost
> > always the 64c.
>
> > As for reliability.  I'm not sure.  I've seen plenty of both kinds
> > die.  But I've always been told that Commodore made the 64c more
> > reliable by going to lower-voltage on some chips, as well as moving to
> > CMOS instead of MOS chips which were supposed to run cooler.  As to
> > whether anyone has proven which machine was more reliable in the end,
> > I don't know.
>
> What I didn't understand was how Commodore got away with those crappy power
> supplies that took the computers out.
> Did the 64c have a better supply?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually the 64C PSU's were WORSE in some cases from my experience.

Charles
From: ramswell on 16 Nov 2009 21:31
On Nov 12, 2:19 pm, bluebirdpod <bluebird...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:40 am, Jim Brain <br...(a)jbrain.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Commodore did not move any of it's specialty ICs to CMOS in the 64C
> > design.  I do believe the 85XX series used the newer HMOS-II process,
> > but the underlying technology was still NMOS.
>
> > The lower voltage (and the chip count reduction, as others have noted)
> > probably made the difference.
>
> > Jim
>
> Well Commodore put almost everything into every style case, and
> keyboard color, Just because it is the new style
> case does not mean it is the 64C h-mos style, there are sightings of
> old boards in new style cases, and what not,
> when the serial numbers hit 130000X? then the new style small board
> appeared, and there are two different layouts of
> the small board, but Prior serials are the large board with 2 ram
> chips, this is my personal preference as the most compatible board, as
> it used the 6851R4AR chip, and R9 of the Vic2. It allowed sampled
> sounds, as the 8581 does not.
> and there are other compatibilities with the small board, They tried
> there best but it is not as compatible.
>
> -BBP


TRUE, as I have had 3 or 4 experiences where when opening up a 64C
Case, I've founf the "newer sid" 65814RAR chip in it on the "older"
green style board. Seem to function fine.....

Charles
From: ramswell on 16 Nov 2009 21:33
On Nov 15, 6:12 am, "Nick @ 64HDD" <i...(a)64hdd.com> wrote:
> > Looking around though, I notice that there's very few breadboxes on
> > offer but plenty (relatively) of C64c machines. Am curious - is that a
> > reflection of reliability, or is it just co-incidence? Were the newer
> > designs significantly better?
>
> Based on my sampling:
> 79 Breadbox C64's ==> 67% working
> 54 C64c's              ==> 80% working
> 14 C128                ==> 86% working
> 12 C128D(CR)       ==> 92% working
>
> The above is based on external appearances of the C64 not internals,
> as have seen newer short boards also fitted to the breadboxes, and
> vice versa. So the newer technology would appear to be more reliable.
> Most C64 failures are
> "black screen" jobs. Also, doesn't include those I've accidently
> zapped or repaired - status is as they came to me over the years...
>
> However, I would agree with the sentiment that it is dodgie PSUs that
> can take a C64. Had repeat failures on both variants in the late 80's
> due to the one PSU (stopped once the PSU was replaced).
>
> My personal machine is old board (one of the B? series) with the new
> casing (requires some mods to the keyboard support brackets) or one of
> the Aussie made low profile cases that resembled the C64c case but
> took the older boards.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Nick

ding ding ding!

Lololol

Charles
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Phantom drive?
Next: Jack Tramiel's organization of manufacturing