Breadbox vs C64c - reliability?
in [Commodore]
|
From: Ian McCall on 9 Nov 2009 04:21 Having problems with my C64 (see other thread) and am now weighing up whether to get a new one or try to fix the old. Having a C64 is, of course, all about retro nostalgia and for me that means it has to be a breadbox C64 since that's what I had as a kid. I still think of C64c's as being new... 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? Cheers, Ian
From: David Murray on 9 Nov 2009 08:24 > 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.
From: winston19842005 on 9 Nov 2009 08:35 On 11/9/09 8:24 AM, in article dd3e6137-a4d8-4653-aa7f-5a0dfed1e7c6(a)g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "David Murray" <adric22(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?
From: Peter Schepers on 9 Nov 2009 08:34 In article <dd3e6137-a4d8-4653-aa7f-5a0dfed1e7c6(a)g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, David Murray <adric22(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. I worked on a few of the 64C's and while the chip count was lower, esp the number of ram chips which made replacing the memory easier, the boards were much lower quality and just heating up a joint made the trace loose. I never had to re-run traces on the old breadbox 64, but the C model was terrible. I do agree it looked nicer. PS
From: Peter Schepers on 9 Nov 2009 08:39
In article <C71D84BC.110EA%bjjlyates(a)NOSPAMbellsouth.net>, winston19842005 <bjjlyates(a)NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote: >On 11/9/09 8:24 AM, in article >dd3e6137-a4d8-4653-aa7f-5a0dfed1e7c6(a)g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "David >Murray" <adric22(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? Not that I recall. They were creamy white instead of the black, but the external design looked the same. I bought a repairable one years ago as we were bench fixing systems and didn't want a flaky supply to damage customer equipment while we tried to save it. PS. |