Breadbox vs C64c - reliability?
Ian McCall
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
David Murray
> 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.
winston19842005
dd3e6137-a4d8-4653...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "David
Murray" <adr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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?
Peter Schepers
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
Peter Schepers
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.
Clocky
Apart from RAM chips failing and the odd 8500 CPU dying the C64C's are
pretty reliable. An added bonus is that the C64C only has two RAM chips so
replacing them with sockets and new DRAMs is pretty easy. Some of the main
reasons that the C64C is more reliable IMO is the lower chip count and the
PLA running much cooler and also SID running at a lower voltage.
Jim Brain
> 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
Just to clarify (since this stuff gets archived):
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
Rudolf Harras
>Given the choice, I'd
>rather use a 64c than a breadbox any day.
I'd not really prefer any C64/128 which has the new SID. Nearly all
games were compatible with the old SID, so with the new one you might
have different sounds.
David Murray
> games were compatible with the old SID, so with the new one you might
> have different sounds.
You know, the sad part is that during the 80's I had several different
64 variants ranging from the original breadbox to the 128D and my
friends also had several variants. None of us ever even knew there
was anything different with the SID chip at that time. I didn't learn
about it until well after the Commodore era had passed and everyone
moved on to PCs. Although by using an emulator and switching between
different versions, I can tell some difference audibly, it is
definitely not enough that I ever noticed back then and might still
not notice today if people didn't talk about it.
Rudolf Harras
>Although by using an emulator and switching between
>different versions, I can tell some difference audibly, it is
>definitely not enough that I ever noticed back then and might still
>not notice today if people didn't talk about it.
Then you play the wrong games! ;)
Try Space Taxi, Kennedy Approach, any other game with digitized sounds,
or listen to the Intro of Impossible Mission II and it will definately
sound better on the old SID.
I have a C128DCR with the new SID and did a resistor to it so that digi
sounds play louder again in most games.
David Murray
> Try Space Taxi, Kennedy Approach, any other game with digitized sounds,
> or listen to the Intro of Impossible Mission II and it will definately
> sound better on the old SID.
I admit I've never actually played any of those games. However, I
played Impossible Mission I and Ghostbusters all the time and they
were fine. I also remember a handful of other games, programs, and
demos that used digitized sounds and had no problems with any of those
either.
Rudolf Harras
Well you still hear the digisound but it's far too quiet compared to the
rest of the sound. Just compare IM1 and Ghostbasters on both computers.
Newer Demos maybe were able to detect the correct sound chip but I don't
know of any game that asks you which SID to use.
Hg
Not a case of detecting the sound chip, though Beach Head II had a courteous
option of allowing filter adjustment. Not sure how it worked in practice.
At the time, I wondered why more games didn't have a similar option to
minimise the variable filter levels.
Rudolf Harras
>Not a case of detecting the sound chip, though Beach Head II had a courteous
>option of allowing filter adjustment. Not sure how it worked in practice.
I just remember one case of a SID editor in the C128 where you could
select the SID.
Is there any way detecting it automatically at all?
bluebirdpod
>
> 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
Nick @ 64HDD
> 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
Rudolf Harras
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.
ramswell
wrote:
> On 11/9/09 8:24 AM, in article
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually the 64C PSU's were WORSE in some cases from my experience.
Charles
ramswell
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
ramswell
ding ding ding!
Lololol
Charles