Commodore USA Resurrecting C64 Using Modern ULPC Hardware

[Wile E]

but then noobs are gonna install windows on it and ruin the entire experience.

still not easily unfortunately.

So, how exactly, would Windows be the OS that ruins the experience? lol.

Linux has gone downhill in the past couple of years. It's even less compatible and stable than Win 7, and is even more bloated with some distros. I quit using it last year sometime.

Now, back on topic: I want one of these. I hope they are cheap.

 

[Easy Rhino]

So, how exactly, would Windows be the OS that ruins the experience? lol.

Linux has gone downhill in the past couple of years. It's even less compatible and stable than Win 7, and is even more bloated with some distros. I quit using it last year sometime.

Now, back on topic: I want one of these. I hope they are cheap.

lawl, what? linux is more compatible and more stable than ever. especially if you use fedora. and im not talking about an alternative OS to windows. i am saying people will install windows on this and it will ruin the entire experience.

 

[Wile E]

I do (did) use Fedora. I disagree with your assessment, 100%. It's more finicky than ever, especially on newer hardware. And it uses more resources and runs slower than 7 does, completely defeating the purpose of it.

I think installing linux on it would ruin the experience.

 

[HammerON]

My cousin had one of these when I was a kid. I was real jealous of him.
I might have to buy one...

 

[pr0n Inspector]

lawl, what? Linux is more compatible and more stable than ever. especially if you use fedora. And im not talking about an alternative os to windows. I am saying people will install windows on this and it will ruin the entire experience.

does not compute.

 

[Perseid]

I'm not an expert on it, but a command line Linux might work. Can you use a big blue font on a blue background? Can you make LOAD"$",8 a link to ls?

 

[Easy Rhino]

I do (did) use Fedora. I disagree with your assessment, 100%. It's more finicky than ever, especially on newer hardware. And it uses more resources and runs slower than 7 does, completely defeating the purpose of it.

I think installing linux on it would ruin the experience.

you must be doing something wrong. installing it with all the bells and whistles will slow it down obviously. try puppy or yellowdog as great lightweight versions of linux.

 

[Wile E]

you must be doing something wrong. installing it with all the bells and whistles will slow it down obviously. try puppy or yellowdog as great lightweight versions of linux.

So installing bells and whistles is doing something wrong? I have to run a stripped OS to get speed and stability? Weird, I get all the bells and whistles in 7 without slowing my system down.

No, I'm not doing anything wrong. Well, except for not blindly hating a Windows product because that's what the *nix community expects of me. The fact is, MS just did 7 right, and it is better than most distros out there. That doesn't even touch on the fact that *nix quality has gone downhill in the past 2 years or so.

 

[Easy Rhino]

So installing bells and whistles is doing something wrong? I have to run a stripped OS to get speed and stability? Weird, I get all the bells and whistles in 7 without slowing my system down.

No, I'm not doing anything wrong. Well, except for not blindly hating a Windows product because that's what the *nix community expects of me. The fact is, MS just did 7 right, and it is better than most distros out there. That doesn't even touch on the fact that *nix quality has gone downhill in the past 2 years or so.

if you install linux, and you experience poor performance than you are doing something wrong.

 

[Wile E]

How so? Grace me with your superior linux knowledge as to why an bone stock Fedora KDE install would run slow. No OC, bone stock everything.

Yet, Windows 7 does not.

 

[Easy Rhino]

How so? Grace me with your superior linux knowledge as to why an bone stock Fedora KDE install would run slow. No OC, bone stock everything.

Yet, Windows 7 does not.

describe how it runs slowly.

edit: actually, we should take this to the linux section so we dont get too off topic. if you are having problems with it then a lot more people can help you.

 

[sneekypeet]

Enough of this OS mish mash, bring on the syntax errors!

 

[Wile E]

describe how it runs slowly.

edit: actually, we should take this to the linux section so we dont get too off topic. if you are having problems with it then a lot more people can help you.

Hesitations, long loading times, hiccups. Wasn't worth my effort anymore. No point in laboring on tweaking an OS when an off the shelf solution works better for me. But I digress, you are correct in that we should probably take this elsewhere.

Enough of this OS mish mash, bring on the syntax errors!

Will do, capt!

I remember the nightmare of having to program the thing before using it. lol.

 

[btarunr]

Enough of this OS mish mash, bring on the syntax errors!

 

[Wile E]

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/foto/9ec8708a_syntax_20error.jpg

Just lol. I don't even really know what to say about that.

 

[Easy Rhino]

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/foto/9ec8708a_syntax_20error.jpg

at first i was like but then i saw the url and i

 

[AddSub]

you must be doing something wrong. installing it with all the bells and whistles will slow it down obviously. try puppy or yellowdog as great lightweight versions of linux.

My tweaked primary install of openSUSE takes an amazing 125 to 130 megabytes of RAM at desktop right after boot. Beating even stock XP install which eats up close to 200MB. Everyday usage with bunch of browser tabs, various apps running in background, and similar and I never exceed 800MB to 950MB RAM-usage-wise. In other words I use only 1GB out of 6GB available. With my Vista install and similar workload I hit 5GB easily on a daily basis. (And please don't start with Vista caches this or that. I'm quite familiar with Windows kernel architecture and all the caching mechanism are turned off, both under Win and Linux for that matter)

CPU usage is about the same as various Windows versions, but then again I got a i7 920 CPU, so it takes some serious workload for me to notice any slowdowns there. However, disk transfer rates are ridiculously better under Linux especially with latest kernel revisions. (and some personal tweaks). I'm talking anywhere from 30% to 40% better, depending on file-system and file size (XFS is silly fast and I get 40%+ better throughput rates vs. NTFS with large files in some instances)

As for compatibility with hardware. That is still true, especially with printers and scanners. However there are workarounds for just about everything, but then again, unless you are buying that rare Linux box at retail you are going to have issues hardware-wise. It's not completely point and click and never will be with Linux. Linux is still a power user tool directed at power users.

As for software compatibility with Windows titles, Windows games that is, with latest Wine builds I get up to 80% compatibility. Which is crazy considering just 5-6 years ago I would say that number was at around 15% at best. I've played Crysis, Oblivion, Battlefield 1942 and BF2, and at least 100+ other titles out of my 200+ PC game collection. Most play fine, others are slower than when running under Win, others are a bit faster, especially older Dx8 titles. (Linux vs. NT 6.x that is. Linux vs NT 5.1 is a different story) Heck, I get better 3DMark 2001 and 2003 scores under openSUSE than Vista. Oh yeah, that's right, aside from Vantage, all 3DMark benches run fine under Linux now, with some help from PlayOnLinux. Although NT 5.x (XP and Win2k) are still best for 3DMark 2001 score-wise.

As for Commodore, as I originally intended to post: C64 was for tw**s! ZX Spectrum FTW!!!

 

[PCpraiser100]

Dare them to put Crysis on it...

 

[AndreiD]

@ AddSub
He didn't compare it to Vista, but to Windows 7, which is an entirely different piece of pie... one without worms and mud in it.

 

[Wile E]

My tweaked primary install of openSUSE takes an amazing 125 to 130 megabytes of RAM at desktop right after boot. Beating even stock XP install which eats up close to 200MB. Everyday usage with bunch of browser tabs, various apps running in background, and similar and I never exceed 800MB to 950MB RAM-usage-wise. In other words I use only 1GB out of 6GB available. With my Vista install and similar workload I hit 5GB easily on a daily basis. (And please don't start with Vista caches this or that. I'm quite familiar with Windows kernel architecture and all the caching mechanism are turned off, both under Win and Linux for that matter)

CPU usage is about the same as various Windows versions, but then again I got a i7 920 CPU, so it takes some serious workload for me to notice any slowdowns there. However, disk transfer rates are ridiculously better under Linux especially with latest kernel revisions. (and some personal tweaks). I'm talking anywhere from 30% to 40% better, depending on file-system and file size (XFS is silly fast and I get 40%+ better throughput rates vs. NTFS with large files in some instances)

As for compatibility with hardware. That is still true, especially with printers and scanners. However there are workarounds for just about everything, but then again, unless you are buying that rare Linux box at retail you are going to have issues hardware-wise. It's not completely point and click and never will be with Linux. Linux is still a power user tool directed at power users.

As for software compatibility with Windows titles, Windows games that is, with latest Wine builds I get up to 80% compatibility. Which is crazy considering just 5-6 years ago I would say that number was at around 15% at best. I've played Crysis, Oblivion, Battlefield 1942 and BF2, and at least 100+ other titles out of my 200+ PC game collection. Most play fine, others are slower than when running under Win, others are a bit faster, especially older Dx8 titles. (Linux vs. NT 6.x that is. Linux vs NT 5.1 is a different story) Heck, I get better 3DMark 2001 and 2003 scores under openSUSE than Vista. Oh yeah, that's right, aside from Vantage, all 3DMark benches run fine under Linux now, with some help from PlayOnLinux. Although NT 5.x (XP and Win2k) are still best for 3DMark 2001 score-wise.

As for Commodore, as I originally intended to post: C64 was for tw**s! ZX Spectrum FTW!!!

http://ajaxian.com/wp-content/uploads/zxspectrum48k.jpg

And despite the heavy ram usage, Win 7 runs fine. What's the point in having ram if you don't put it to good use, which Win 7 does, whether you want to believe it or not.

Can I set up linux, and get it to run perfectly? Yep. Is it worth the endless hours of tweaking when Win 7 does what I need straight out of the box? Nope. Crossfire setups do not play nice in linux, and setting up Wine to game is stupid, when I can just load windows, download my drivers, and be on my way.

And "Power user tool" is just a thinly veiled excuse for too lazy or proud to dev a way to make it easier to use. Which, consequently, is why linux will never amount to anything more than a niche product. Well, that, the lack of hardware support, and the lack of a unified installer system.

Does linux have it's strong points? Of course, but it also has a shitload of cons. It's not some superior, ultimate OS any more the Windows is.

 

[Perseid]

Modern Linux, W7, OSX and I'll even throw in XP are great operating systems. If you forget that, you only need look at the very computer this topic was about: The C-64.

LOAD "$",8
LIST

That was how you got a disk directory listing, the equivalent to the DIR or ls command. Add to that the fact that it was much slower than the drive was capable of(see fast load carts as evidence of that). I loved my C-64, but the disk OS was crap.

So as we wage the endless OS war once again, remember how far we've all come, regardless of what side we're on.

Now excuse me while I come up with my next Mac insult...

 

[H82LUZ73]

Will they update the classic game PIT-STOP?

 

[H82LUZ73]

Modern Linux, W7, OSX and I'll even throw in XP are great operating systems. If you forget that, you only need look at the very computer this topic was about: The C-64.

LOAD "$",8
LIST

That was how you got a disk directory listing, the equivalent to the DIR or ls command. Add to that the fact that it was much slower than the drive was capable of(see fast load carts as evidence of that). I loved my C-64, but the disk OS was crap.

So as we wage the endless OS war once again, remember how far we've all come, regardless of what side we're on.

Now excuse me while I come up with my next Mac insult...

The basic code for DOS back then....