| |
Pater Pi
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 121 |
Commodore 1 : lame retro-computer or cool new geek machine ?
Hi,
I think it would be quite interesting (and maybe even amusing) to see how the scene (or scene individuals) look at the new Commodore 1.
Do you see it as a poor attempt to build a new c64? Or do you see it as a great Geek machine which among other features just got some sort of c64 compatibility?
I think those people who do not like the c1 are mainly those who don't like the SCPU either: c64 purists, but maybe I am wrong?
Personally I think the Commodore 1 could be some cool "homecomputer" with great possibilities (one of those is of course the limited c64-compatibility) and be a nice machine to do music, demos, games etc. on it.
|
|
... 41 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1160 |
I'd like to separate the effort, which is really, really cool -- how many could even dream of designing a computer practically single-handled,
and it's usefulness, which is to me, questionable at the moment. We'll see, how strong the C=1 community will be, and how many programs will be produced.
Of course, C=1 has very little or nothing to do with the C64 scene :) |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
The C=1 does have *something* to do with the C64 scene...Or do you see Spectrum sceners waiting in line to get one?
Usefulness? People...do you use a c64 because it is "useful"?
I should hope you use your c64 because you have *fun* doing so. I know I'll have a lot of fun with the C=1.
And yes, I'm certainly going to buy a C=1. |
| |
cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1160 |
Ah, I kind of tacked fun into the usefulness factor.. I mean, the C64 has lots of cool games & demos produced, and programming for it is a challenge.
But the C=1 to me is more like a "generic" computer, with CPU power to spare, windowed/multitasking OS coming, that's what I mean... |
| |
fade
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 290 |
c=1 and you have seen them all.. Damn i'm good. :)
Purist |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Ouch :P hehe |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Cadaver: 20mhz = "power to spare"? Oh come on...
The C64 has windowed/"multitasking" OS'es too, no one forces you to use them just as I'm sure no one would force you to use that kind of thing on the C=1 once it arrives.
You want a programming challenge? Make your own C=1 OS if you have so much against icons and windows.
However, I guess you are happy to stick with the C64 only. That's fine by me, but please don't try to label the C=1 as just another PC, it isn't. |
| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
Mermaid: Do you receive sale percentages on the Commodore-1?
;) |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
rOuGh: Thank you so much for your extremely thoughtful and informative contribution to this debate. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3048 |
Quote: rOuGh: Thank you so much for your extremely thoughtful and informative contribution to this debate.
Cheer up ppl. ;-) |
| |
cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1160 |
Mermaid, I'd label the Amstrad, Spectrum or Amiga "generic" computers too, though with less power. I mean: powerful CPU, and enough power to realistically do framebuffer effects, unlike C64.
(totally personal view) I'd rather to be challenged by CPU power, than complexity of programs, 'cos if they're too complex, they don't get finished :) That's what I especially like in C64 programming: the machine sets the limits for me, no worrying of feature screep :)
As for the 'C=1 is not C64 scene' I was just taking the most anally-retentive view of the C64 scene possible. :)
Now I shut up for this subject :)
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Next |
