Re: MAURICE RANDALL! I'M CALLING YOU OUT!!!!!!!!!!!

Who knows, C= might even go as far as to be actually doing that. It is
something that they'll be able to do and provide a myriad of different
products under the same chip tech.

All we need to know is that these products are using that tech. Use WDC's
model for embedded technologies and carry the whole 64DTV as an embedded IP.
C= can gain a huge market of providing entire Computer system on a chip IP
like the 64DTV and gives a whole majority of us in this community who knows
how to code, pixel, ect. various small jobs in developing software to drive
these systems for their specified markets, then we can buy some of those
devices and use them for our purpose. They can produce 1,000,000 base DTV
boards and various numbers of sub boards for specific configuration. So,
there maybe 1000 units with keyboard Type A and 3" LCD and another with
press buttons (instead of joystick and fire buttons) that trigger different
functions, and may have 6" LCD and little mass-storage device.

Example: Home security system with a 64DTV core. With advancements of
technology and OLED technology (we could even see OLED "wallpaper" - powered
and controlled by a 64DTV and with a few presses of the button - you could
change the color of your house's interior wall and even patterns. )

I know, it is far fetch but there is possibilities that at the heart of
these systems can have a 64DTV core with additional hw to make all this work
as well as enhancements to the 64DTV core.

Yet, the beauty is that the system would be relatively easy to program.

I have to agree with you. The market for commercial hw businesses for "C64"
is slim. Greater possibilities may arise with the 64DTV but not necassarily
conventional CMD-like businesses but for hw developers working on custom
products using the 64DTV as an embedded computer system in control. You
could even control a bridge and traffic lights with this system.

I could see this in architectural / engineering industries. I'd love to see
this. I'd even support these products especially if they are good and
reliable. Here, C= would be entering "embedded systems" markets as a
provider of complete Embedded Computer System IP. It would keep these units
in production but they'll be stealthier, though.

If someone can talk to Jeri and Commodore. This would be an ideal avenue to
explore with the DTV tech but not the only avenue but something to keep
sustained production and keeping the IP strong. Implement WDC's (Western
Design Center) embedded IP model like what WDC does with their 65xx products
but with complete 64DTV IP. Including multiple versions and custom
enhancements services.

There is enough customers that can enjoy implementing a vast range of
systems when there is a base hw that is reasonably easy to understand and
complete. So they just need to focalize their work on linking up the
additional components. The C64 is quite capable but is just too bulky. The
64DTV has more potential and is smaller. Making a better ideal product for
such. All we need is a nice base board with all lines accessible. I rather
have a rows of pads which I can solder on wires directly to and a pad
diagram (that tells what the pad does what). Possible grouping of pads so
that it is much more reasonable.

"Pheuque" <Ratteler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1191860190.364263.299840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 7, 3:37 pm, Macintosh Dragon <sc...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The ONLY thing that Commodore hardware needs to sell is to be 1)
reasonably priced and 2) reliably available for purchase.

On Oct 7, 3:37 pm, Macintosh Dragon <sc...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The ONLY thing that Commodore hardware needs to sell is to be 1)
reasonably priced and 2) reliably available for purchase.

I have to disagree here.
1) Because of the economies of scale original C= Hardware is always
going to be more expensive than it's PC counterpart, and a tough sale.
Even with 10 million units produced, how many are actually
functioning? I have 3 C=64 and 2 128's and a 128D. Divide that 10
million by just my 6, and you really have only 1.7 million C= units in
the hands of real people. Even that is outrageously optimistic.
How many C= have died and/or gone to landfill?

I would estimate that world wide there are only about 5000 active C=
users left. If you could reach every single one of them, and get them
all to buy a product for say $30... you still only talking about
$150,000 total income. That means you can spend a max of $100,000 if
you have NO hope of making a profit.
Who is going to invest the time and effort to make products for so
little return.

If you want a new market for C= peripherals, you have to figure out
how to make new C=64's. The DTV's offered hope, but evidently didn't
sell well enough to STAY in production, and outside of hard core
hackers, was purposefully made hacker unfriendly.

I DO think that given the amazing historical popularity of the C=64,
there is a huge potential market for the DTV chip on a motherboard
that encourages hacking and modding. Think off all the places you
could stick a little C=64 to do certain off jobs. In my apartment
building we have a pretty standard 3 button door buzzer system. Add a
small NTSC display, with a C=64 doing overlay and you've got enormous
potential for a very cheap, and powerful system to tell you all kinds
of data. With the DTV's expanded graphics, it might even allow viewing
of who rang your bell and when even while you're out.

With cheap NTSC displays all over the place that were made to go on
top of modern game consoles, Case modders could have a field day with
C=64 DTV's that could be made to display case temperature, or play
back little animations. Imagine a home made synthesizer made from
emulated SIDs in a dozen C=64 chips.

As a low power throw away utility chip, a C=64DTV go on for another 25
years.

Add in a VGA compatible VDC style interface from the 128, and a
flashable ROM. who knows.

But until we start adding C=64 compatible units to the user base,
we'll never see a market grow powerful enough to support peripherals.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "disappointing" performance
    ... which cover both ends of the Xilinx product line and target markets. ... getting broader market penitration to drive chip sales. ... your stock holders -- and design in decisions by your chip customers. ... and patent protection for those markets will remain difficult with core ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)
  • Re: Re: HARDWARE: Open-Source-Friendly Graphics Cards -- Viable?]
    ... Some of them do dominate a market. ... implementing a specific grafics standard. ... grafic chips just need a driver - but they ... spent tons of research on the chip development as well, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Obvious multi-core idea: (Semi-)dedicated cores and cheap communication
    ... any/every downstream bus (or downstream chip) to deal with the device ... driver codes while still offloading the main/big CPUs from the grunt ... socket four x single core system. ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: AMDs 45nm technology compared against Intels
    ... chips that used to cost 50 dollars now cost 50 cents. ... If a chip uses 100 mm2, there are possibly about 700 chips on the wafer. ... When manufacturing starts on that 100 mm chip, yield sucks and you only get a few good ones per wafer so they cost hundreds of dollars each to make. ... You must admit Intel has done some market manipulation on occasion. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Re: Celica Sx Mods
    ... >>> pads, larrger rims, wotever. ... > Like I said the easiest things are the C-A Intake and the exhaust. ... > You can also chip it; that is, ... > need the rear discs, calipers and pads; I'd get the discs and the pads ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)