C64 Reloaded

[eslapion]

@ckoba
It occured to me that since Schönfeld has the logic equations for the C64 PLA (he put them in his SuperPLA products), he could easily have built a PLA into the C64r instead of selling it separately and made sure this new PLA includes the extra logic required to remap the ROM into a single chip instead of using external discreet logic chips.

The product would probably cost exactly the same as a C64r which requires a Commodore or substitute PLA.

Only a few years ago, Frank Buss created a substitute for the C64c PLA, chip 251715-01, using a 100 pin XC9572XL and it incorporates a lot of the glue logic of the original C64. He made the VHDL code publicly available for free.

Putting a chip like that on the C64r would have made so much more sense. But then, the sales for the SuperPLA would have suffered.

Heck what do I have to complain about ? The C64r contributed to increase the sales of PLAnkton...

Last year Schönfeld openly said only a genuine Commodore PLA or one based on a CPLD was acceptable on the C64r. According to him, using a (E)PROM based product was the result of erroneous "beliefs". Even though I clearly showed using digital analyzer captures of 500MHz why and how specific memory chips do or don't cause glitches and "bus contentions".

Now that PLAnkton is out and sold hundreds of units, he now says only a genuine Commodore PLA or SuperPLA or RealPLA are acceptable... no more CPLDs. RealPLA was created by Skoe who openly claims the C64r is specifications incompatible with the EasyFlash 3 and noted specific problems with the SuperPLA V3.

Cute eh ?

To make it a full computer, you need to add:

• Processor 6510 or 8500
  Video chip 6569, 8565, 6567 or 8562
  PLA chip 906114-01, SuperPLA or RealPLA
  SID chip 6581 or 8580
  case
  keyboard
  12V DC power supply
  metal side-bracket (if you want to use the breadbox-type case)

From:
https://icomp.de/shop-icomp/en/produkt- ... ml#filter=*

[ckoba]

@eslapion

Omitting chips from the C64R doesn't make much sense to me, apart from the VIC and the SID. He has access to at least two cycle-exact 6510 cores and various PLA workalikes; the former from the failed C=One and the latter from either himself, Skoe's implementation, or Frank's implementation. That might add one more chip to the board, or maybe not, depending on how much space is left over in the programmable logic chip he's already using to emulate everything else. The actual cost increase would be negligible.

Very sketchy and, in my opinion, dishonest. So it goes.

[eslapion]

You may have noticed mentioning REMOVED results in REMOVED ...

[ckoba]

What's with the "REMOVED" stuff, anyway? That filter triggers on extremely innocuous content. I'm not a big fan of censorship.

[dudz]

Only a few years ago, Frank Buss created a substitute for the C64c PLA, chip 251715-01, using a 100 pin XC9572XL and it incorporates a lot of the glue logic of the original C64. He made the VHDL code publicly available for free.

only one problem: it doesnt work

Now that PLAnkton is out and sold hundreds of units, he now says only a genuine Commodore PLA or SuperPLA or RealPLA are acceptable... no more CPLDs.

it has exactly nothing to do with PLAnkton (or any other replacement) - the only reason only those are mentioned is that only those two have been tested and confirmed to work.
and obviously it makes more sense to produce the replacement separately and not build it on the board - since there are people who dont want a replacement for whatever reason. and since there are people who want _just_ the replacement.

He has access to at least two cycle-exact 6510 cores

unfortunately, no - the CPU core still has at least one known bug.

That might add one more chip to the board, or maybe not, depending on how much space is left over in the programmable logic chip he's already using to emulate everything else. The actual cost increase would be negligible.

ewww. that is... vague uninformed guessing at best. srsly - that chip couldnt take a PLA, and certainly not a CPU. for that you'll need something much bigger (and more expensive).

What's with the "REMOVED" stuff, anyway?

plain old adolescent jealousy. no more no less.

[ckoba]

that is... vague uninformed guessing at best. srsly - that chip couldnt take a PLA, and certainly not a CPU. for that you'll need something much bigger (and more expensive).

You're right insofar as I hadn't looked at a picture of the C64R board before posting.

As far as I can tell, there is no programmable logic being used at all, unless there's something on the bottom of the board. The chips that aren't NOS CBM are SMD glue.

This sells for 156 euros per unit? I think there's enough profit margin there to comfortably include another chip. But, then again, I'm just an engineer, not a salesman.

[eslapion]

@ckoba
A substantial portion of the price tag of BOM for the C64r goes towards paying those large ZIF sockets which IMHO are absolutely unnecessary.

As if someone was going to change PLA, SID, CIA, VIC-II and CPU every day.

Actually, I do change the PLA about every day in one of my C64... that's because I use it to test all the PLAnktons I sell.

plain old adolescent jealousy. no more no less.

Not quite... a few zealots from there came here only to post personal attacks and insults because a few of us here don't admire the same deities.

[dudz]

As far as I can tell, there is no programmable logic being used at all

there is a small microcontroller which generates the TOD clock signal and replaces the reset logic, besides that no programmable logic, indeed.

A substantial portion of the price tag of BOM for the C64r goes towards paying those large ZIF sockets

not really. the most substantial cost is the manual labour needed to assemble and test the thing.

Not quite... a few zealots from there came here only to post personal attacks and insults

so? remove them, problem solved. how does censoring the name of some forum or links to it solve anything? its just plain stupid and childish.

[eslapion]

A substantial portion of the price tag of BOM for the C64r goes towards paying those large ZIF sockets

not really. the most substantial cost is the manual labour needed to assemble and test the thing.

Can't you read buddy, I said the price tag of the BOM, that's the Bill Of Material.

Wether you use ZIFs or not changes almost nothing to the cost of testing and assembling but it does have a tremendous impact on the cost of MATERIALs...

As for censorship, well, I don't run this forum and I did say I don't think its a good idea.

[dudz]

Wether you use ZIFs or not changes almost nothing to the cost of testing and assembling but it does have a tremendous impact on the cost of MATERIALs...

a) it takes much longer to install and remove the chips from regular sockets, especially if you are planning not to destroy the chips nor leave visible marks on the sockets
b) those clone zif sockets are really really REALLY cheap, especially when you buy them in bulk directly in asia