This month's Maximum PC has a story on the hardware of the C= 64. I
always wanted to see the guts of one...

On Feb 9, 12:12 pm, waxman80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> This month's Maximum PC has a story on the hardware of the C= 64. I
> always wanted to see the guts of one...

Here's a scan of the page that someone posted on the Lemon64 forum:
http://soznet.net/commodore/c64maxpc1.jpg

-Andrew
   ___
  / __|__   Cottonwood BBS
 / /  |_/   +1 (951) 242-3593
 \ \__|_\   Open 24/7 at 300/1200/2400 baud
  \___|     http://hometown.aol.com/cottonwoodbbs

On Feb 10, 9:36 am, Andrew W. wrote:

> Here's a scan of the page that someone posted on the Lemon64 forum:http://soznet.net/commodore/c64maxpc1.jpg

     Just read my brother's issue of the magazine.  Now I don't have
to ask him to scan the article.  :-)  At least, Maximum PC didn't take
any potshots at the C64.  Also, there is a nice article on a Canon
HV10 high-def camcorder I'd like to buy.

                Truly,
                Robert Bernardo
                Fresno Commodore User Group
                http://videocam.net.au/fcug

On Feb 10, 9:12 am, waxman80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> This month's Maximum PC has a story on the hardware of the C= 64. I
> always wanted to see the guts of one...

Be good if they could actually point the arrow at the SID :-)

Mark wrote:

> Be good if they could actually point the arrow at the SID :-)

And where did the RF shield go from around the VIC-II? I wonder if they 
removed it for the picture? Although, on second inspection, it looks 
like in this particular '64, the main RF shield, the one they show, has 
a fin that makes contact with the video chip. Every 64 I've ever owned 
has an actual metal 'box' around the video chip. You can see the outline 
of where it would be on this one. I wonder how many different 'variants' 
of the 64 there were with internal changes like this?

John

John Finlay wrote:

> Mark wrote:
> 
>> Be good if they could actually point the arrow at the SID :-)
> 
> And where did the RF shield go from around the VIC-II? I wonder if they
> removed it for the picture? Although, on second inspection, it looks
> like in this particular '64, the main RF shield, the one they show, has
> a fin that makes contact with the video chip. Every 64 I've ever owned
> has an actual metal 'box' around the video chip. You can see the outline
> of where it would be on this one. I wonder how many different 'variants'
> of the 64 there were with internal changes like this?

A box around the VIC-II? Would you believe I've never seen that?
 
I know at least one of mine has the "fin". I don't remember if my c64c
shortboard has that. I only had it apart recently too. I mostly remember
the anger at its stupid silver painted cardboard RF shield.

-- 
-----> http://members.dodo.com.au/~izabellion1/tristan/index.html <-----
=====       It's not pretty, it's not great, but it is mine.       =====

"Tristan Mumford" <xtristan.xmumford@xgmail.xcom> wrote in message
news:45d3af8b$0$52913$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> John Finlay wrote:
>
> > Mark wrote:
> >
> >> Be good if they could actually point the arrow at the SID :-)
> >
> > And where did the RF shield go from around the VIC-II? I wonder if they
> > removed it for the picture? Although, on second inspection, it looks
> > like in this particular '64, the main RF shield, the one they show, has
> > a fin that makes contact with the video chip. Every 64 I've ever owned
> > has an actual metal 'box' around the video chip. You can see the outline
> > of where it would be on this one. I wonder how many different 'variants'
> > of the 64 there were with internal changes like this?
>
> A box around the VIC-II? Would you believe I've never seen that?
>
> I know at least one of mine has the "fin". I don't remember if my c64c
> shortboard has that. I only had it apart recently too. I mostly remember
> the anger at its stupid silver painted cardboard RF shield.
>
> --
> -----> http://members.dodo.com.au/~izabellion1/tristan/index.html <-----
> =====       It's not pretty, it's not great, but it is mine.       =====


are the c4c's safe to run without the cardboard silver shield ?

On Feb 15, 3:45 am, Dave wrote:

> are the c4c's safe to run without the cardboard silver shield ?- Hide quoted text -

     Yes, they are.

          Truly,
          Robert Bernardo
          Fresno Commodore User Group
          http://videocam.net.au/fcug

<rbernardo@value.net> wrote in message
news:1171566659.237377.13090@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 3:45 am, Dave wrote:
>
> > are the c4c's safe to run without the cardboard silver shield ?- Hide
quoted text -
>
>      Yes, they are.
>
>           Truly,
>           Robert Bernardo
>           Fresno Commodore User Group
>           http://videocam.net.au/fcug
>

thankyou