New Commodore Invictus from Commodore USA

[Amiga_Nut]

Now that's more like it!!!!!!

I don't have specs for you yet.
(watch this space)
Commodore USA

But it is probably the same specs as what it looks like. :-D

I can confirm that it is ATOM/nvidia based
INVICTUS is the latin word for "Invincible".
It comes in silver too. It also has a stylus.
I do not know if it features wireless wiBand HDMI. I'll see if I can find out.

What makes this anything other than a limp wristed Atom based piece of crap inferior to a 2005 Pentium M laptop with the LCD screen/lid removed?

Will it even be able to play Battlefield 2 for PC from 2005 @ SXGA in medium detail? Nope.

So the answer is nothing

I bought an Amiga and a C64 because they were cutting edge technology, this is basically only suitable for the facebook/MSN/Youtube etc. Give me a Dell D810 laptop with 2.1ghz Pentium M II and 128mb ATI x600 with the lid missing for 50 bucks any day. Such a 5 year old machine would annihilate this thing on any test you care to run.

However if your current doorstop is a bit worn out and you don't want the door handles damaging your newly plastered walls on windy days.................

[Amiga_Nut]

1. The Invictus comes with the Nvidia ION chipset which it is said will revolutionise gaming on these small devices. With wireless HDMI, you won't even need to have it plugged into your HDMI TV.

"Will it even be able to play Battlefield 2 for PC from 2005 @ SXGA in medium detail? Nope."
2. I bet you it will. And on your couch in your living room. And who knows, you might even be able to put keyboard game shortcuts on the touch screen.

3. If you think these specs are too low for you.....There's always the Commodore Phoenix, with the highend version being a 3.4 Ghz Quad Core. If you wait until Christmas you might even see an i7 version. That's why there's a range of Commodore machines at different specifications and price points. Honestly. Next you'll begrudge a Toyota Corolla for not being an F1 car!

Hmmm the similar Atom machine that this is compared to barely runs XP, an OS that runs fine on a 600mhz PIII and yet we have such enthusiasm.

1.  Great, wireless HDMI for a machine that will struggle to store and playback 1080p video on the plasma/LCD. And the whole keyboard on lap and surf the web thing doesn't work anyway. Nothing people haven't tried for years via cordless keyboards and shuttle PC under the TV.

2. Yes I know it has ION but even if your geometry set up engine was not lumbered with an Atom it's still doubtful it would manage one of the most advanced DX9.3c engines at 30+ fps in SXGA 32bit colour from 2005. In fact there are only two laptops sold brand new today that can run these games, let alone cut down Atom CPU'd items.

3. My issue is it's not a 'Commodore' as it is nothing technically unique resulting in games a generation ahead of the competition. I don't need to pay 300% of parts prices to have  a C= logo on my PC. Some realistic ideas on the off-chance someone from 'Commodore' reads this place...

C64 DTV relaunched with SD card slot.
C64 DTV motherboard in a 1:2 scale C64/C64C casing with BASIC built in and tape & disk ports.
As above but with optional hinged LCD 7" screen in the style of the Commodore LCD machine.
MP3 player full of SID tunes or MODs (in MP3 format).
Media player with good sized LCD and built in C64 emulator for a C64-a-like PSP machine.

All the above are possible, there is just no effort or imagination at all. A Commodore badge <> something I will automatically buy. Let's face it facebook/twitter addicts who buy this kind of low end CPU stuff forgot Commodore 15(+) years ago so the branding isn't going to help them much.

[Amiga_Nut]

...because I'm bored, I'll do a little brainstorming.

How much capital do I have?  What's my target demographic?  Who should I view as my competitors?

Assuming I have unlimited capital...

First and foremost, I buy up every license I have to until I'm the SOLE copyright owner to the Commodore/CBM name.  With unlimited capital, this means I'd be buying all of the various 'Amiga' names, too, and also probably Cloanto.

It almost seems that the current owner somehow thinks that Apple, HP, Dell, Lenova, etc. are who he's up against.   I think that, to a SMALL extent, Apple might be, but certainly not HP, Dell, Lenova, etc.

The C64 is, in my mind, an oddity in that it not only competed against Apple (and IBM) back in the day, but also against Atari, Nintendo, and Sega.  That is to say, it's a computer, sure, but it's primarily an entertainment computer.  (Okay, I guess that was true of all computers of the era to some extent, but in my mind, the C64 was better at it than other computers...)

I'd say that our new C64 should largely be designed to be used on a television, in the living room, rather than in the study.  Towards that end, I really see Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft as my three largest competitors.  I'm not saying the new Commodore should be designed as a console, but rather that it's chief competition for the time and money of a perspective buyer are these other consoles, and that should garner some serious consideration when the feature set is planned.  Wireless HDMI, high-def video playing capability, and wireless internet access would probably be must-haves.

I'd say that our new C64 should also be designed to be SIMPLE.  The OS should include a modern browser, a capable email client, and a word processor capable of loading and saving office compatible documents.  Creating a Commodore version of iLife would be a good idea, because initially the amount of software for this beast is going to be limited, so why not give the consumer what they need out of the box.  I'd say that if you could include 10 revamped versions of iconic C64 games that'd be perfect.  I'd also borrow heavily from Apple/nintendo/microsoft and have a Commodore version of iTunes/Wiistore/Xbox Arcade where you could, for a small fee (a dollar or two a game?) download classic C64 games in some sort of encapsulated format that includes the documentation in a PDF format and a simple click-to-play format.  No fooling around with setting up emulators.  Every game you buy comes ready to play without your having to fool around with anything.  In addition to repackaged classic games running in emulators, you'd also want to give developers the opportunity to sell 'modern' games designed to take advantage of the hardware.

The more I think about it (again, pretending that capital is no problem), the more I REALLY like the idea of using BEOS as the core of my operating system and having Windows-support available as a 'boot camp' sort of option.  I'd also pull an Apple and work hard to keep my OS off of other hardware.   99.9% of the reason to buy Apple hardware is the desire to run Apple software.  I'd say the goal with our Commodore OS should be the same.

The aesthetics of our C64 should be a nice, simple homage to the original breadbox.  I'd hire the best design team I could find and give them pictures of the original breadbox, with instructions to 'modernize and pay homage'.  There should be 0% doubt that the finished product is the 2010 version of the C64, and there's a lot more to that than just being a keyboard with a system board integrated.

I think I'd dub the system the Commodore 1024.  Give it a medium powered Atom and a gig of memory.  In 6 months, we'll launch the Commodore 2048d, which is a desktop system with wireless mouse/keyboard, a more powerful Atom, 2 Gigs of memory, and an available matching 24" 1080p LCD panel.

Don't even get me started on a year or two down the road, when we start taking advantage of those Amiga trademarks we bought up today.

You expect to compete on equal terms with a $150 Xbox360 for gaming/home entertainment using an Intel Atom based solution? Don't think you've thought this out well Doesn't have to be a C64 specific successor, it's only now that Commodore and Amiga are two distinct brands.

IF, and I do say if, there was ever to be a machine which is a spiritual successor to the Amiga/C64 again you would need something pretty special. It would need to be priced half way between an Xbox 360 and a PC capable of running DX10 games like Alan Wake at 50-60FPS, so that would be approx $800 minimum. It would need to cost half way between the two....so about $300-400.

And then....you would have to do something innovative with the OS and applications. In 1985-87 on an A1000 you could digitise photo-realistic images, sample sounds for instruments in music, create cartoon animations or photo montages etc all using the best ideas like a GUI desktop with multi-tasking. Also unlike PCs it was a simple case of popping in your game disk and playing a game fuss free like a console (after loading KS once with on screen graphical prompt).

What could you do with your 1984 Mac 128k? Nothing much beyond playing with the GUI OS really. And your DOS/Windows v1/v2 8086 PC? Bugger all except boring office stuff and some rubbish CGA ports of classic arcade games like Zaxxon or text adventures from Infocom.

Anyway OS X/Linux/Windows (any) can happily do anything 99% of the Facebook/MSN generation today want to do. OK some do it faster/more reliably than others but the difference is unless you really put in 25 years of OS advancement since the GEM/Mac/Amiga time of 1985 like things bordering on artificial intelligence built into the OS you can't claim your OS is doing something other machines can't. And that's the difference today.

And Microsoft/Sony will not licence their console motherboards for you to write an OS and sell as a rebranded machine and there is no way to build a PC with that sort of power and features within the $150-200 gross cost.

So you are basically screwed on the hardware price/performance AND the OS. That's why today we are back to the pre C64 days of expensive gaming rigs and functionally competent consoles for a fraction of the cost of high end computers but sod all computer like functionality and freedom. There is no best of both worlds type hybrid for less than equivalent PC/Mac.

Atom CPUd low end stuff is paired with a purchase of an xbox 360 to meet gamers needs. So they can play stunning games and watch 1080p media but still also blog on Facebook/surf the web/chat on MSN etc.

[Amiga_Nut]

No.  I don't think he did, as it wasn't mentioned in his post.   Having an online "arcade" does not mean its competing with a 360 or PS3.

This is a computer, not a video game console.

He was asked to describe next 'true Commodore' and detailed a machine with lntel Atom CPU which can't even play 720p video files, let alone 1080p or 360/PS3 games. I can surf the net on my phone ditto for email/facebook/twitter/youtube/buy crap off ebay.

People play games and watch HD content on 360 for far less money. Most PS3/360 owners also have a PC to do other things a console can't OR people just have a gaming PC costing $1000s to save spending $150 on a 360.

So that's where you are wrong. People bought Amigas in the late 80s, even early 90s in EU, because it saved you buying both and cost less than just a PC. Amiga had games comparable to a 16bit console (cheaper too), did everything a topend 286 Windows PC did.

If you made a $350 computer today that did everything a PS3/360 did, ie played the same  1080p games and full HD movies, but also did basic computing it would sell, and more than this Invictus rubbish.

So a 'new Commodore' needs to be that alternative choice between an expensive gaming PC and cheap console, for a mid-point price. but the days of world beating custom chips made by 3 guys in a garage are over so it's never going to happen.

[Amiga_Nut]

Cause, surfing the net on a phone is the most comfortable, versatile thing ever!  Totally streamlined.  Do you write most of your hamfisted replies from your phone?

This is supposed to be a computer, not a home theater experience.  Watching high res videos is best left to gigantic TVs and home theater equipment.

It isn't like back in the 80s, the C64 or even the Amiga provided you with a home theater experience that outdid your hifi and whatnot either.  Unless you had a killer way to play your vinyls on the Amiga, and put a video tape in one.

So why is it crucial that a throwback model does this?



And that is where you haven't left the 80s.   PCs no longer cost a fortune, and consoles provide better looking games and usability at a fraction of the cost.  Durp?  you buy both and stop trying to cram 234923049234 functions into one machine that will end up overheating, being obsolete in 2 years, or breaking when you spill something on it.

computer games weren't cheaper either.  some were maybe, but they usually sucked.

also, wrong about what?  I said two sentences and you didn't address one.  You hardly addressed the other.

Consoles cost the same, and technology gets better so do their games. The same GPUs sold to PC users power the 360/PS3. And as PCs have had games software available since the time of the PET/Vic-20 asking a PC to keep up with a teeny itsy bitsy little 125 bucks console for less than 1k PC tower isn't unrealistic.

You said ... "No. I don't think he did, as it wasn't mentioned in his post. Having an online "arcade" does not mean its competing with a 360 or PS3.

This is a computer, not a video game console."

And this was the reply "He was asked to describe next 'true Commodore' and detailed a machine with lntel Atom CPU which can't even play 720p video files, let alone 1080p  360/PS3 games. I can surf the net on my phone ditto for email/facebook/twitter/youtube/buy crap off ebay.

People play games and watch HD content on 360 for far less....."

Nothing about a throwback to anything which you made up, it's was about a spiritual successor to the Amiga. The whole point was that a spiritual successor to the Amiga today would have to do everything the best consoles do (ie not PS2 looking Wii games) as well as the top end i7 CPU equipped PC. So just like the A500 did in 1987 compared to £200+ Sega console on import and £1000+ for a PC-AT towards 1990. As the original post I was replying to was detailing another member's personal description of a spiritual successor to the Amiga using some rubbish Intel Atom and lame graphics card like a netbook I said this was not suitable.

1. The fact that even a mobile phone can be used to talk on msn/post on facebook/watch youtube/bid on ebay was to show a computer like an Atom based solution being able to do only that, and nothing else, in 2010 is pretty redundant as a next generation anything. I didn't imply anything beyond the fact that a mobile phone has enough CPU power to do all these things you are limited to doing on an Atom based machine. You made a lame attempt to imply I said that (and failed).

2. Did people watch streaming movies/TV shows via their NES/Genesis or PC-XT/AT then in your imagination? Nope so why ask if the Amiga did? Again you were trolling. All people did was play games on consoles and do office work on PCs so all the Amiga had to do in the 80s/90s was play similar games and run similar office software as PCs for less. As a PS3 and 360 both happily play 1080p video and you can't buy non HD TVs anymore I expect it from a 'new Amiga' successor too, naturally, as high end PCs easily playback 1080p too.

3. I also said any new spiritual successor to the Amiga would have to do everything for only 2.5 the cost of a powerful console like a 360. Amiga did everything a PC/Genesis did for 2.5 times the cost of a Sega Genesis/Megadrive even 4 years after the A1000 launched years before the Genesis. Show me a PC for 2.5x cost of the cheapest 360 that can play Alan Wake in 1920x1080x60fps in DX10 even today 4 years after 360s launch date then?

PS Maybe you should email Apple and Youtube and tell them HD is a waste of time, seeing as 360s can't access that content, and they should save themselves a fortune in bandwidth costs by only hosting 360p and 480p videos as PC users aren't interested in HD? It's clear to see the difference between SD and HD quality video on your average  20" monitor/17" notebook screen.

4. You said PCs are not expensive today. Expensive compared to what? Being a bit more intelligent, and comparing like for like, a PC capable of playing PS3/360 quality games will require the following.....

 - A graphics card costing somewhere between the cost of a new PS3 and 360.
 - A Quad Core or low end i7 CPU costing as much as a PS3.

still leaves motherboard, memory, hard disk, case, PSU, Blu-Ray or DVD drive, copy of Windows etc. Did you fail Maths at school then? Because to me it looks like a PC of similar capability to a 360 is at least 5x as much...same as in 1989/1990 with a 286 vs Genesis console then.

5. There are no overheating issues with the latest high-end ATI/Nvidia cards or the Intel Quad Core Extreme or i7 CPUs. So your claim an all-in-one PC solution overheating is based on what exactly? Cost is the only issue with choosing to not buy a PS3/360 for HD gaming.

6. Console games and PC strategy games were far more expensive than Amiga disk games in the 80s here. NES/Genesis games cost 40-50 bucks and PC games cost the same. Amiga games were 20-25 bucks. Do some research next time.

End of the day there is no excuse, 360 uses Microsoft code running on a PowerPC CPU with a standard ATI GPU from half a decade ago to display games in a quality that costs 4-5x more in PC hardware. And the basic things people do with computers you can still do with an old Pentium III laptop or an iPhone. If there was a spiritual successor to the Amiga it should be 2.5x cost of a 360 and do all these things. There isn't which was the whole point.

So no, there is a difference to how it was, today you can get a console or get a PC costing 5x as much to play the games in the same quality. Your alternative choice is non existent.