I'm not a computer geek, but used the Atari since inception for music. What a shame these devices (Acorn, Commodores etc) didn't become the "norm". I remember booting PCs at the time and always thinking how backwards they were.
I think, in the end, they just weren’t powerful enough. They didn’t have as seamless a transition to newer hardware as the PowerPC Macs did, and the 68k spec stopped receiving much in the way of significant hardware updates. (Acorn eventually found its niche with ARM, of course, and the rest is history.)
@@elphive42I don't think that was the main problem. Most variations of the PC and the Mac had built in upgradability via multiple ISA and E-ISA slots, and room to add or exchange a variety of expansion cards. Most Amiga's and Atari ST machines (and older 8 bits) were limited in this regard, and the more expandable "big box" versions were much more expensive. That easy expandability encouraged more experimentation in the PC world. Having your CPU, RAM and custom chips soldered in, and limited expansion capabilities via proprietary slots means keeping your machine relevant becomes much harder and more expensive.
@@another3997 you are partially right, but there was another aspect that did set Atari and Commodore apart from Apple. Both brands were "budget" computer brands, which means anything expensive, there was no space to sell. Apple, while still very proprietary whencompared to PC clones, was much more expensive, which means more money could be dumped in solutions that brought the similar outcome to industrial standard (which was IBM PC clone), but still remaining Apple proprietary. And even Apple went to industrial standards to be able to use off shelf add-on products at the end. The thing is that mid 90s was very sensitive to the topic and Apply with its "premium" price was able to survive on own proprietary solutions until transition to industry standard. Commodore and Atari didnt have this luxury, and Sam Tramiel found out in right moment and killed the PC department, since he realized that Atari cannot compete much longer with something like PC clones, that became the industry standard. I think that he should have still kept the Falcon project alive as a specialty multimedia computer, since it had its audience in audio professional area long time after it was dead. Commodore managers simply sucked...
I think it's only because they were 'closed' platforms, really. PCs were more mailable, so people opted for the convenience of those. But yeah, I'd love to have seen microcomputers exist alongside PCs.
Interesting 68060 trivia: I was working for a company called EMC in the late 90s, and we used 68K CPUs in our storage product at the time. The "Symmetrix" storage system had hundreds of drives and a bunch of "director" boards that managed backend and frontend ports to provide highly reliable data storage for enterprises. (The company was later bought by Dell, and the product line has evolved into the "PowerMax" product line today; I still work there.) But as to what is interesting, I was told that since Apple stopped with the 68040, we were the largest 68060 customer. (We did eventually follow the Apple path of switching to PowerPC and later Intel where our currently shipping products are now, and I can't comment on future plans.) Anyway, I think it's awesome to upgrade these computers to the most advanced compatible CPU possible.
@@keyboard_gI was thinking this exact thing... what happened to all those 060s? I was looking up today who actually adopted the 060. There were accelerators for the Amiga... and eventually the Falcon. And the various TOS computers that couldn't have sold that many... really wondering how many 060s were ever made... there were a lot of revisions and they were manufactured for a long time... I think some VME based systems uded them as well.
such an awesome computer! a pitty it didn't do better. Also. cool to see you using our lastest falcon demo as showcase. Thanx :) (Proteque of DHS here)
I'm impressed you understand how to use GB6 properly! It drove me nuts a few years ago because people didn't understand they had to load benchmarking files and that some scores will inherently show 0% because there is no reference to any other hardware in some test files.
Thanks! It's actually a lot of what I do in my day job. The absolute numbers don't mean anything unless you have a clear and consistent understanding of what you're comparing against.
So glad you got it working. I was the user on the Exxos forum who suggested the solder reflow (as I had a similar issue) had no idea I was talking to you (I often watch your videos) glad it's working! FYI not sure if you're using that CT60 control panel or not, but I recommend NOT. Since you are using the excellent 1.05 bios which allows you to set all the configuration (previously people HAD to use that CPX to do these things) the CPX is buggy and just causes issues.
Thank you so much again! It really was a last ditch effort as I'd been so frustrated by it. I was going to fix it or break in the process of trying. Thanks for the tip of not using the CPX...I only have used it since it's been fixed when I pushed the clock speed too much the computer wouldn't post to even let me get to the bios.
Amazing performance .On Atari falcon doom look much better than on Amiga with rtg. Falcon is definitely the best Atari even maded and only one Atari who can beat Amiga.😁
There has been some development of the PiStorm for the Atari ST, but to my knowledge not for the Falcon yet. I am by no means a purist and would never tell anyone to not use a PiStorm. While I love using accelerators and trying them out, I prefer to specifically use ones that are designed similar to those that were available when these computers were still in daily use: Terriblefire, DFB1, Exxos boosters, or in this case the CT63. I have dabbled with a PiStorm in my Amigas, but for now don't plan on using as a permanent install in either my Ataris or Amigas for my acceleration "needs".
So I discovered a little later that the pico psu wasn't adequate. I clocked the CPU a little slower and swapped for another PSU and the demo runs massively better.
Yes this is the CT63 "bios". It lets you adjust settings unique to the CT63 as well as the standard Falcon nvram settings (date time boot video mode etc)
it looks like you have to set up cache or something, i dont reemember anymore i also have the problem when i 1st get my ct060, but at the end the demos are running way to slow ... just i am at 15:14 ... and this scene runs smooth as hell even if i clocked my 060 down to 66mhz
In this video, I'd literally just gotten the CT63 to recognize the SDRAM by reflowing one of the CPLD's. I just recorded a video detailing the performance post tweaking and fixing. ruclips.net/video/epfizcAP4mE/видео.html
There are three versions of the 68060 CPU (multiple generations). There is the EC or embedded controller version which has no internal MMU (memory management unit) or FPU (floating point unit / math co-processor). There is the LC or low cost(?) version which has the MMU but not the FPU. Then there is what I refer to as full-fat which has both the MMU and FPU. There are different revisions of the CPU which have different levels of overclockability (think tighter manufacturing processes). The “rev 6’s” are the ultimate versions of the CPU (they can often run stably at 95mhz-105mhz) and command a pretty hefty price nowadays. Mine is not a rev 6, but runs fully stably between 67mhz and 68mhz.
Hah! Too true...it does make Ultima VI much more playable though (although it's pretty good in the base config as well as with the DFB1 accelerator too) 1 - Continue to use it to write my scripts while playing MP3's in the background. 2 - I'm working on getting it to emulate late 68k Macintosh's (Quadra's and the like). Using Basilisk II for Atari. If I can get that to work: Games like Civ II, Warcraft II (there are some folks on Exxos forum that have made some awesome progress there) 3 - Playing around with various awesome demos 4 - It was a fun project to get set up and working
This was the initial performance without any optimizing and with an iffy pico PSU. I shared an update here. Atari Falcon 060 - CT63 performance update ruclips.net/video/epfizcAP4mE/видео.html
Atari shot themselves in the foot & doomed the F030 to failure by releasing it at a mere 16MHz. The TT was already 32MHz, so this was considered a DOWNGRADE. An 060 version to start might have saved Atari (Steve Jobs once said: "Atari had the opportunity to become IBM & Nintendo under one roof and they blew it.")
Agreed, but I believe even if they had knocked it out of the park with the Falcon, it was really already too late. By 1992 much of the world had already moved on from Atari. If a similar big swing of a move had been taken 3-4 years earlier, I agree that it could have made a difference and the world might have a lot more Fuji's around.
Hey, that's cool, congrats! I have a similar configuration, but I lack a descent system. I wondered if you were ok to share a copy of your system, it's look awesome with the ability to boot in 030 and 060 mod! Thanks :-)
I loved my CBM Amigas, and spent a lot of money upgrading them with ,030 and '040 CPUs etc. I always wanted an '060, but could never justify the huge expense. But showing Quake running on an upgraded Amiga or Atari ST/TT/Falcon is ridiculous today. Twenty years ago, it would have been fairly impressive, but nowadays, it's really not. A cheap smartphone or a £5 Raspberry Pi Zero can run it better. People literally throw away old PCs that can run Quake and vastly more demanding games. Saying "My £400 overclocked '060 can run Quake at 10fps in 2023" is just embarrassing. Show something that contemporary PCs COULDN'T do... that's why we had an Amiga or Atari back then.
The falcon is a neat machine. I’ve always wanted one and temped to buy one off eBay. However it’s also a confusing computer as it’s half 32bit and stuck in older architecture 16bit design for the bus. When they were out I wanted an 040 and based on TT architecture. I assume the 060 struggles the same way the 030 does in this design.
@@masterhoshi The nice part about these various accelerators (both the CT63 as well as the DFB1) is that the Alt RAM or TT RAM runs at the full speed of 70mhz (for the CT63) which helps to offset some of the issues of the basic design (clearly not all of them). Not all software plays nice with running in this manner, but some does.
@@masterhoshi But this 16 bit bus is faster than 32 bit bus in Amiga 1200 & 4000. Most of the code is 16 bit -> then many times upper 16 bits transfer zeroes. Next - the delay in Atari Falcon is 4 clocks / transfer vs in Amiga 8 clocks. The transfer in benchmarks shows Amiga 1200 (14MHz) can transfer datas to/from RAM at 58% of Falcon (16MHz) performance. In the Atari TT the memory controller & RAM works 2x faster than in Falcon. The additional cards even with 68030 @50MHz only have got own RAM (TT/fast) with own controller for faster transfer.
@@powerofvintage9442 That is super neat and interesting. I have seen the limits of the Amiga with it's bus and careful timing. Big hinderance with later models for sure. I think there were some opened up implementations of the Falcon architecture with third-party Hades / Milan, I think. I don't remember if they solved the bus issue and opened up as full 32-bit clean. Overall the Falcon is a solid media machine that would have been a major leader if they had iterated on it with the 040 design that was rumored. Maybe not to fully unseat WinTel at the time but certainly a competitor.
@@powerofvintage9442The original '060 was only released in 1994, and wasn't immediately used in Atari and Amiga accelerators due to price and availability. Plus it wasn't totally compatible with existing OS and software. Then, as now, they were extremely expensive. Apple never used the '060 in their 68K Macs because of long delays in it's development, and it wasn't compatible with their 68K Mac OS without an extensive rewrite. They jumped ship to PowerPC, and Motorola let the 68K series slowly die.
Hah! It was less the insertion and more the removal. Since I don't have the "shovel shaped" CPU extractors and can't find one anywhere, it's a long tedious process with various flat objects...including levering a small screwdriver between the CPU pins. To be honest, setting up a camera and filming this delicate task seemed more like a recipe for me damaging something. So I took my sweet time to make sure it all came out safely.
if u are going to overload the CPU with a quake engine running doom, why not try running a modern game like Doom Eternal? alternatively run the original doom code, giving the cpu a fair chance at life. no-one's buying your story that u couldn't point your phone-camera at the screen and record it running 'extremenly smoothly' btw back in 1990AD at 12yo i used to record sega master system game footage using VHS at 24fps. As a mature hardware engineer you should try catch up with my child level of engineering.
Thanks for your comment! Sometimes I record screens directly and sometimes using a cheap HDMI to USB screen capture device. It should be pretty apparent that I'm not trying to max out the performance of either the game or the demos. I'm not trying to make it any prettier or make the computer seem more powerful than it is...otherwise I would have probably not included the last demo. When recording through the screen capture device and playing by using an OBS window on my computer, it definitely plays with more choppiness and lag than not through screen capture. I would guess that no matter what you recording you see, you've already got your mind made up about these kinds of things, and that is totally cool! Playing these games on old computers is for fun...I find it fun to imagine "what if" with the accelerator and games I could only dream of running. When I first played Doom on a friends computer it played much choppier than what the Falcon with the 060 plays it like now...and I loved it then!
You should make your own description "immature hardware engineer", as it seems more appropriate. That Doom game isn't using a Quake engine, it's just a modified Doom engine. And "Doom Eternal" struggles to run on PCs with multi GHz, multi-core 64 bit CPUs and a 3D accelerated GPU with 4 gigabytes of RAM. It wouldn't run on a high end PC from 2010, never mind an early '90s Atari Falcon. And it's well known that screen capture devices can introduce lag. Your level of engineering is obviously questionable.
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm not a computer geek, but used the Atari since inception for music. What a shame these devices (Acorn, Commodores etc) didn't become the "norm". I remember booting PCs at the time and always thinking how backwards they were.
I would hope that they would have kept their quirkiness. Just not enough space in the market unfortunately.
I think, in the end, they just weren’t powerful enough. They didn’t have as seamless a transition to newer hardware as the PowerPC Macs did, and the 68k spec stopped receiving much in the way of significant hardware updates. (Acorn eventually found its niche with ARM, of course, and the rest is history.)
@@elphive42I don't think that was the main problem. Most variations of the PC and the Mac had built in upgradability via multiple ISA and E-ISA slots, and room to add or exchange a variety of expansion cards. Most Amiga's and Atari ST machines (and older 8 bits) were limited in this regard, and the more expandable "big box" versions were much more expensive. That easy expandability encouraged more experimentation in the PC world. Having your CPU, RAM and custom chips soldered in, and limited expansion capabilities via proprietary slots means keeping your machine relevant becomes much harder and more expensive.
@@another3997 you are partially right, but there was another aspect that did set Atari and Commodore apart from Apple. Both brands were "budget" computer brands, which means anything expensive, there was no space to sell. Apple, while still very proprietary whencompared to PC clones, was much more expensive, which means more money could be dumped in solutions that brought the similar outcome to industrial standard (which was IBM PC clone), but still remaining Apple proprietary. And even Apple went to industrial standards to be able to use off shelf add-on products at the end. The thing is that mid 90s was very sensitive to the topic and Apply with its "premium" price was able to survive on own proprietary solutions until transition to industry standard. Commodore and Atari didnt have this luxury, and Sam Tramiel found out in right moment and killed the PC department, since he realized that Atari cannot compete much longer with something like PC clones, that became the industry standard. I think that he should have still kept the Falcon project alive as a specialty multimedia computer, since it had its audience in audio professional area long time after it was dead.
Commodore managers simply sucked...
I think it's only because they were 'closed' platforms, really. PCs were more mailable, so people opted for the convenience of those. But yeah, I'd love to have seen microcomputers exist alongside PCs.
Interesting 68060 trivia: I was working for a company called EMC in the late 90s, and we used 68K CPUs in our storage product at the time. The "Symmetrix" storage system had hundreds of drives and a bunch of "director" boards that managed backend and frontend ports to provide highly reliable data storage for enterprises. (The company was later bought by Dell, and the product line has evolved into the "PowerMax" product line today; I still work there.) But as to what is interesting, I was told that since Apple stopped with the 68040, we were the largest 68060 customer. (We did eventually follow the Apple path of switching to PowerPC and later Intel where our currently shipping products are now, and I can't comment on future plans.)
Anyway, I think it's awesome to upgrade these computers to the most advanced compatible CPU possible.
As those units aged out, I wish someone was able to harvest out the processors. A 68060 is so expensive today.
...and we all know that the future is ARM, you dont even have to tell us.
@@keyboard_gI was thinking this exact thing... what happened to all those 060s? I was looking up today who actually adopted the 060. There were accelerators for the Amiga... and eventually the Falcon. And the various TOS computers that couldn't have sold that many... really wondering how many 060s were ever made... there were a lot of revisions and they were manufactured for a long time...
I think some VME based systems uded them as well.
such an awesome computer! a pitty it didn't do better. Also. cool to see you using our lastest falcon demo as showcase. Thanx :) (Proteque of DHS here)
Thank you for the awesome demo!
I'm impressed you understand how to use GB6 properly! It drove me nuts a few years ago because people didn't understand they had to load benchmarking files and that some scores will inherently show 0% because there is no reference to any other hardware in some test files.
Thanks! It's actually a lot of what I do in my day job. The absolute numbers don't mean anything unless you have a clear and consistent understanding of what you're comparing against.
So glad you got it working. I was the user on the Exxos forum who suggested the solder reflow (as I had a similar issue) had no idea I was talking to you (I often watch your videos) glad it's working! FYI not sure if you're using that CT60 control panel or not, but I recommend NOT. Since you are using the excellent 1.05 bios which allows you to set all the configuration (previously people HAD to use that CPX to do these things) the CPX is buggy and just causes issues.
Thank you so much again! It really was a last ditch effort as I'd been so frustrated by it. I was going to fix it or break in the process of trying. Thanks for the tip of not using the CPX...I only have used it since it's been fixed when I pushed the clock speed too much the computer wouldn't post to even let me get to the bios.
@@powerofvintage9442 there may be a 66mhz safe mode jumper or a reset jumper on the CT60. There is on my ct60e.
Amazing performance .On Atari falcon doom look much better than on Amiga with rtg. Falcon is definitely the best Atari even maded and only one Atari who can beat Amiga.😁
Ooohhh saw a Sundog box! An absolute favorite of mine!
Love that game and spent countless hours driving around planet surfaces looking for cities.
@@powerofvintage9442 Same here! Hopefully you packed enough burgers for those trips :)
That’s one powerful beast!
Everyone seems to have an 060 accelerated Falcon. Only a very few had one with the Afterburner040. I had one between 1996 and 2013. 🙂
my c-lab mkii is original
That was awesome. I will be getting my 060 working soon I hope!
Congrats! Good luck.
Sweet machine!
better music than the stfm
You make me drool! :-)~~~
what's with the last demo? on Amiga 060/50 it runs very smoothly and fust, but on Falcon it lags?
I hadn’t tweaked the system. Runs super smoothly now…follow up video 060 performance update.
Would this be better and simpler with a PiStorm these days? Or what would be the disadvantages of the PiStorm?
There has been some development of the PiStorm for the Atari ST, but to my knowledge not for the Falcon yet.
I am by no means a purist and would never tell anyone to not use a PiStorm. While I love using accelerators and trying them out, I prefer to specifically use ones that are designed similar to those that were available when these computers were still in daily use: Terriblefire, DFB1, Exxos boosters, or in this case the CT63.
I have dabbled with a PiStorm in my Amigas, but for now don't plan on using as a permanent install in either my Ataris or Amigas for my acceleration "needs".
That Starstruck demo at the end has very distorted audio - what happened?
So I discovered a little later that the pico psu wasn't adequate. I clocked the CPU a little slower and swapped for another PSU and the demo runs massively better.
Re-recording of this post tweaks just published: ruclips.net/video/epfizcAP4mE/видео.html
7:13 - is this screen something like BIOS-menu ?
Yes this is the CT63 "bios". It lets you adjust settings unique to the CT63 as well as the standard Falcon nvram settings (date time boot video mode etc)
Off cam CPU removal lol yeah I use the delicate approach with some strong tweezers and a hammer :)
No hammer here just some small screw drivers a really small allen wrench and a lot of patience.
it looks like you have to set up cache or something, i dont reemember anymore i also have the problem when i 1st get my ct060, but at the end the demos are running way to slow ... just i am at 15:14 ... and this scene runs smooth as hell even if i clocked my 060 down to 66mhz
In this video, I'd literally just gotten the CT63 to recognize the SDRAM by reflowing one of the CPLD's.
I just recorded a video detailing the performance post tweaking and fixing. ruclips.net/video/epfizcAP4mE/видео.html
When you refer to full fat CPU can you please explain what you are talking about?
There are three versions of the 68060 CPU (multiple generations). There is the EC or embedded controller version which has no internal MMU (memory management unit) or FPU (floating point unit / math co-processor). There is the LC or low cost(?) version which has the MMU but not the FPU. Then there is what I refer to as full-fat which has both the MMU and FPU. There are different revisions of the CPU which have different levels of overclockability (think tighter manufacturing processes). The “rev 6’s” are the ultimate versions of the CPU (they can often run stably at 95mhz-105mhz) and command a pretty hefty price nowadays. Mine is not a rev 6, but runs fully stably between 67mhz and 68mhz.
Very cool. Now the question is: what are you going to use it for? I don't think you need a Falcon 060 to play Ultima IV, do you? ;-)
Hah! Too true...it does make Ultima VI much more playable though (although it's pretty good in the base config as well as with the DFB1 accelerator too)
1 - Continue to use it to write my scripts while playing MP3's in the background.
2 - I'm working on getting it to emulate late 68k Macintosh's (Quadra's and the like). Using Basilisk II for Atari. If I can get that to work: Games like Civ II, Warcraft II (there are some folks on Exxos forum that have made some awesome progress there)
3 - Playing around with various awesome demos
4 - It was a fun project to get set up and working
Strange that’s slower than my AMIGA 1200 with the TF1260 Rev6 50MHz. Have thought that the Atari Falco with a 68060 Card is faster than my AMIGA 1200.
This was the initial performance without any optimizing and with an iffy pico PSU. I shared an update here. Atari Falcon 060 - CT63 performance update
ruclips.net/video/epfizcAP4mE/видео.html
Atari shot themselves in the foot & doomed the F030 to failure by releasing it at a mere 16MHz. The TT was already 32MHz, so this was considered a DOWNGRADE.
An 060 version to start might have saved Atari (Steve Jobs once said: "Atari had the opportunity to become IBM & Nintendo under one roof and they blew it.")
Agreed, but I believe even if they had knocked it out of the park with the Falcon, it was really already too late. By 1992 much of the world had already moved on from Atari. If a similar big swing of a move had been taken 3-4 years earlier, I agree that it could have made a difference and the world might have a lot more Fuji's around.
Hey, that's cool, congrats! I have a similar configuration, but I lack a descent system. I wondered if you were ok to share a copy of your system, it's look awesome with the ability to boot in 030 and 060 mod! Thanks :-)
Do you mean a hard drive image?
@@powerofvintage9442 yes
I never managed to configure xboot, and your system looks like a perfect system for a CT60/63 owner :-)
@@stephanepitteloud1849 Send me an email to my channel contact email address.
done, thanks!
I think quake would be a more appropriate test for this system, with 060 and FPU, rather than doom. BTW, beautiful machine.
Agreed! I'll get right on that. Just testing what I could get on it quickly (demos) and what I already had on the drive.
I loved my CBM Amigas, and spent a lot of money upgrading them with ,030 and '040 CPUs etc. I always wanted an '060, but could never justify the huge expense. But showing Quake running on an upgraded Amiga or Atari ST/TT/Falcon is ridiculous today. Twenty years ago, it would have been fairly impressive, but nowadays, it's really not. A cheap smartphone or a £5 Raspberry Pi Zero can run it better. People literally throw away old PCs that can run Quake and vastly more demanding games. Saying "My £400 overclocked '060 can run Quake at 10fps in 2023" is just embarrassing. Show something that contemporary PCs COULDN'T do... that's why we had an Amiga or Atari back then.
Finally got around to demoing more with some performance tweaks (including Quake) ruclips.net/video/epfizcAP4mE/видео.html
What about DSP ?
The DSP is pure awesomeness and is what let's the stock falcon with the 16mhz 030 run Doom or live decode mp3s.
The falcon is a neat machine. I’ve always wanted one and temped to buy one off eBay. However it’s also a confusing computer as it’s half 32bit and stuck in older architecture 16bit design for the bus. When they were out I wanted an 040 and based on TT architecture. I assume the 060 struggles the same way the 030 does in this design.
@@masterhoshi The nice part about these various accelerators (both the CT63 as well as the DFB1) is that the Alt RAM or TT RAM runs at the full speed of 70mhz (for the CT63) which helps to offset some of the issues of the basic design (clearly not all of them). Not all software plays nice with running in this manner, but some does.
@@masterhoshi But this 16 bit bus is faster than 32 bit bus in Amiga 1200 & 4000. Most of the code is 16 bit -> then many times upper 16 bits transfer zeroes. Next - the delay in Atari Falcon is 4 clocks / transfer vs in Amiga 8 clocks. The transfer in benchmarks shows Amiga 1200 (14MHz) can transfer datas to/from RAM at 58% of Falcon (16MHz) performance.
In the Atari TT the memory controller & RAM works 2x faster than in Falcon.
The additional cards even with 68030 @50MHz only have got own RAM (TT/fast) with own controller for faster transfer.
@@powerofvintage9442 That is super neat and interesting. I have seen the limits of the Amiga with it's bus and careful timing. Big hinderance with later models for sure. I think there were some opened up implementations of the Falcon architecture with third-party Hades / Milan, I think. I don't remember if they solved the bus issue and opened up as full 32-bit clean. Overall the Falcon is a solid media machine that would have been a major leader if they had iterated on it with the 040 design that was rumored. Maybe not to fully unseat WinTel at the time but certainly a competitor.
9:50 - CPU 14x faster. Why I hadn't got this in 90th...
The original ct2 came out in 1997 followed by the ct60 in 2003 which evolved into the CT63.
@@powerofvintage9442The original '060 was only released in 1994, and wasn't immediately used in Atari and Amiga accelerators due to price and availability. Plus it wasn't totally compatible with existing OS and software. Then, as now, they were extremely expensive. Apple never used the '060 in their 68K Macs because of long delays in it's development, and it wasn't compatible with their 68K Mac OS without an extensive rewrite. They jumped ship to PowerPC, and Motorola let the 68K series slowly die.
You should have shown your insertion process - why worry about what someone else thinks?
Hah! It was less the insertion and more the removal. Since I don't have the "shovel shaped" CPU extractors and can't find one anywhere, it's a long tedious process with various flat objects...including levering a small screwdriver between the CPU pins.
To be honest, setting up a camera and filming this delicate task seemed more like a recipe for me damaging something. So I took my sweet time to make sure it all came out safely.
If I ever fix my falcon, I am not reinstalling the ct63. So easy to fry your falcon...
Please explain how. I would love to know what to be careful of!
@@powerofvintage9442 you know how the ct63 plugs to the motherboard for power and it doesn't have a guide for the direction of the cable? That's how
Ah, got it. I'm lucky that the berg connector (floppy drive style connector) that powers the board for my CT63 has a guide for the cable connection.
slugish
Fixed ruclips.net/video/epfizcAP4mE/видео.html
if u are going to overload the CPU with a quake engine running doom, why not try running a modern game like Doom Eternal?
alternatively run the original doom code, giving the cpu a fair chance at life. no-one's buying your story that u couldn't point your phone-camera at the screen and record it running 'extremenly smoothly'
btw back in 1990AD at 12yo i used to record sega master system game footage using VHS at 24fps. As a mature hardware engineer you should try catch up with my child level of engineering.
Thanks for your comment!
Sometimes I record screens directly and sometimes using a cheap HDMI to USB screen capture device. It should be pretty apparent that I'm not trying to max out the performance of either the game or the demos. I'm not trying to make it any prettier or make the computer seem more powerful than it is...otherwise I would have probably not included the last demo. When recording through the screen capture device and playing by using an OBS window on my computer, it definitely plays with more choppiness and lag than not through screen capture. I would guess that no matter what you recording you see, you've already got your mind made up about these kinds of things, and that is totally cool!
Playing these games on old computers is for fun...I find it fun to imagine "what if" with the accelerator and games I could only dream of running. When I first played Doom on a friends computer it played much choppier than what the Falcon with the 060 plays it like now...and I loved it then!
You should make your own description "immature hardware engineer", as it seems more appropriate. That Doom game isn't using a Quake engine, it's just a modified Doom engine. And "Doom Eternal" struggles to run on PCs with multi GHz, multi-core 64 bit CPUs and a 3D accelerated GPU with 4 gigabytes of RAM. It wouldn't run on a high end PC from 2010, never mind an early '90s Atari Falcon. And it's well known that screen capture devices can introduce lag. Your level of engineering is obviously questionable.