Rest in peace Jack Tramiel, Your approach of openness and documentation of computers, and making computers affordable was a godsend for many of us. One of the biggest heroes of computing of all time.
Also, it has 8 hardware sprites. How many does IBM’s quantum system have?
Irony: The pictured computer is not a 1980s, 1MHz Commodore 64 but instead a 2010s, 2GHz C64x PC, a keyboard-housed x86 system that looks like a breadbin C64.
I agree. I knew the image in the thumbnail wasn’t a Commodore 64, because it had an @ symbol above the 2. Nope! Shoulda been quotation marks there (then).
But when I click on the article, I think that first picture is right. At least, it looks like what I remember.
Good catch, the picture in the article is an original Commodore 64, the thumbnail shown on Lemmy however is not.
Where is the thumbnail from? Is it some sort of HTML extension when referencing something, that you can include a thumbnail, which is not visible when you read the article?
I see these annoying “fake” thumbnails everywhere, and sometimes they don’t even relate to the content of the link!!!
If you go to https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry You can see the picture used in the article overview is also the real C64.Someone in the article’s own comments section makes the same assertion as me, so my guess is that they’ve corrected the image on the article and the Fediverse’s various caches still have the original.
so, tom’s swings-and-misses… again?
As I said repeatedly: Wake me up on Quantum computers once they are capable to do something actually useful, and not just random worthless quantum benchmarks.
Same thing with fusion reactors.
All the current machines out there are for research purposes only. Nobody can currently power an arc furnace of a steel mill using only fusion power. Sure, there’s been some progress with fusion and quantum computing, but it takes a while to get to an actual practical application of the technology.
While I am convinced that fusion will get somewhere practical in the near future, I have serious doubts on the practical viability of quantum computing.
So, do you think that quantum computing has a much longer way to go?
I’m quite convinced that quantum computing will lead to exacly nothing. My bet is that the error factor will grow larger than the result scope, and not a single thing they try to stabilize will ultimatively make it viable.
As I said repeatedly
And who are you to emphasize that part?
Should we be subscribed to you or something?
I’ll believe it when they release the source code, so for now I’d remain skeptical until it’s reproduced.
"…source code will only be supplied in one of three formats, they say: “a copy handwritten on papyrus, a slide-show of blurry screenshots recorded on a VHS tape, or that I dictate it to you personally over the phone.”
Technically speaking you could get your hands on the code if you were determined enough haha
It’s mostly a joke. How’d you miss that?
That’s because when Commodore made a computer, it made the hell out of it.
NOT EVEN THE AMIGA, WHAT
Hail the c64!
Me, an erudite who studied systems engineering: Will my flutter website compile on this quantum garbage?
