Why C64 and not Atari XL/XE?

[Bryan]

Maybe if Atari was more aggressive with it's pricing and shipped the XL range a lot earlier - would that have made a big difference?

They simply did not acknowledge the downward trend in pricing etc...

 

Yeah, I think Atari was too fixated on Apple who was getting top dollar for their computers. They thought as long as they were priced a little lower, they would stay competitive. They never saw the C64 coming.

[Muzz73]

A guy on one of our local BBSes in the Santa Cruz, CA area referred to Atari's marketing division as having the speed and agility of a Ford Pinto. Sometimes it sucks to be right!

Edited May 16, 2014 by Muzz73

[atarian63]

still amazes me as when c64 was released Atari had hundreds of titles, c64 had squat and what they had sucked. Just shows how little people knew about computers at the time ( I sold all these in my shop) they only had a perceived need and wanted a cheap price... without regard to available software etc.

[Muzz73]

Like VHS and Betamax... Betamax was superior to VHS in almost every conceivable way, but VHS was cheap and EVERYWHERE, so that's what caught on. Hmph...

[fibrewire]

Like VHS and Betamax... Betamax was superior to VHS in almost every conceivable way, but VHS was cheap and EVERYWHERE, so that's what caught on. Hmph...

 

"CHEAP and EVERYWHERE"

 

This is the least understood marketing strategy by the entire free enterprise industry to date. I could name a dozen toy stores, a dozed general purpose stores, a dozen 5 and dime stores and many many high end merchandise stores that simply don't exist anymore because they didn't understand "CHEAP and EVERYWHERE"- but WalMart sure the heck understood.

 

In fact, ANY business can literally starve their competition to death by doing just that - being CHEAP and EVERYWHERE. They may laugh at you at first, then belittle you, then try to sue you for patent infringement, then get senators involved and try to block you on legal recourse, but eventually you'll win. CHEAP and EVERYWHERE always wins.

 

Race you to the bottom!

[Marius]

Even me (being a 100% atari fan) finds that explaining the c64-success just with the idea that it was cheap and everywhere a ridiculous idea.

 

Overall the C64 is a very nice computer; and not only cheap and everywhere. If it was a dumb piece of crap it wouldn't be so popular everywhere.

[high voltage]

C64 got lucky in UK, as software was being developed for the ZX on tape, it was easy to do so as well on C64, and yes, C64 was half the price of A8 (and the A][ was like 3 times more expensive), so dead cheap fits the bill here.

Edited May 16, 2014 by high voltage

[TMR]

People are going on about "cheap and everywhere" as though it's a strategy that wouldn't have been used by every other company given half a chance; nothing is actually wrong with "cheap" anyway, not when it's down to the same parts costing one manufacturer less and that saving being passed on to the customer; every 6502 or variant that Commodore used was cheaper than a similar part for the Atari 8-bit, Apple II or BBC Micro because Commodore owned MOS and the others didn't.

 

C64 got lucky in UK, as software was being developed for the ZX on tape, it was easy to do so as well on C64

It's as "easy" to write software for a tape-based market on the Atari 8-bit as it is the C64, the programmers didn't work on tape-based machines and merely pushed their assembled code to tape for testing and mastering.

[kiwilove]

Yes the UK market was a obviously a cheap one - with the ZX Spectrum taking off - and the C-64 particularly focused on tapes - that it had a particularly fast and reliable system. Who exactly invented it's fast turbo load tapes?

But making particularly outstanding videogames was truly a new art form as witnessed by the few games that stood out from the rest - and inspired fans to want to create their own work of art too.

[TMR]

Who exactly invented it's fast turbo load tapes?

i'm not sure anybody knows, the earliest tape turboloading schemes i remember seeing in commercial use were credited to German developers but there were schemes for the VIC and PET beforehand so working out which lead to the first C64 one...

 

But making particularly outstanding videogames was truly a new art form as witnessed by the few games that stood out from the rest - and inspired fans to want to create their own work of art too.

And the UK market had it's fair share of excellent games despite being "cheap" to the point where the US publishers started hiring away UK developers for certain genres of game.

[Heaven/TQA]

German engineering

[Grevle]

Atari was big in the arcades, Games like Asteroids, Missile Command,Gravitar,Centipede,Star Wars, Tempest and so on. That should at least count for some advertisment for the Atari 8-bit Home computer. For me it was a no brainer buying a Atari Computer back in the early 80's. I mean who wouldn't want a piece of the Atari Arcade Magic in your own living room Back the early 80's ? . I think Missile Command for the Atari 8-bit is one of the best Arcade ports ever.

Edited May 16, 2014 by GentleBaron

[Creature XL]

People are going on about "cheap and everywhere" as though it's a strategy that wouldn't have been used by every other company given half a chance; nothing is actually wrong with "cheap" anyway, not when it's down to the same parts costing one manufacturer less and that saving being passed on to the customer; every 6502 or variant that Commodore used was cheaper than a similar part for the Atari 8-bit, Apple II or BBC Micro because Commodore owned MOS and the others didn't.

 

Is it known how much Comodore saved? I can't find any historical prices of the 6502 from the early 80's.

[almightytodd]

Atari was big in the arcades, Games like Asteroids, Missile Command,Gravitar,Centipede,Star Wars, Tempest and so on. That should at least count for some advertisment for the Atari 8-bit Home computer. For me it was a no brainer buying a Atari Computer back in the early 80's. I mean who wouldn't want a piece of the Atari Arcade Magic in your own living room Back the early 80's ? . I think Missile Command for the Atari 8-bit is one of the best Arcade ports ever.

 

Yes, but that was a bit of a two-edged sword as well. Some people were nervous about the idea of spending upwards of $1,000 (1983) dollars (or more by the time you include a disk-drive, some software, and a dedicated TV to hook it up to) on a "game machine with a keyboard". I think a lot of TRS-80s sold during that time because they were cheaper than Apples, but seemed more like "real" computers than the "hook it up to your TV set" devices.

[TMR]

Is it known how much Comodore saved? I can't find any historical prices of the 6502 from the early 80's.

Probably not, the chances are that what Commodore paid didn't "escape" because they didn't need to (Woz has said he paid $20 a unit for early model 6502s in 1975 for the Apple I and the retail only seems to be around $25) but we know that Commodore didn't skimp on the custom parts; the 6510, VIC-II and SID were all custom ICs whilst most of the rest have MOS or CSG markings.

 

And everyone else using a 6502, 6522 or whatever was, essentially, paying something towards Commodore as well even if they didn't go to MOS for the parts... just imagine, a bunch of hardcore Atarians whose purchases funded Commodore equipment. [Evil grin =-]

[Bill Loguidice]

To my mind it's pretty simple. While the Atari 8-bits had a roughly three year headstart, in those three years, Atari wasn't able to make much headway in the market despite having the best audio-visual potential of the time, bar-none. The mis-step with the Atari 1200XL didn't do them any favors, and by the time the Commodore 64 started picking up significant momentum in 1983 and its price dropped to the point where no one was able to compete effectively on the low end with its price/power combination, Atari was already done. It didn't do Atari any favors that they had machines out in the wild with 16K - 64K at that time, making it difficult to target the higher spec. We can't underestimate the value of every Commodore 64 having 64K from its first day on the market to its last.

Now, you might ask about the Apple II, which had a similar spec spread as the Atari 8-bit line, right down to the original run of computers not supporting the same graphics capabilities as the newer computers (same difference between the TI-99/4 and 4a). The Apple II was always a different market with different expectations. That was a more affluent purchaser who wasn't afraid to upgrade, and there were a lot of developers who used that machine, which made all the difference (many originals appeared on the Apple II that were later ported to other platforms). There were a lot more factors in the Apple II series' success than just sales numbers, which obviously weren't anywhere near a match for the C-64.

In short, I'd summarize it as Atari being unable to press their advantage in the three years when it would have made a difference, and then having far too many models of computer to choose from. If, after the 400/800, and even after the 1200XL debacle, they standardized on one 64K spec model for a good price (say, the 800XL), they might have moved more units and might have been more competitive. As it was, Atari was probably their own worst enemy. Hindsight is 20/20, though, and it's clear when we look back that most companies made some really poor decisions, so at least Atari wasn't alone in that regard. There was no rule book to follow and what we see as a bad decision now might not have been so obvious back then.

[Bryan]

I attribute the fact that Apple is still with us today to one thing: Support.

 

Apple put all the details on the machine in the hands of users. They actively supported user groups and created a rockstar-like fanbase. Their users would rather buy the latest Apple gadget than eat (hmm.... like it is today). I would show my Apple buddies games they couldn't even dream of and they'd say, "Yeah, but I have a real computer!" And there you have it! It isn't the experience of using, it's the experience of owning!

 

Any (repeat: ANY) computer company could have done this. All they had to do is:

1. Always budget for real R&D on the next big thing or someone else will. Apple was willing to fail and fail HARD.

 

2. Don't view the userbase as the enemy, but as the ultimate resource:

"OMG! If they get all our precious informations, they'll make software and compete with us...nasty hobbitses!!"

 

In the end, the PC survived not because of IBM but because it was cloned and Apple survived because they had the desire and a clue. I just wish they'd given you a little more more bang for your buck.

 

-Bry

[Grevle]

The C64 had the sid chip but the sid chip 6581 actually have a flaw, this "flaw" was used to make sample like sounds for games like exploding fist, and then the fixed version came the 8580 sid chip in 1986. Trouble was this new fixed sid chip 8580 didnt produce the "flaw" used for certain games and those games had bad or missing samples when played on this new sid chip 8580.And many of the newer games or demos would be made for the 8580 sid chip witch again would not sound optimal on the old 6581 chip.To bad they didn't get the sid chip right from the start. Anyone know if the Pokey chip ever had a flaw that was fixed or if there are several revisions of the pokey chip ?

Edited May 16, 2014 by GentleBaron

[TMR]

The C64 had the sid chip but the sid chip 6581 actually have a flaw, this "flaw" was used to make sample like sounds for games like exploding fist, and then the fixed version came the 8580 sid chip in 1986.

It's actually a voltage leak and a single resistor across two legs on an 8580-equipped C64 "unfixes" things to play samples (i have no idea of which legs or what to use as far as the resistor goes, but a friend who is far more adept than myself has done it to one of his). There are also software fixes (sometimes referred to as "digiboosting") and the most recent sample drivers from people like The Noisy Bunch work on anything and can filter the samples. Here's a video of the demo Vicious Sid 2 running on an 8580 with samples playing (including the ProTracker module from Blood Money on the Amiga).

[+davidcalgary29]

C64 got lucky in UK, as software was being developed for the ZX on tape, it was easy to do so as well on C64, and yes, C64 was half the price of A8 (and the A][ was like 3 times more expensive), so dead cheap fits the bill here.

 

And yet, even with a comparitively smaller user base, it's clear that the commerical A8 market in the UK lasted much longer than that in North America. It was *very* big news when The Newsroom was released for the A8 in 1988, and that was about the last Big Thing that I can recall getting for my 130XE. It was too expensive for me to import software from the UK (PAL issues aside) at that time, and yet I recall picking up the odd issue of Page 6 and seeing some great games still coming out for the A8 line. Antic and ANALOG both died in 1990, and yet Page 6 went on until the mid '90s, didn't it? While it's true that UK software houses coded fewer titles for the A8 than other computer platforms, they still did churn out budget titles into the early '90s, and it must have been commercially viable for them to do this. The US market's (seeming) desire for 'premium' titles (higher development costs?) probably helped shorten the life of the A8 -- there wouldn't have been a lot of reason to develop an expensive title for a platform that would deliver only marginal returns.

[flashjazzcat]

Page Six (by then "New Atari User") staggered on until 1998, although by that time the (A5) issues were sporadic and anti-climactic.

[Creature XL]

Probably not, the chances are that what Commodore paid didn't "escape" because they didn't need to (Woz has said he paid $20 a unit for early model 6502s in 1975 for the Apple I and the retail only seems to be around $25) but we know that Commodore didn't skimp on the custom parts; the 6510, VIC-II and SID were all custom ICs whilst most of the rest have MOS or CSG markings.

 

And everyone else using a 6502, 6522 or whatever was, essentially, paying something towards Commodore as well even if they didn't go to MOS for the parts... just imagine, a bunch of hardcore Atarians whose purchases funded Commodore equipment. [Evil grin =-]

 

Those bastards!

They could make the C64 cheaper because (1) they've got the standard chips cheaper and (2) they got money from their competitors

 

I know that exactly the same, but imagine today, ARM would build mobile phones

Although - kinda as with the C64 - the cost for the CPU consumes not the biggest part of the price of a mobile phone / tablet.

[TMR]

While it's true that UK software houses coded fewer titles for the A8 than other computer platforms, they still did churn out budget titles into the early '90s, and it must have been commercially viable for them to do this.

Budget software houses worked to a substantially different model and could get away with lower sales because they were geared up for it; there were also savings in the development, distribution, packaging and so on that the bigger companies couldn't use.

 

I know that exactly the same, but imagine today, ARM would build mobile phones

Although - kinda as with the C64 - the cost for the CPU consumes not the biggest part of the price of a mobile phone / tablet.

In the case of the C64, all of the expensive custom ICs were done in house and, because that's where the costs of a C64 or 800XL come from, Commodore were always going to win a price war.

[Keatah]

Oh, man... I can totally sympathize with you on the disk speed! I bought an EPYX FastLoad cartridge for my 64C back in the day. Although the speed difference was VERY noticeable most of the time, stock Apple ][ and A8 machines still spun donuts around it.

It's notable the Disk II subsystem works quickly for all its inherent simplicity. It has no off-the-shelf microprocessor like the 810 and 1541. It has parallel communications and thereby doesn't suck data through a serial straw. It has no extraneous firmware or lengthy & inefficient code to babysit. Onboard the controller and analog board (combined) is an extraordinarily clever state machine and sequencer built of common parts and a bit of "firmware". This subsystem is the closest to bare metal of all the classic computers' drives.

 

While it has no microprocessor it "borrows" the intelligence from the console's 6502 and 10KBytes ram-resident DOS. A remarkable repurposing of system resources.

 

It's reliable too, I've got 1000's of disks from the 70's and 80's which work fine today. And there were many "fastloader" equivalents that you could put directly on tracks 0,1, and 2. Essentially a DOS replacement.

 

To read more about this check out "Understanding the Apple II" and "Understanding the Apple //e" which can be found here:

ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.com/pub/apple_II/documentation/hardware/machines/

 

 

Uhh wasn't the A8 initially developed as a game system?

Absolutely right.

 

 

It was important for Atari to really establish itself in those early years - which I guess it tried to do - and pitched it as a general purpose computer - making sure it had support for education and business purposes - apart from being strong in the gaming department (at that time).

But gamers were of course disappointed that there was no home Atari versions of Galaga - disappointing versions of defender and Zaxxon - and Xevious nowhere to be seen.

There was nothing, absolutely nothing, disappointing about the 400/800 version of Defender.

 

 

The Apple drives are read directly by the CPU. It can't do much else during disk IO, but it's very fast. The stock Commodore drive is crazy slow.

The 6502 in the console becomes the high-level intelligence and strategic overseer for the Disk II subsystem. the Disk II by itself is little more than a bare parallel interface to a magnetic surface.

 

Later on it became possible (through experimentation and clever tricks) to access data from the disk and execute programs apparently simultaneously. It was done by a simple time slice. Some to the user, some to the disk. And disk activity could be timed (head pre-positioning, motor spin-up, and other housekeeping tasks) while the user was conducting keyboard input. Thus minimizing I/O delays even more.

 

 

Even me (being a 100% atari fan) finds that explaining the c64-success just with the idea that it was cheap and everywhere a ridiculous idea.

 

Overall the C64 is a very nice computer; and not only cheap and everywhere. If it was a dumb piece of crap it wouldn't be so popular everywhere.

People with discerning taste (and money) went after the Apple II. The other 8-bit machines were game computers. C'mon, everybody knows they were toys, and when you wanted to do real work you bought into the Apple II, and later the IBM PC.

 

 

I attribute the fact that Apple is still with us today to one thing: Support.

 

Apple put all the details on the machine in the hands of users. They actively supported user groups and created a rockstar-like fanbase. Their users would rather buy the latest Apple gadget than eat (hmm.... like it is today). I would show my Apple buddies games they couldn't even dream of and they'd say, "Yeah, but I have a real computer!" And there you have it! It isn't the experience of using, it's the experience of owning!

 

Any (repeat: ANY) computer company could have done this. All they had to do is:

1. Always budget for real R&D on the next big thing or someone else will. Apple was willing to fail and fail HARD.

 

2. Don't view the userbase as the enemy, but as the ultimate resource:

"OMG! If they get all our precious informations, they'll make software and compete with us...nasty hobbitses!!"

 

In the end, the PC survived not because of IBM but because it was cloned and Apple survived because they had the desire and a clue. I just wish they'd given you a little more more bang for your buck.

 

-Bry

Apple was known for its complete documentation in the early days, today it is support and quality hardware. Especially in a world that races itself to the bottom.

 

 

 

That statement might apply to the Commodore PET, however the VIC-20 had tons of games, many of which were carts and tapes manufactured and sold by Commodore.

 

http://sleepingelephant.com/denial/wiki/index.php?title=Cartridges#Commodore

http://sleepingelephant.com/denial/wiki/index.php?title=Cassette_Tapes#Commodore

 

The VIC chip was originally designed to power arcade games. No one wanted it so Commodore designed a computer around that chip.

 

It is safe to say that Commodore very much had gaming in mind before the C64.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_VIC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_VIC-II

Arcade games were one small potential market for the Vic and Vic-II. The main intended market was industrial display controllers, CRT controllers, terminal display processors, biomedical display controllers, and kiosks with touch screens.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Keatah

[Muzz73]

Don't get me wrong, when I said "cheap and everywhere", I only meant that it was part of the C=64's success, not solely responsible for it.

 

The C=64 is a great machine. It's what I started on and I own several of them to this day. I happen to like the A8 better, but Commodore machines are still really nifty, IMHO.

 

Not just the cheap thing, either... the "everywhere" thing helped, too.

 

When I was a kid, growing up in Santa Cruz, CA, USA (just over the hill from the Silicon Valley), there were only a few places you could buy Atari computers; K-Mart, I seem to think Long's Drugs had the 400, the Kay-Bee Toys in the Capitola Mall and Teddy Bear Toys in Aptos. I'm sure there were other places, but those were the only ones I knew of.

 

If you wanted to buy a C=64, heck, K-Mart, Sears had them, Montogomery Ward & Consumers Distributing had them in their catalogs and ready for local pickup, almost any place with an appliance dept, an electronics counter carried the VIC-20 and/or the C=64.

 

Granted, this may have been limited to the quiet, hippy-laiden beach town that I grew up in, but Commodore stuff was all over the place.