128K when and why?

[ebiguy]

At the bottom, from $0000 to $7FFF. I thought it would be good to have multiple page 0s and stacks which could be used for multitasking with relatively easy context switching.

 

 

 

You're right. That would be very useful. I was wondering if the memory logic in U1MB could be chaged so that part of the RAM would be used to switch only the stack (just the page 1) ?

[ebiguy]

That's what I assumed. The possibilities would have been endless.

 

We were writing our message at the same time and I was thinking at the same thing : your graphical OS. So I also ask you about a way to change the U1MB memry logic to add page 1 switching. Possible or not ?

[flashjazzcat]

 

We were writing our message at the same time and I was thinking at the same thing : your graphical OS. So I also ask you about a way to change the U1MB memry logic to add page 1 switching. Possible or not ?

 

Not worth the bother. If 32K had been the standard, then I'd have capitalised on it, but it isn't and stack switching has been taken care of and isn't a problem.

[+slx]

I never wanted to say that 128K are not useful at all. I just think they were not really used by the majority of buyers. Even if the Ramdisk in DOS 2.5 was obvious, most users probably did not need a ramdisk unless they were into heavy programming, etc.

 

The C128 apparently sold over 5 million copies (which by some reckoning is more than all Atari 8-bits combined).

 

A smart move by Atari might have been to license DOS XE and make it built-in. But as I said, I do think JT was after rock-bottom pricing rather than lots of improvement.

[+slx]

128K if anything means you can have a Dos with a smaller footprint in main memory.

 

Then you may as well go 320K to have that and a decent sized Ramdisk.

 

Really, no such thing as too much Ram. Give us a 32 Meg A8, we'll soon enough find a way to fill that up too.

 

Fully with you regarding power users. My argument was centered on "majority of buyers". If you stick in Donkey Kong or any contemporary XE cart RAM above 64K doesn't matter.

[+kheller2]

The C128 apparently sold over 5 million copies (which by some reckoning is more than all Atari 8-bits combined).

.

Um. Why does that chart show not Atari 8bits past 85?

[+slx]

Good Point.

[Alfred]

The 130XE came out after I developed the 256K RAM upgrade for the 800XL in December 84, but before BYTE published the article in September 85. I designed the upgrade with 32K banks and when the 130XE came out with 16K banks, it was too late to change the BYTE article. In the mean time I redesigned it with 16K banks for the sake of compatibility and wrote a flyer showing new schematics and RAMdisk code. When the BYTE came out folks who wrote me got a flyer in return. I also posted it to BBSs. Here's that flyer:

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/122470-ram-upgrade-applications/page-2?do=findComment&comment=1481893

 

That was the first modification I ever did building your upgrade from the Byte article. Bob Puff was horrified when he saw it, said I shouldn't be allowed near a soldering iron. IIRC I used 18ga wire for everything. It worked fine though, and fixing the ramdisk driver was a good introduction to assembly language too.

[Rybags]

I think that chart should be taken with a bag of salt.

 

If the 800XL was Atari's biggest seller then you could nearly double the 2 million quoted there. It might be that total sales will never be known but my guess would be in the 3.5 to 5 million range, all 8-bits including XEGS but not 5200.

[+kheller2]

I think that chart should be taken with a bag of salt.

 

If the 800XL was Atari's biggest seller then you could nearly double the 2 million quoted there. It might be that total sales will never be known but my guess would be in the 3.5 to 5 million range, all 8-bits including XEGS but not 5200.

 

Curt could probably figure it out from documents at the musuem.

[+kheller2]

The 65XEN got me thinking again about when Atari Corp. or Atari Inc. conceived of the 128K 8bit. The confusing thing about that is again the NTSC 65XE board marked as the "900XLF" and the 128K 800XLF board marked as a "130XE" http://atariage.com/forums/topic/187202-130xl-800xlf128k-aka-the-first-130xe/?do=findComment&comment=2362467 The 130XE name was already in use by 11/84 50-84 Rev R1 in a XL footprint at the same time as the 900XLF boards of 50-84 Rev R3 in a XE footprint.

 

Atari was odd.