The 1981 16K Atari 400. The first "affordable" real home computer

[ACML]

The Apple II, TRS-80 and PET came out in 1977, the ALTAIR even earlier, but they were either too expensive or too weak on features for middle class America in the late 70's and early 80's. It was not until Atari dropped the price of the 16K 400 in 1981 that you had a computer powerful enough to do things, but didn't require a loan to buy. The Apple II was just too expensive in 1981 for an average middle class household to consider. The Atari 800 was also too expensive in 1981 for the middle class. But an Atari 400 with 16K, BASIC cartridge and a 410 cassette player for $400 was at a price point that my dad could live with. You needed at least 16K to make it powerful enough to write a descent sized program. Having 8K or 4K was not a real useful computer. Plus Atari had the GTIA. ANTIC and POKEY custom chips which made it an amazing computer for under $400.

 

If Atari had not dropped the price or the 400 never existed, I would not have received a computer in 1981 due to cost. Maybe I would have received a computer a few years later when the C-64 came out, but if the 400/800 never existed, would there even be a C-64? Atari had no plans for a home computer until Apple got successful. One begets the other. Home computers were too expensive and may have remained that way if not for the 400. I've read that Atari sold twice as many 400's as 800's and price has everything to do with it. Atari out sold Apple in the early 80's because the 400 was affordable and powerful at the same time. That May 1981 price drop was a turning point in home computing. Now an average middle class household could afford a real computer without breaking all the piggy banks. Most have fond memories of their 800, but a lot of us I suspect have a special place for the 400 which was likely our first computer. The 800,XL line was better, but that usually came later because you had to wait until 1983 to get those machines at 1981 400 prices. The 16K 400 was very important to home computing between 1981 and 1982. Those that came after, won't be able to fully appreciate that the little 400 was the only option for many of us early on in home computing. I have several 1200XLs, but I still have a 400. It's not the most powerful or compatible Atari, but it started it all for me.

 

[+Stephen]

I got a 400 with a B-Key in August of 1982, with Star Raiders, BASIC, and a 410 recorder. I fondly remember typing in Caves of Ice. Took forever for my dad & I to type it in, and get it debugged. Only to hit the dreamed ERROR 2 (out of memory). Never read the fine print - Caves of Ice won't work on a 16kB machine. Not sure where he sent it, but dad had it upgraded to 48kB, and I used the machine until getting my 130XE for xmas of 88.

 

I think I got my 1050 in 86, XM301 modem in 87, US Doubler in 87. That was it. In 91 the 1050 died, and I was 16, so into cars and girls. Thankfully, I never throw anything away so the stuff got packed up. I hit the internet in 94, soon learned about emulation, and decided to dig out the old hardware. Then I found out about EBay (in 98) and boy did my collection ever grow. I could afford everything I wanted but didn't have as a kid.

[Rybags]

Affordable - maybe, maybe not. The 400 was never cheap here except maybe after being superceded. I remember mine costing about $650 in 1983 and $160 of that was for the 1010 drive. Even by 1985 when I got my 1050 that was another $450.

Europe was much the same story and by comparison the Vic-20 was so much cheaper everywhere so no wonder it was the first to a million sales though of course it was inferior to most of the competition.

 

Some of the cost was thanks to the complexity of the 400/800, they probably could have moved to the XL form factor a bit earlier than they did which could have helped enormously.

[+davidcalgary29]

Affordable - maybe, maybe not. The 400 was never cheap here except maybe after being superceded. I remember mine costing about $650 in 1983 and $160 of that was for the 1010 drive. Even by 1985 when I got my 1050 that was another $450.

Europe was much the same story and by comparison the Vic-20 was so much cheaper everywhere so no wonder it was the first to a million sales though of course it was inferior to most of the competition.

 

Some of the cost was thanks to the complexity of the 400/800, they probably could have moved to the XL form factor a bit earlier than they did which could have helped enormously.

Agreed. The VIC-20 certainly had its flaws, but its unbeatable price point opened up the idea of home computers to the masses.

[Keatah]

And it's with ideas that greatness is born and potentials realized. The Vic-20 planted possibilities inside the head, never mind if they came true. Once in place a way would be found to make it happen - on the Vic-20 or not.

[_The Doctor__]

omg really, the vic? for what masses? I've seen a couple PETs but vic not a chance. Looking back I new about 40 Atari people to the one vic user ever in my town back in the day. This was suppose to be about the 400 and it's affordability as well as ability.. Once again it's going down the road of oh no commodore this commodore that.. Let's be honest folks... there were more TRS units around than vics... there were more people first introduced to the concept of 'home computer' with the 400/800 than the commodore vic. I only knew of these groups... The big university computers, S-100 machines of various incarnations, Atari Machines, TRS machines, super expensive business machines, some apple and kit computers, a Commodore business machine, and a VIC. Schools had TRS, Apple, Atari, IBM. This was about the same overseas except of course some of the later offerings and the specific machines backed by their respective governments. Check out some of those Thom Baker commercials! Just think about what we mean as an Altair was a $400 dollar kit but it was no home computer..

 

But this is about affordable home computers that could do something of note, This was clearly a TRS, Apple, Atari deal early on.. price wise the Atari was on top depending on where you went for your 400. I did see a VIC and only 1 VIC to the scores of others. It's possible Commodore had a dumpster sale on them later, but I never saw them , just parts harvested from them for use elsewhere. The computer itself, not so much. Oh, full disclosure I made a mistake... I saw 3 VIC's, his VIC was swapped out twice when it failed... so technically 1 owner 3 machines, but only 1 in his house at a time...

 

There were 3 Atari on his block and a TRS and 2 Apple (1 kit built, 1 store bought)

 

I agree with the OP's assessment as the 400 was really this first truely affordable, useful home computer getting people started out...

 

Your mileage may vary.... but I remember hearing other strange names from my overseas friends for home PC's but none of them were VIC.... as to affordable that's subjective I guess.

Edited September 22, 2018 by _The Doctor__

[+davidcalgary29]

omg really, the vic? for what masses? I've seen a couple PETs but vic not a chance. Looking back I new about 40 Atari people to the one vic user ever in my town back in the day. This was suppose to be about the 400 and it's affordability as well as ability.. Once again it's going down the road of oh no commodore this commodore that.. Let's be honest folks... there were more TRS units around than vics... there were more people first introduced to the concept of 'home computer' with the 400/800 than the commodore vic. I only knew of these groups... The big university computers, S-100 machines of various incarnations, Atari Machines, TRS machines, super expensive business machines, some apple and kit computers, a Commodore business machine, and a VIC. Schools had TRS, Apple, Atari, IBM. This was about the same overseas except of course some of the later offerings and the specific machines backed by their respective governments. Check out some of those Thom Baker commercials! Just think about what we mean as an Altair was a $400 dollar kit but it was no home computer..

 

But this is about affordable home computers that could do something of note, This was clearly a TRS, Apple, Atari deal early on.. price wise the Atari was on top depending on where you went for your 400. I did see a VIC and only 1 VIC to the scores of others. It's possible Commodore had a dumpster sale on them later, but I never saw them , just parts harvested from them for use elsewhere. The computer itself, not so much. Oh, full disclosure I made a mistake... I saw 3 VIC's, his VIC was swapped out twice when it failed... so technically 1 owner 3 machines, but only 1 in his house at a time...

 

There were 3 Atari on his block and a TRS and 2 Apple (1 kit built, 1 store bought)

 

I agree with the OP's assessment as the 400 was really this first truely affordable, useful home computer getting people started out...

 

Your mileage may vary.... but I remember hearing other strange names from my overseas friends for home PC's but none of them were VIC.... as to affordable that's subjective I guess.

Might have been different where you grew up, but not in Canada. I went to computer camp north of Toronto when I was 10, and most of the campers spent their time in the huge VIC-20 lab (I was stuck in the VAX group, where I learned the joys of e-mailing and hacking into the University of Minnesotas fab network). That camp, which exposed me a whole lot of other ten year-olds to home computing, would never have existed without Commodores cheap machines. Commodore learned early that middle-class kids controlled their parents bank accounts, and ate up the market while Atari and Apple took a long commercial snooze. Im not sure what Atari Canada was thinking in the early 80s, but classroom dominance wasnt it. FWIW, I saw my 800 in 83 as Atari Inc. was imploding, even though the salesman told my family to wait for the C64 and I knew no one at all who had one. It was absolutely the right choice.

[Keatah]

Back in my day, late 70's to early 80's, I knew of more Commodore users than Atari users. Most started out with Vic-20 and upgraded to C64.

 

But to top it off I knew MORE Apple II users than either of those combined. Perhaps it was because Apple was popular in school and much of the affluents in the area had them. Come to think of it, yet. All my Apple buddies had big houses.

[+davidcalgary29]

I like to think of the Apple II as a great training computer. You used it at school to play Wavy Navy and Hard Hat Mack, and then hounded your parents for an Atari or a C64 because the Apple sucked (comparatively) as a gaming computer. Of all my friends who got a computer in elementary school, only one ended up with an Apple after playing on our school’s unit (we went to his house to play Masquerade, which I loved).

[Osgeld]

I like to think of the Apple II as a great training computer. You used it at school to play Wavy Navy and Hard Hat Mack, and then hounded your parents for an Atari or a C64 because the Apple sucked (comparatively) as a gaming computer. Of all my friends who got a computer in elementary school, only one ended up with an Apple after playing on our school’s unit (we went to his house to play Masquerade, which I loved).

 

yes and atari's and commies sucked if you needed to do computer work ... like running a medium size bis or robotic machinery

 

I will never understand the notion that the best computers were the toys-r us / kmart game consoles with a keyboard cause they played a meh port of qbert when we were 7

 

now I will agree they are some fun computers, and my personal favorites today as toys, but they are toy's and that is a lot of the reason they do not exist in today's market, where as the companies that made suck ass boring computers that did suck ass boring work still exist (HP, IBM, Apple) ... they dont play

[+davidcalgary29]

What exactly is the active user base of Osbornes, Kaypros, and North Stars these days?

[Keatah]

What exactly is the active user base of Osbornes, Kaypros, and North Stars these days?

 

I would guess rather small. These computers feel like museum pieces - even to a child of the 70's.

 

 

I like to think of the Apple II as a great training computer. You used it at school to play Wavy Navy and Hard Hat Mack, and then hounded your parents for an Atari or a C64 because the Apple sucked (comparatively) as a gaming computer. Of all my friends who got a computer in elementary school, only one ended up with an Apple after playing on our school’s unit (we went to his house to play Masquerade, which I loved).

 

I always thought the Apple II rather held its own in gaming. While it didn't have custom chips to blit colorful objects around the screen, it did have many unique not-to-be-had-elsewhere games and simulations. Especially in the RPG department. Believe it or not I thought Apple II Boulderdash was the best version of it. Including anything recently done. The combination of colors was just pleasant to look at compared to the less vibrant choices on the other 8-bit machines of the time.

 

And it's disk sub-system blew everything else away. It was fast and reliable. Maybe not the most capacious, but it was a pleasure to use.

[ACML]

The VIC-20 lacked the memory to be a useful computer. The VIC-20 had 5 KB of RAM, of which only 3.5 KB remained available on startup (exactly 3583 bytes). This is roughly equivalent to the words and spaces on one sheet of typing paper, meeting a design goal of the machine. Yes, its technically a computer, but not one that could be seriously considered a useful device. It had a crappy 22x23 text display. Again, you can play with it, but you can't do anything of substance with it.

Edited September 22, 2018 by ACML

[EnderDude]

My uncle bought an XEGS, and an 800 for my cousin... I guess they were pretty rich back in 1981! XD

[AtariGeezer]

I like to think of the Apple II as a great training computer. You used it at school to play Wavy Navy and Hard Hat Mack, and then hounded your parents for an Atari or a C64 because the Apple sucked (comparatively) as a gaming computer. Of all my friends who got a computer in elementary school, only one ended up with an Apple after playing on our school’s unit (we went to his house to play Masquerade, which I loved).

Before Atari, Apple or Commodore, our high school had a teletype that dialed into a DECsystem-10. That's where I got my first experience in BASIC. Now that was a great training computer

[EnderDude]

When I went to my uncle's house for the first time, I turned on the XEGS, and played Bug Hunt. Since I was just a little kid, I thought that it was a 2600. They also had moon patrol, asteroids, koala paint, flight simulator II, chess...

[phoenixdownita]

My uncle bought an XEGS, and an 800 for my cousin... I guess they were pretty rich back in 1981! XD

Buying an XEGS in 1981 is more like time traveling, as the XEGS won't be out until fall 1987 .... so I have no idea if you got the date wrong or what you thought you saw .... either way, memory fails people.

[EnderDude]

Buying an XEGS in 1981 is more like time traveling, as the XEGS won't be out until fall 1987 .... so I have no idea if you got the date wrong or what you thought you saw .... either way, memory fails people.

Sorry... When I was referring to the date of 1981, I was referring to the Atari 800, not the XEGS...

[kiwilove]

The VIC-20 lacked the memory to be a useful computer. The VIC-20 had 5 KB of RAM, of which only 3.5 KB remained available on startup (exactly 3583 bytes). This is roughly equivalent to the words and spaces on one sheet of typing paper, meeting a design goal of the machine. Yes, its technically a computer, but not one that could be seriously considered a useful device. It had a crappy 22x23 text display. Again, you can play with it, but you can't do anything of substance with it.

 

Was Bill Shatner selling the Vic-20 for wordprocessing? Or that it was advertised for this use...

 

The Atari 400 in this part of the world - I think cost more than a Vic-20 - and those who bought the 400 - did so to play arcade games of the early 80s' - I would guess out on cart.

And prices here were expensive - with buying 10 game titles equalling the cost of the 400.

The first game carts were only 8K - such as Star Raiders and Basketball - but 16K became the norm when chip prices fell.

The alternative for cheaper games would be to go for tape format games - but a lot of them weren't up to a high quality standard. Shamus was the exception.

Shall we list the 16k tape games that were the exception? Like On-Line's Frogger, Sea Dragon and Stratos comes to mind.... Call them Vic-20 killers.

 

Basically the Atari 400 could deliver the best graphics for it's price range (and above) - but that changed when the C-64 appeared.

 

Harvey

Edited September 22, 2018 by kiwilove

[+DrVenkman]

My step-brother and I saved birthday, Christmas and allowance money for nearly a year and bought our 16K 400 in October 1983 for $374 (I still have the receipt, oddly enough, if not that same machine). That was $279 for the "Education Master" package 400, $76 for the 410 Program Recorder and $49 for the Programmer Pack (I still have the manuals from all these, along with the book).

 

But prices were falling quickly; by August 1983 we had sold the 400 to a friend and bought a 48K 800 for $369 (again, I still have the receipt though not the computer).

Edited September 22, 2018 by DrVenkman

[Casey]

I'm sorry, but the real price leader was Commodore, not Atari. When the VIC-20 was released for $299, that began the price war that made home computers more accessible to everyone. Say what you want about the 22x23 character display and the limited amount of RAM, but price was the driver more than anything else. Memory expansion for the VIC-20 was a common accessory and not terribly expensive either. Growing up in the time the home computers were becoming really a thing, I didn't know a single family who had an Atari computer. TI 99/4As, VIC-20s and later, 64s, were by far more common, at least in my part of the world.

[ACML]

I'm sorry, but the real price leader was Commodore, not Atari. When the VIC-20 was released for $299, that began the price war that made home computers more accessible to everyone. Say what you want about the 22x23 character display and the limited amount of RAM, but price was the driver more than anything else. Memory expansion for the VIC-20 was a common accessory and not terribly expensive either. Growing up in the time the home computers were becoming really a thing, I didn't know a single family who had an Atari computer. TI 99/4As, VIC-20s and later, 64s, were by far more common, at least in my part of the world.

Price was absolutely my point. Time frame is important. My post was specific to 1981-1982, so the C-64 was later and at it's introduction, it sold for $595. The Vic-20 and TI 99 didn't have the RAM to be a useful computer (my opinion). Commodore ended up being the one to bring home computing to the masses with the C-64, no doubt, but in 1981, the 400 was the best computer for the money period.

Edited September 22, 2018 by ACML

[+davidcalgary29]

Price was absolutely my point. Time frame is important. My post was specific to 1981-1982, so the C-64 was later and at it's introduction, it sold for $595. The Vic-20 and TI 99 didn't have the RAM to be a useful computer (my opinion). Commodore ended up being the one to bring home computing to the masses with the C-64, no doubt, but in 1981, the 400 was the best computer for the money period.

Sure, but the thread is about affordability, not quality. Actual utility is probably a secondary consideration to the aspect of legacy and influence. Consider the TS 1000, which was comparatively horrid, but garnered more popular (not computer) press than Atari because of its $99 price point. As Keatah has stated, universal middle-class access was the idea that these gateway machines ignited. It really didn’t matter what people did with these things after they were unboxed, as long as they sold. And sell they did!

[ACML]

Sure, but the thread is about affordability, not quality. Actual utility is probably a secondary consideration to the aspect of legacy and influence. Consider the TS 1000, which was comparatively horrid, but garnered more popular (not computer) press than Atari because of its $99 price point. As Keatah has stated, universal middle-class access was the idea that these gateway machines ignited. It really didn’t matter what people did with these things after they were unboxed, as long as they sold. And sell they did!

This thread was about price and it's ability to do actual work. A $99 computer in the early 80's could not load a word processor or spreadsheet and do actual work. This thread's main point is that the 16K 400 was the first affordable "real computer" and by "real, I mean it could do actual serious work. The rest were toys.

Edited September 22, 2018 by ACML

[_The Doctor__]

That's the way I took it... REAL computers not toys... VICs sold for parts or as toys, possibly dumb terminals as I read peoples postings.

The 400 was the first affordable real computer.

 

By the reasoning the c crowd is pushing, the coleco football or other such led based computerized games were the winners of all time , oh and they are still selling versions of those matell/coleco football games today...

 

The 400 was the first affordable 'Real' use computer back in the day. Like I said you could buy an Altair or any number of kit computers or a vic.. but they were not very useful...

 

My buddies dad had a 400 and had converted a star trek game over at his work, though text based.. to the 400... we played it forever!

Of course the odd letter was typed up on it and printed out as well. Then came the cartridge games.....

Edited September 22, 2018 by _The Doctor__