Ian Primus Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 Most of you probably already know this, but I just noticed it, and I'm sure someone else hasn't... Atari's three systems, the 2600, 5200 and 7800 are all related. 2600+2600=5200 2600+5200=7800 2600+2600+2600=7800 They increase in increments of 2600 each time. Can we expect the next Atari console (I wish) to be the Atari 10400? Just a thought. Ian Primus ian.primus@usa.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
videotwit Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 We've since had the Jaguar and Lynx, though, so I guess the 10400 won't ever happen. It would have been cool, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagDiesel Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 They could call it the "Whale"... Make it black, with some barnicle looking pieces being the on/off, reset, and difficulty switches.. It'd be cool if someone would make a system to play ALL Atari games from the 2600 thru the Jaguar.. we can dream... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindfield Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 For historical reference: - The 5200 was considered twice the machine as the 2600, and therefore bore double its number. - The 7800 was so named because it had 5200 graphics and sported 2600 compatibility (5200+2600=7800) - The 65XE, 130XE, 130ST, 260ST, 520ST and 1040ST were so named for the amount of RAM each had. (65XE = 65,535 bytes of RAM, 130XE = 131,072 bytes of RAM, rounded to 130,000, and so on. Yes, I know the math gets worse the higher it gets -- the 1040 ST technically has 1,048,576 bytes of RAM, so it was rounded to 1,040,000, from which 1040 was derived) The 130ST was never released, since there was virtually no RAM left over after the O/S was loaded. (GEM was disk-based at the time) The 260ST was released mainly in Europe briefly, but failed for the same reasons. - The 400 was simply pulled out of a hat, as it were. Subsequent models, up until the XE series, were loosely derived from that number. - The ST stood for "Sixteen-thirty two," which referred to the 68000 CPU processing internally at 32-bits, and externally at 16-bits. STe was simply "ST Enhanced." TT was "thirty two-thirty two," since it was a full 32-bit architecture internally and externally. Falcon arose from Atari's "predatory" era, from whence Lynx, Panther and Jaguar also arose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 quoteThey increase in increments of 2600 each time. Can we expect the next Atari console (I wish) to be the Atari 10400? Just a thought. I doubt we'll ever see anything from Atari called the "10400", but Atari did release the 1040ST, which was a number derived from the earlier 520ST. I'm not quite sure where the 520 number came from, but it did have 512K of RAM and the 1040ST had 1024K. Perhaps someone at Atari was fond of the 5200 and just chopped a zero off and figured, "Hey, it's close to 512K so it makes some sense!" There never was a 2080ST, but they did come out with the Mega ST2 and 4 (with 2 and 4MB of memory, respectively). ..Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 I always wondered where Atari came up with the 400/800/1200 line numbers from. You would think they were less powerful than the 2600 because the number was lower. Who knows... Tempest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.