else
-
Content Count
978 -
Joined
Posts posted by else
-
-
If they didn't have a competing product out the gate by Xmas 2004, they ran the risk of releasing too little too late.I'm reminded of the famous saying:
"Nobody remembers how fast you did something, everybody remembers how well you did it".
It seems that many of you on this thread would rather have no product at all than the Jakks or Flashback offerings. That's certainly your prerogative, and no one is making you buy the stuff.I think you're wrong. It really makes no difference to me how this thing sells or who buys it. We're just offering our opinions on Infotari's actions -- that's what this forum is for after all....
-
Those who ignore mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.
Exact-a-mundo!!!
-
So the REAL chipset could not be completed for THIS Atari branded product... See ya in 05'This strategy makes absolutely no sense to me. They will have already saturated their target market with this "fake" version -- who in their right mind is going to want to shell out more $$ again next for for the "real" version.
Are the sales for the "real" version going to be lackluster? You bet. They've screwed themselves by doing this, plain and simple. Poeple are going to say enough is enough, just like they during the crash.
Jeez with all the bad moves Atari has made in the past, you would think someone might actually learn from it. Perhaps the Atari name is cursed and causes ordinary rational people to make really poor decisions?
-
-
Proper hands? What does that say about me?
-Derek
-
Not scruples -- smarts! Using a Priority Mail box for non-Priority purposes is a FEDERAL crime (as is any type of mail fraud). So I really wouldn't recommend turning new boxes inside out or covering them with craft paper.
Even reusing these boxes worries me. I know recycling is good for the environment, etc. But when you take a used Priority Mail box and turn it inside out or rewrap it, there's no way for the Postal Service to distinguish it from a new one if they're comparing it to the size of a new one.
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I really don't want the feds coming after me!
-
This is my one and only Dina. I'm not a dealer or anything. Just trying to clear my basement out a bit. I've got way, way more video game stuff than anyone should legally be allowed to own
:). Plus with the uncertain job market, I need to make my self more mobile -- just in case 
:(.Shipping to Canada is no problem....
-Derek
-
Definately no hard feelings. Rather, I'm grateful to you for pointing out my mistake!
-Derek
-
That's my auction. Looks like I made an error when I entered the weight. I meant to type 4 lbs, not 42 lbs! Guess that's what happens when you don't get enough sleep. It has been fixed and relisted:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=8135191131
(bids encouraged
) -
I've always wondered if anybody actually used some of these old / short lived computers back in the day to do anything productive....
-
Ah, that's better. I dunno, but it looks pretty small to me. If you look at how big the plug is in comparison to the unit, I'd say it's maybe 4" by 6"?
-
Does the article say how big its going to be? The only thing I see is that it says it will be a smaller replica of the 7800. Clue me in....
-
Wow! :wink: :wink: :wink:
-
If that was the case, and it was true that the Colecovision had a better game library, then why did the Colecovision not come out on top and survive thru the game crash?The Colecovision died not because the 5200 was superior. Rather, Coleco did it to themselves. First, they neglected the Colecovision by releasing very few new titles while they were distracted with the Adam. The whole Adam fiasco turned a lot of consumers off. Then the following year, a HUGE overproduction of Cabbage Patch Kids killed Coleco. If you read the old Coleco financial documents, its clear that it was Cabbage Patch Kids that did them in -- not the video game crash.
I agree with Kurt -- at the time the Colecovision had a clear advantage over on the 5200. But Coleco screwed it all up themselves....
-
Huh? The Jaguars more advanced competitors had multiple processors too. I know the PS1 had 5 and the Saturn had 8! Every system has to have multiple processors. So that theory doesn't hold water.Why does everyone want to hold up the Saturn as a model of a successful multiprocessor system? I thought the Saturn also tanked and was also criticized for being difficult to program.
And you're picking and choosing from my original statement. I said programming 5 processors in assembly made it a difficult system to develop for. As someone else pointed out, the PS1 was mostly programmed in C, which is a different story.
I still assert that programming 5 different processors that had a lot of bugs, in assembly, contritubed to the slow release of games, which contributed to the Jaguar's demise. I guess I'm the only one that feels that way....
-
Namely, cost. The fact is the more processors, the more you can do. Machines have been made powerful enough that adding additional costly processors just isn't usually worthwhile. The Saturn had dual processors...
In the computer world, most servers have dual Processors. Here at my job, we have three of them that have dual PIII 833's, and they function wonderfully. Why aren't all computers made that way? Because a P4 2.6Ghz box functions as well with one, but costs less to make. Graphics chips are another thing altogether. So is sound. You could divide them up too to process faster, but it would cost a LOT more to produce the system.
This is not true. Sure, two full blown pentium cost more than one and allow you to do more. But a lot of small, specializied processors that fit on a chip the size of a pentium do not cost more and don't necessarily allow you to do more either. See the difference? The Jaguar went with a lot of small specialized processors, while everyone else chose a beefer single processor.
-
I agree David. I think this was also partially responsible for the crash of 1984. The console makers (or console divisions) had all relied on what was in the arcades for their source of game ideas. But once the arcades were mostly gone, the didn't know what to do. They had no process for developing original game ideas in-house. It wasn't until Nintendo came along and showed everyone the way...
-
I have to disagree that more processors makes a better system. Maybe if most of the processors were the same, yes. But the Jaguar had five different processors that programmers had to learn. Seems to me that the more processors, the steeper the learning curve. I will agree that developers could spend a lot more time tweaking their code with this setup to get better results. But a steep learning curve and a lot of time spent tweaking code doesn't get quality games out fast, which is the name of the game.
If more processors is better, why don't todays systems have 10 or 20? Surely it is possible with today's technology....
Am I out in left field on this one?
-
I blame the hardware. It was a mess. First it had no less than five processors, most of which required programming in assembly language. Then add to that the fact the hardware is riddled with bugs. Now compare that with any of the other consoles of the day (or even today).
Given how difficult the Jaguar was to program, I'm truely amazed that any developers chose to develop for it at all! So you have to give the Tramiels some credit for being able to recruit developers.
By the way, the Jag II was to have seven processors. Atari was clearly going in the wrong direction here, and not listening to developers. Developers wanted one processor, for a simple programming environment. So I don't think the Jag II would have been any more successful....
-
One of the reasons its difficult for the average person to pick up and play is that your "enemies" are shown in green and your "friends" are shown in red. Yikes!!! If you don't know that little secret you're going to be confused for quite a while. I know I sure was....
-
I'd say it's a bit more interesting than that. Multimedia 1.0 appeared to be just been squatting on the web address. These guys appear to have acquired the rights to Coleco and Colecovision. If they went through that much trouble, I would guess they're actively pursuing things....
-Derek
-
Just for fun tonight, I tried going to
Now for the last several years (actually as long I can remember), this took you to a web site that sold swimming pools -- probably the last remnants of the original Coleco company. But tonight to my suprise I found that they web site says "Stay Tuned", and at the bottom of the page it says "Coleco and Colecovison are properties of River West Brands". A little more digging and I found their web site:
http://www.riverwestbrands.com/
It seems this company's mission is to revive dormant brands. It seems like they have aquired the rights to all the Colecovision stuff from Telegames. I wonder how recently this took place?
So what does this all mean?!?! Does this mean we're going to start seeing "best of" Colecovision collections for modern systems?!?!
-Derek
-
I'd really love to have one of those too!!!
Just to put this back on topic a bit, I think you can add "Troll's Tale" to the list of protos that emerged from Coleco for the Adam after it's demise. I've never played it, but I just bought a copy off of eBay so it should be fun to try out....
-Derek
-
Has the Super Smurf game ever been found? I know Coleco promoted it a lot at the time...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
No one loves Apple ][?
in Apple II Computers
Posted
However, even though the motherboard was different -- from these users point of view there was very little actual noticeable difference between the two. Any toolbox firmware differences were hidden by the software. In fact, the ROM 01 is more compatible with many older software titles that bypassed the toolbox.