classic battle atari 8bit vs commodore 64

[carlsson]

Funny that you mention this. Vasatronic, the Swedish Atari importer, itself suffered from losses and was sacking managers at rapid speed in the beginning of 1984. Eventually its parent company Bonniers (major book publisher etc) sold Vasatronic in the summer to another holding company, who were accused of buying the company with the sole intention of making tax deductions from the losses in the newly acquired daughter company. As a result (?) of this, they lost the rights to the Atari brand, though Vasatronic claimed the mess at Atari Inc also played a role here.

 

In the period between 1985 to 1987-ish, we didn't have any official Atari importer. Some resellers decided to directly import the ST and XE lines directly from the UK, before Atari themselves eventually decided to open their own Scandinavian office, which happened some time in 1987 IIRC.

 

So yes, there were discount sales of the XL line, though limited to what resellers still had in stock as there was no importer. Ironically, the direct imported 130XE managed to be much more cost effective vs the C64 than any of the previous Atari models had been, but perhaps that is true worldwide that Tramiel's cheap XE models managed to undercut Commodore?

 

For comparison Datatronic, the Commodore importer since 1978, had built up a very strong bond with Commodore, as well as own software development and reseller networks. Datatronic though wanted more, and ended up buying Victor Technologies. A bit into 1985, Commodore reacted to this by kicking them off the import as they feared that Datatronic would spend more marketing resources on selling Victor PCs than Commodore's upcoming computers. Commodore immediately opened their own Scandinavian office. Datatronic lived on for a few more years before it was sold and the Victor brand ended up with Tandy IIRC.

[Gunstar]

Did you guys get the Tandy Color Computer 3 or PC clones released over there around '87/88?

[carlsson]

PC clones: some, but they tended to be rather expensive compared to your run of the mill Atari ST or Amiga. The PC revolution didn't really take off until 1992-ish around here, or perhaps even one or two years later.

 

Tandy was a sad story who made some futile attempts, both through importers and on their own but they didn't make any sort of impact at all. I suppose the lack of Radio Shack stores over here made life so much harder. Possibly Tandy fared better e.g. in the UK, but for me they used to be just a parenthesis in the history of home and personal computers.

Edited November 15, 2018 by carlsson

[shoestring]

Id have to say not until 1995, I remember seeing ads for PCs in magazines and they were damn expensive, 2000-5000k for a basic system whilst you could get an Amiga 500 or ST for under $900. Pentiums were out of reach in terms of price for most consumers when those first came on to the market. And the folks that I knew who owned PCs stuck with their 486sx/dxs models for quite some time until prices became more affordable. I still used an Amiga exclusively until 1996 when I got a good deal on Pentium motherboard and yet it still took several weeks before I could finish my build as I got parts for it. The Amiga become too expensive to maintain and upgrade by this point.

[Gunstar]

PC clones: some, but they tended to be rather expensive compared to your run of the mill Atari ST or Amiga. The PC revolution didn't really take off until 1992-ish around here, or perhaps even one or two years later.

 

Tandy was a sad story who made some futile attempts, both through importers and on their own but they didn't make any sort of impact at all. I suppose the lack of Radio Shack stores over here made life so much harder. Possibly Tandy fared better e.g. in the UK, but for me they used to be just a parenthesis in the history of home and personal computers.

Certainly their PC clone aren't memorable to the history of personal computers, aside from styling if you like that. The TRS-80 Color Computer 1-3 has a unique spot in personal computer history though, even if it was the less obvious flavor, like the third alternative to Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola (which is Royal Crown in the U.S.), though really number 4 in the U.S. to Apple, Commodore and Atari, always off to the side and in the shadows, but if you pull back the vale, you see a whole different world, like an alternate universe or something...that's how they always seemed to me anyway, since they could pretty much ONLY be bought at Radio Shack stores in the U.S. and every other computer dealer or department store carried Apple, Atari or Commodore. I completely dismissed them even though I was an avid Radio Shack shopper, until I saw the Coco 3 in '87 and it blew me a way, but I already had my Atari 130XE by then, and it still wouldn't have stopped me getting an ST if I were to get another computer at the time. Of course today I think I'd enjoy owning a Coco 3 just to explore "the other side," but I'd also choose an Amiga over an ST these days too. The TRS-80 community always seemed underground, you never met anyone in the wild with a TRS-80, not that they would admit anyway, it was always, Apple, Commodore, Atari or sometimes Texas Instruments. But there was always that one reclusive family on the block, with the reclusive kids, that no body really talked to or hung out with, but you heard rumors they had a Coco-computer...once upon a time in America, there was a Radio Shack store on nearly every corner, so the Coco's existance was well known...as being a computer you saw in a Radio Shack store...

Edited November 16, 2018 by Gunstar

[carlsson]

The TRS-80 Color Computer 1-3 has a unique spot in personal computer history though,

 

Sure, that is why I edited my previous post from "they are just a parenthesis" to "they used to be just a parenthesis". During the time period we're discussing, barely a word was mentioned or written about Tandy computers here. For a brief recap, this how the brand fared in Sweden:

 

In the late 1970's, at first there was an importer who decided that personal computers sell themselves, so they got the TRS-80 Model 1 and did more or less nothing to market it or obtain resellers. Apparently computers back then just as little as today sell themselves, so after a while either they dropped the import or Tandy revoked it.

 

Then came another importer who had the direct opposite approach. They were watching what Datatronic was doing with Commodore, producing close to 100 different business software packages for the CBM/PET series which helped it become a major business computer over here, long into the early 1980's. The TRS-80 importer decided they needed to do the same, offer native business software in Swedish, for the local market. What they didn't realize though is that it takes time and money to build a such software library, at the same time your competitors already has turn key ready solutions.

 

After a little more time came a third importer of the TRS-80 line, who decided to work on the CP/M compatibility side instead of the native TRS mode, and determined some of the business software could just as well be imported, perhaps even in English or lightly adapted to local conditions. By then, the CBM/PET, Apple ][ series and Luxor ABC-80 and ABC-800 to a big part already had cornered the small business market and with the IBM PC around the corner it was too late to introduce the TRS-80 series in big scale to businesses.

 

When it comes to the 6809 based series, you probably know about the Dragon 32 and 64 models, made from the same Motorola reference hardware design as the CoCo is based on. As far as I understand the Dragons are fairly software compatible too, and hit the market over here well ahead of that Tandy through another importer could introduce the actual CoCo, grossly overpriced. With the ongoing competition and soon to be price wars, the CoCo didn't look any more attractive than "oddball" systems like the Oric-1/Atmos, Acorn Electron, all sorts of Hong Kong or otherwise Far East based computers like the VTech Lasers, the EACAs etc. Generally speaking, Europe seemed far more diverse when it came to home computers from all over the world than the US market ever was, though of course most of them got weeded out quite quickly.

 

Exactly what happened with later Tandy computers, I'm not sure. That refers both to the CoCo 3 and all the Tandy 1000 based PC systems. Possibly someone sold them somewhere, but you'd have to know that the brand existed and look around in order to find a reseller. Nothing that either business or home/games oriented computer magazines would write anything about IMHO.

 

Of course fast forward to the 21th century and the access to Internet, when we get to learn about respective parts of the world and fill in gaps of history where it turns out that the various TRS-80 designs had a stronger following in its country of origin than it possibly had overseas.

 

Regarding the comments of an alternative universe, underground movement, earlier on we compared some of the early general purpose US computer magazines and found that e.g. COMPUTE! had close to zero Tandy content the first years, that Creative Computing had a little and that most owners would instead subscribe to special TRS-80 and CoCo oriented magazines instead of the general purpose ones. While Atari, Apple, Commodore, TI etc owners also had their specialized magazines with more content, at least the mentioned magazines strived to cover those formats.

[Gunstar]

 

Sure, that is why I edited my previous post from "they are just a parenthesis" to "they used to be just a parenthesis". During the time period we're discussing, barely a word was mentioned or written about Tandy computers here. For a brief recap, this how the brand fared in Sweden:

 

In the late 1970's, at first there was an importer who decided that personal computers sell themselves, so they got the TRS-80 Model 1 and did more or less nothing to market it or obtain resellers. Apparently computers back then just as little as today sell themselves, so after a while either they dropped the import or Tandy revoked it.

 

Then came another importer who had the direct opposite approach. They were watching what Datatronic was doing with Commodore, producing close to 100 different business software packages for the CBM/PET series which helped it become a major business computer over here, long into the early 1980's. The TRS-80 importer decided they needed to do the same, offer native business software in Swedish, for the local market. What they didn't realize though is that it takes time and money to build a such software library, at the same time your competitors already has turn key ready solutions.

 

After a little more time came a third importer of the TRS-80 line, who decided to work on the CP/M compatibility side instead of the native TRS mode, and determined some of the business software could just as well be imported, perhaps even in English or lightly adapted to local conditions. By then, the CBM/PET, Apple ][ series and Luxor ABC-80 and ABC-800 to a big part already had cornered the small business market and with the IBM PC around the corner it was too late to introduce the TRS-80 series in big scale to businesses.

 

When it comes to the 6809 based series, you probably know about the Dragon 32 and 64 models, made from the same Motorola reference hardware design as the CoCo is based on. As far as I understand the Dragons are fairly software compatible too, and hit the market over here well ahead of that Tandy through another importer could introduce the actual CoCo, grossly overpriced. With the ongoing competition and soon to be price wars, the CoCo didn't look any more attractive than "oddball" systems like the Oric-1/Atmos, Acorn Electron, all sorts of Hong Kong or otherwise Far East based computers like the VTech Lasers, the EACAs etc. Generally speaking, Europe seemed far more diverse when it came to home computers from all over the world than the US market ever was, though of course most of them got weeded out quite quickly.

 

Exactly what happened with later Tandy computers, I'm not sure. That refers both to the CoCo 3 and all the Tandy 1000 based PC systems. Possibly someone sold them somewhere, but you'd have to know that the brand existed and look around in order to find a reseller. Nothing that either business or home/games oriented computer magazines would write anything about IMHO.

 

Of course fast forward to the 21th century and the access to Internet, when we get to learn about respective parts of the world and fill in gaps of history where it turns out that the various TRS-80 designs had a stronger following in its country of origin than it possibly had overseas.

 

Regarding the comments of an alternative universe, underground movement, earlier on we compared some of the early general purpose US computer magazines and found that e.g. COMPUTE! had close to zero Tandy content the first years, that Creative Computing had a little and that most owners would instead subscribe to special TRS-80 and CoCo oriented magazines instead of the general purpose ones. While Atari, Apple, Commodore, TI etc owners also had their specialized magazines with more content, at least the mentioned magazines strived to cover those formats.

We got a lot more than you think from around the world here, directly imported or otherwise like the Timex/Sinclair deal. They were just weeded out quickly too, and I don't bother even giving them a mention. But there was a time when I could go to a department store and there would be 15 different computer brands to choose from; Panasonic, Dragon, Sharp, Timex/Sinclair ZX80/Spectrum versions, Coleco, Mattel, Atari, Commodore, Texas Instuments, MSX variants and many more I am forgetting. Then Computer dealers also had Commdore, Apple, IBM, TRS-80, other CP/M varients, Atari and Texas Instruments. Then Radio Shack had the Coco. Most just came and went very quickly in the U.S. market and all you every here about are the half dozen most dominent, which also happen to be U.S. brands. But yes, you do have a few brands over there that we never got here.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Gunstar

[carlsson]

Wow! Even MSX which otherwise is considered only to have been sold as music gear in your part of the world?

[Gunstar]

Wow! Even MSX which otherwise is considered only to have been sold as music gear in your part of the world?

Well I'm sort of assuming/guessing that some of the Panasonic, Sharp and other far east brands we got were MSX machines...they didn't last long and anyone in the states who bought one I'm sure found themselves buying another U.S. brand very quickly. Like me; I started out with a Timex/Sinclair 1000, a clone of the ZX81, and had it for about a year before I upgraded to an Atari 130XE. Due to a total lack of support and software, and also because I was learning on 6502 Apples at school, I wanted a 6502 machine at home.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Gunstar

[carlsson]

Aha, I see. Panasonic both made business computers, own home computers and MSX standard computers. Sharp however stayed outside of the MSX standard altogether, just like NEC and Fujitsu to name a few more major Japanese computer brands.

[Gunstar]

Aha, I see. Panasonic both made business computers, own home computers and MSX standard computers. Sharp however stayed outside of the MSX standard altogether, just like NEC and Fujitsu to name a few more major Japanese computer brands.

Ah yes, NEC was another brand I remember seeing for sale in the states way back when...

 

But there have always been high-end import shops in the big cities where you could get any computer or console from any free country around the world that you wanted, you just had to go back to them for all the software and support too.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Gunstar

[Lost Dragon]

US Gold coder Peter Pachla (Jinks 7800) described the UK Atari 8 bit scene very well:

 

IMHO the reason for the long term failure of the 8-bit line is pretty clear.

 

It was squarely down to Atari standing still from a technical viewpoint.

 

Let's look at the evidence:

 

Atari launched the 400/800 in '79 ('80/'81 here in the UK). At the time the machines were technically head and shoulders above the competition (Apple ][,TI-99, CBM PET, etc) and were a lot cheaper - in the UK at least the 800 sold

at under two thirds the cost of an equivalent Apple or TI system.

 

By the time the CBM VIC-20 appeared Atari had substantially cut the cost of the 400/800 over here. My 400 cost me £50 less than a VIC-20 would've and was still far superior from a technical standpoint.

 

I think this is where Atari got complacent. The 1200XL was to all intents and purposes little more than a repackaged 800. There was nothing there to tempt existing 400/800 owners into upgrading - same ANTIC/GTIA/POKEY, same processor/clock speed, a little more RAM, buggy and not entirely compatible OS ROMs....

 

Next we get the 600/800XL. Again, it's yet another repackaging job....precious few improvements and the same 7(?) year old hardware with a new lick of paint,hardware which by now has lost a lot of ground to "VIC-II" and "SID" inside the CBM-64.

 

This was an unbelievable move, particularly since by now they had the "MARIA" graphics processor used in the 7800 ( designed in '83). It was as far ahead of the competition as ANTIC/GTIA were in their day and could so easily have been

made compatible with them and built into the XL series.

 

The PBI bus was exactly what we'd all wanted....2 or 3 years before! It was a great idea, but too late since the home computer market was by now firmly in the province of the video gamer rather than the hardware hacker. And with Atari failing to support the PBI with peripherals of their own there was no

incentive for existing users to upgrade.

 

The XE series was the final insult. At least this time they added a bit more RAM (a not unreasonable amount considering the cost of RAM in those days) but as far as enhancing the machine went they did exactly nothing. Moreover they even managed to screw up the PBI for us by changing the connector so ensuring

that it wouldn't catch on.... :-(

 

 

So, why didn't the 8-bit machines outlast the competition? Complacency and lack of innovation.... :-(

[carlsson]

Oh, the old argument of upgrading hardware or not upgrading hardware. At one hand people point to continuous upgrading means very little backwards compatibility in software (see the VIC vs C64 case) plus that software publishers - in particular 3rd party - all the time will have to reevaluate which formats to support, where have the customers gone. At the other hand if you maintain pretty much the same hardware through several years, eventually you'll be technically behind your competitors and need other values to survive in competition, whether it is great documentation or simply a price war.

 

Sure you could do small incremental upgrades between models but then it will be an issue whether publishers dare to take advantage of the better hardware at the cost of not being compatible, or at least build in software tests to determine which hardware the program is running on. Some examples would be the relatively few C128 games, not overly many 130XE games as far as I understand, a few more Spectrum 128K games thanks to that model and sequels had an AY chip to use. The list probably goes on. The smaller market share you had, the more likely you'd offer an improved model with limited backwards compatibility as you had nearly no existing users to cater to anyway and with improvements you might be hoping to gain market shares.

 

Many people believe Commodore should've released an updated C64 model after a couple of years. While they got the C128 out with dual CPUs, 128K and an extra graphics chip for 80 column mode, it doesn't really feel like an updated C64 and perhaps was one year too late, just like the XE models may have been. Personally I'm of the opinion that a C64-2 in 1984 with e.g. a bigger palette, faster drives by default and whichever other technical improvements could be obtained, would only have hampered the C64 sales.

[Magic Knight]

This was an unbelievable move, particularly since by now they had the "MARIA" graphics processor used in the 7800 ( designed in '83). It was as far ahead of the competition as ANTIC/GTIA were in their day and could so easily have been

made compatible with them and built into the XL series.

 

Its fair to assume that some of the thinking on Atari's part was the concern they may have had about backwards compatibility and users making the leap from GTIA to MARIA.

 

I for one had an 800XL back in the 80's and gladly bought a 65XE for the new style and could continue my software collection. (despite the fact it improved nothing but looked cool like a ST is besides the point :0)

 

I do wish Atari did Something in the steps of using the MARIA (but perhaps a little more advanced given the way 16 bit was poking in) .

Edited November 23, 2018 by Magic Knight

[Mr.Amiga500]

Certainly their PC clone aren't memorable to the history of personal computers, aside from styling if you like that. The TRS-80 Color Computer 1-3 has a unique spot in personal computer history though, even if it was the less obvious flavor, like the third alternative to Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola (which is Royal Crown in the U.S.), though really number 4 in the U.S. to Apple, Commodore and Atari, always off to the side and in the shadows, but if you pull back the vale, you see a whole different world, like an alternate universe or something...that's how they always seemed to me anyway, since they could pretty much ONLY be bought at Radio Shack stores in the U.S. and every other computer dealer or department store carried Apple, Atari or Commodore. I completely dismissed them even though I was an avid Radio Shack shopper, until I saw the Coco 3 in '87 and it blew me a way, but I already had my Atari 130XE by then, and it still wouldn't have stopped me getting an ST if I were to get another computer at the time. Of course today I think I'd enjoy owning a Coco 3 just to explore "the other side," but I'd also choose an Amiga over an ST these days too. The TRS-80 community always seemed underground, you never met anyone in the wild with a TRS-80, not that they would admit anyway, it was always, Apple, Commodore, Atari or sometimes Texas Instruments. But there was always that one reclusive family on the block, with the reclusive kids, that no body really talked to or hung out with, but you heard rumors they had a Coco-computer...once upon a time in America, there was a Radio Shack store on nearly every corner, so the Coco's existance was well known...as being a computer you saw in a Radio Shack store...

 

I snickered a bit when you said the CoCo 3 blew you away. I can't imagine someone with an Atari being "blown away" by the CoCo 3. I did buy the CoCo 3 in 1987 (or was it late '86?) but only because it was an upgrade to my CoCo 2 and it was on "blow out sale" for $99 (CAD!). It was certainly better than the CoCo 2, but it still lacked a dedicated sound chip, had no sprites, no full-screen editing. The higher text modes were completely unreadable on a TV (RGB monitor was too expensive at $549). The palette system was the best feature and there were some better graphics modes, but that's about it. It still didn't catch up to the Atari 800 from 1979.

 

 

Id have to say not until 1995, I remember seeing ads for PCs in magazines and they were damn expensive, 2000-5000k for a basic system whilst you could get an Amiga 500 or ST for under $900. Pentiums were out of reach in terms of price for most consumers when those first came on to the market. And the folks that I knew who owned PCs stuck with their 486sx/dxs models for quite some time until prices became more affordable. I still used an Amiga exclusively until 1996 when I got a good deal on Pentium motherboard and yet it still took several weeks before I could finish my build as I got parts for it. The Amiga become too expensive to maintain and upgrade by this point.

 

In Canada, the IBM PC was waaayyy too expensive, so I never ever saw one - anywhere. Same with all Apple products. I never knew anyone with an Apple computer and never saw one until 1987 at a store closing (an Apple IIc) - and even massively discounted, the price was so shocking that I thought it was a misprint. It was all Radio Shack, Commodore and Texas Instruments, with Atari coming fourth - at least that's what I noticed in stores and numbers of computers that friends had. In my experience, there was a "dead zone" of computing from around 1986-1989 where nothing new appeared - until the Amiga. The Amiga was briefly popular until around 1991, when all the stores stopped carrying Amiga stuff. I never saw an Amiga 3000, and never saw any AGA Amiga. I think I only once saw an Atari ST for sale and nobody I knew had one. It was the PC clones that started getting popular in 1990/91 that basically pushed everything else out of the market.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Mr.Amiga500

[Gunstar]

Atari, IMHO, didn't upgrade

 

 

I snickered a bit when you said the CoCo 3 blew you away. I can't imagine someone with an Atari being "blown away" by the CoCo 3. I did buy the CoCo 3 in 1987 (or was it late '86?) but only because it was an upgrade to my CoCo 2 and it was on "blow out sale" for $99 (CAD!). It was certainly better than the CoCo 2, but it still lacked a dedicated sound chip, had no sprites, no full-screen editing. The higher text modes were completely unreadable on a TV (RGB monitor was too expensive at $549). The palette system was the best feature and there were some better graphics modes, but that's about it. It still didn't catch up to the Atari 800 from 1979.

 

 

 

This was not based on any knowledge of what the Coco 3 or even my Atari could really do at the time. Because the Atari was often under utilized, and the Coco 3 had higher-resolution graphical interface when I saw it in the RadioShack, on the surface looking like a newer 16-bit computer, not based on any real evidence of how powerful they were. If I knew then what I know now about the true power of both machines, I would not have been so impressed with the Coco 3, but it was a big improvement over the Coco 2 which I did dismiss quickly as inferior to my Atari. I saw it in Radioshack, obviously with it's best foot forward and RGB monitor, etc., and wasn't looking at the prices either, since I didn't intend to buy, just window shopping so-to-speak.

[Mr.Amiga500]

You were probably blown away by the demo that they kept repeating in the store windows. Yes, that demo impressed me too. I mostly just remember the bouncing ball, which I later realized was a bit of a rip-off of the Amiga bouncing ball demo from a year earlier.

[Lost Dragon]

@Carlsson.:

 

The only C128 games that immediately spring to mind are The Last V8 and Rocky Horror Show.

 

Think Zzap64 did a split review of a shoot em up by CRL ..Thundercoss? but i would have to look it up, my mind is thinking there was at least 1 other C128 title but i can't place it.

 

The A8 128K commercial games from that era honesty escape me, as an 800XL owner , i saw so many games simply written for the highest user base, 48K owners.

 

Seem to recal the Amstrad CPC range did ok with 128K games as there was a feature on them in RetroGamer magazine some years back..

 

But the 128K ZX Spectrum seemed by far the best supported, Robocop, Where Time Stood Still to name but 2 had me as a C64 owner looking on with envious eyes.

 

There was also Knight Tyme, Carrier Command and the better than ST version of Star Glider.

 

There were a lot of rumours about the Commodore C65 as well from what i remember. ..

Edited November 23, 2018 by Lost Dragon

[Gunstar]

You were probably blown away by the demo that they kept repeating in the store windows. Yes, that demo impressed me too. I mostly just remember the bouncing ball, which I later realized was a bit of a rip-off of the Amiga bouncing ball demo from a year earlier.

Exactly, and, it wasn't long after that there was a bouncing ball demo out for the Atari, and bouncing Fuji, and Diamond GOS which I got, which all put my Atari back on the same level, in my mind, of anything the Coco 3 had to offer anyway.

[carlsson]

The Last V8 has some more music, not sure if it has longer racing tracks.

 

One of my favorite examples of supporting several configurations at once though is MSX1/MSX2. Some Konami games like in particular Nemesis 2 detects the hardware and delivers a more colourful and smooth experience on MSX2 but the exact same cartridge is playable on MSX1 too with its limitations. Though obviously it takes more code and development time to make games that behave like this, and again it would be a matter how much extra work it is, how many customers would benefit from it etc. Disk based games would often have more room for multiple versions.

 

Regarding MARIA, from the little I gathered about it, isn't it a very advanced but also complex chip to program? Amount of graphics to display depends on how many colours and objects you already have positioned. It probably is fine for a console that is not supposed to be end user programmable, though I'm not certain it is for general purpose. The copper lists in the 8-bit hardware, later also implemented in the Amiga, may be advanced enough for end users. A colour memory though to enable higher colour resolution on the Atari 800XL may have been within reach without moving onto the very latest in internal graphics development.

[Gunstar]

@Carlsson.:

 

The only C128 games that immediately spring to mind are The Last V8 and Rocky Horror Show.

 

Think Zzap64 did a split review of a shoot em up by CRL ..Thundercoss? but i would have to look it up, my mind is thinking there was at least 1 other C128 title but i can't place it.

 

The A8 128K commercial games from that era honesty escape me, as an 800XL owner , i saw so many games simply written for the highest user base, 48K owners.

 

Seem to recal the Amstrad CPC range did ok with 128K games as there was a feature on them in RetroGamer magazine some years back..

 

But the 128K ZX Spectrum seemed by far the best supported, Robocop, Where Time Stood Still to name but 2 had me as a C64 owner looking on with envious eyes.

 

There was also Knight Tyme, Carrier Command and the better than ST version of Star Glider.

 

There were a lot of rumours about the Commodore C65 as well from what i remember. ..

Most of the 128K Atari stuff from the time wasn't really spot-lighted, that's why. Like Alternate Reality The Dungeon that was stamped 48K, and no one even knew it did 128K and supported 4 disk drives unless you had a 130XE or expanded 800XL and multiple drives. Or Datasoft's 221 Baker Street, same thing, showed 64K, but if you had a 130XE then all of a sudden digitized sounds and voices where in the game that were never spot-lighted, same with Graphic adventures like Spider-man And The Hulk...48K, but if you have 128K, you got animation screens not known about unless you had the extra memory.

 

There were tons of productivity software that just had small print somewhere saying there was expanded mode for 128K too, etc. And more that it wasn't even mentioned in ads at all. For example, I searched for ANY word processor back then that took advantage of my 128K, but the only one I knew for sure was Atari Writer +, then years and years later I found out that Paperclip and several others that I would rather have had supported 128K, I just ignored them because the ads didn't say so, or it was in small print at the very bottom that I missed! I was expecting 128K features to be at the top in bold print exclaiming it, but they just didn't.

 

There wasn't a single piece of software, that I know of back then that was made that worked ONLY on 128K machines because as you said, they always went for the 48K community and eventually later on in the late 80's more 64K games, but the community with 128K was just too small for something special JUST for them, it was all added features that were not high-lighted very much. But there was plenty that took advantage, I know because I started with a 130XE and was surprised on multiple occasions to find out that 48/64K program actually did get benefit from my 130XE, once I actually used them.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Gunstar

[carlsson]

That is quite remarkable, compared to the C64 where pretty much every game released past 1985 said C64/C128 even though it wouldn't run in C128 mode anyway, just being compatible with the computer if it was booted in C64 mode. Also the mentioned ZX Spectrum games most definitely said 128 in case they were enhanced for it. If there were several games with enhanced features on the 130XE, but not mentioned elsewhere than small print or not at all, it was almost like game publishers were afraid to lose sales from people who didn't understand the difference between "also supports" and "requires".

[Gunstar]

It still baffles me to this day, the companies probably would have had more sales of the software to 130XE owners dying for software that used the extra memory, and if it was boldly represented that the software used the extra memory, 130XE owners would have scrambled for them just to have programs taking advantage!

 

Batteries Included lost a sale to me because I didn't know Paperclip used the extra memory. More 130XE's would have been sold instead of more 65XE's had people known there was software that supported the 130XE! More sales of the 128K machine would have meant more support for more 128K supporting software too, from both Atari and 3rd parties.

 

All the programs I mentioned and others I didn't, that supported 128K, the publishers could have also high-lighted that they would work on Rambo/Newell and other 256K XL memory expansions and made more sales to owner with those upgrades too, but I don't think those software publishers were even aware that their programs that used 128K 130XE's would also work on those other upgrades, because NONE of them used the separate ANTIC access which is the only thing (for Rambo) that would have kept it from working, and of course Newell upgrades were 100% 130XE memory compatible.

 

If I were a publisher of software that used extra memory, I would have proclaimed it from a mountain top that it took advantage of 130XE's and Rambo/Newell upgraded XL's! MORE SALES!!! I didn't even realize that a Rambo upgrade would work with all this software too, until the early 2000's, and of course once I found out, I got a 1200XL and upgraded it to 256K Rambo, for the better keyboard and build than the XE models and sold of my 130XE with the terrible mushy keyboard and I've never looked back!

 

If I'd known in '85 what I learned 15-20 years later, I never would have even bought a 130XE, I would have gotten the cheaper discontinued 800XL and upgraded it to 256K for about the same cost as the 130XE and had twice the memory. But back then all the Rambo upgrade ads promoted was the fact that you could use the memory for ramdisks, something I never used or cared about, even with the 130XE, I wanted programs that utilized it, not some small 64K ramdisk that as far as I was concerned was workthless, because I still had to save to a normal drive before shutting the computer down or it was all lost! Why would I want a temporary ramdisk that might have loaded faster while using it, but in the long run saved no real time because you had to re-save to a real floppy drive before you were done anyway, not to mention the need to set up said ramdisk every time you started too? It seemed ans still seems a complete waste of the memory to me...

 

So thinking of the Rambo as a worthless upgrade back then for those reasons, thinking it would be better to get an 800 and Axlon compatible memory upgrades because at least with them you had productivity software like Visicalc and Synapse's Syn-series that used Axlon memory for more than just ramdisks. Of course AFTER, 130XE came out and I already bought it, Rambo ads claimed it worked like XE memory, but because of nay-sayers saying it wasn't ANTIC compatible like XE memory, I figured it was just empty claims, and the nay-sayers scared me off of it back then, not knowing that the nay-sayers where mocking it for no good reason, since ANTIC compatibility was never even used except in a couple of demos and eventually by an SDX utility in the 90's. I would have upgraded to an XL with Rambo many years sooner...

Edited November 23, 2018 by Gunstar

[kiwilove]

I didn't like the 130XE keyboard feel at all. For a touch typist - I felt there was too much resistance to it. A friend offered a fix by cutting into the plastic domes underneath each key - 3? small diamond shaped holes into them. I wasn't into dissembling and re-assembling the keyboard, etc - so I wouldn't have done it myself. I wouldn't say it's an ideal fix - but made it a little better than before. I didn't keep it for long - didn't know of anything I would use/play that did use the extra memory - and so only used the extra memory for ramdisk use, typically for demos.

 

Harvey

[peteym5]

Most people producing and selling software for a system will go for the lowest common denominator, make their software run on as many systems as it can. So if someone made a program to use 130XE extra memory, they won't be able to sell it to someone who has an 400/800, 600XL, 800XL, 65XE, XEGS. That is if the software is loaded from disk. Of course, bank switching cartridges 128K or more around this.

 

Now something I did notice in the Pole Position thread this game running on different platforms is that the Atari 8-bit version is the better version on the 8-bit platforms, graphics, sound, and animation. The 7800 version had better sprites, but used the 2600 sounds.

 

I am still considering porting some stuff to the Commodore 64, but may need to either get help from a co-programmer, or provide them with some material and let them do the work, as long as I can still get a partial royalty. Still looking into using my Adventure RPG (Secretum Labyrynth) engine to produce a Zelda like game with many different screens. Take advantage of the color map, 8 multicolored sprites, and Sid Chip sounds. Would have to see how big the market is and expected number of units sold.