ST vs. XE in terms of BUILD QUALITY

[+wood_jl]

Over in the 8-bit section, as the discussion goes on about "Which is best A8 overall" it is frequently brought up (as it has been everywhere) that the Atari 130XE has the shoddiest build quality. Everybody agrees the earlier (400/800/XL series) A8s are built better.

 

The keyboard is "mushy." The case is "flimsy." There are no sockets on the motherboard; *everything* is soldered in. The motherboard itself has traces so thin that it's easy to delaminate them when soldering.

 

For those unfamiliar, the 130XE (and 65XE) look exactly like a 520ST without the numeric keypad and cursor keys, so it's obviously not as wide.

 

My question is, how is the build quality of the ST series? Any complaints? Any changes over the years? Is the Falcon built as cheaply as the 130XE that it so-resembles?

 

I myself used 520/1040STs up until about 1991, but haven't since. I never had any problems, but never heard anything about it.

 

I am assuming the same thing is the case with the ST? Cost cutting was a favored Tramiel tactic.

 

Any opinions?

[Rybags]

I'd say the STs were a bit better.

 

Fairly sure 32K RAMs were the smallest they used, where the 8-bit machines sourced the cheap and nasty variants of 64Kx1 and 64Kx4 chips.

 

The ST keyboard is "usable" where that on my 130XE is somewhat mushy and the XEGS is almost unbearable.

 

Of probably dozens of people I knew who had STs in the late 80's, I don't recall anyone having problems.

 

But, most of the people I knew who had 8-bits either had originals, or XLs.

 

Of course, we must remember that the ST was the Tramiels jewel in the crown - and their reputation depended on it. Also, it was sold at a decent profit margin, which would indicate that they could afford to pay some attention to the finer details.

 

The 8-bitters on the other hand, were built as cheaply as possible, and if memory serves correctly, even the 130XE undercut the C-64s retail price later in it's life.

 

The 8-bit cartridges are an excellent indicator of the "care factor" of Atari. The early brown ones were bullet-proof and reaked of quality.

 

The late grey ones look cheap and nasty (despite piccies on the labels) and they didn't even bother any more with the brilliantly designed interlock/protective slider.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Rybags

[Goochman]

ST's were built better - only real issue I knew of was the 'chip seating' problem which was easily fixed by the 'ST Flex'

[Bryan]

The ST's were a little better, but still some of the cheapest construction I've seen. The case still had some flex to it and it was very easy to strip out the case screws that went into those tiny little posts. The Tramiels managed to make technology cheap, so I guess that's the tradeoff. The Amiga 500 was much sturdier feeling IMHO.

[Fletch]

In my opinion they both are equally poor build. I reseated chips on my 520ST and 1040STf as often as I changed my underwear. The 130XE may have the worst keyboard known to man.

[carmel_andrews]

I was told by someone well experienced with repairing Atari computers that their was a problem with the XE keyboards that only exhibited/showed itself after prolonged use after about a year

 

Apparently Atari put in the wrong value keyboard resistor on the motherboard which, unless replaced would oxidize or short out the keyboard contacts, which meant you'd have to replace the plastic mylar membrane from the XE keyboard as well as the resistor (which by then would be knackered or blown)

Edited December 16, 2007 by carmel_andrews

[Christos]

Actually my 130XE keyboard works perfectly, while my falcon's broke...

[Bryan]

I was told by someone well experienced with repairing Atari computers that their was a problem with the XE keyboards that only exhibited/showed itself after prolonged use after about a year

 

Apparently Atari put in the wrong value keyboard resistor on the motherboard which, unless replaced would oxidize or short out the keyboard contacts, which meant you'd have to replace the plastic mylar membrane from the XE keyboard as well as the resistor (which by then would be knackered or blown)

 

The biggest problem is that the keyboard uses mylar sheets with conductive paint containing silver. When the silver reacts with air it turns black and stops conducting.

[paul frees]

They both were terrible

[tjlazer]

Seems the ST qualily was a little better, especially the later computers. I remember when I first got my brand new 520STm computer in 1986, the unit did not sit level on my desk! It had a twist in it! I was not happy with that. The 1040ST series did not have that problem...

[+doctorclu]

They are very similar in build.

[Curt Vendel]

An old friend of mine who design from Gen-lock and memory board products and sold them as a 3rd party for Atari ST systems used to go to the various computer shows with a hat he made and it had a spring ontop of it with an Atari ASCI ontop.

 

It was an inside joke, the chips in the early ST's, once the system got hot with "wiggle" and eventually pop out of their sockets. This was an issue with the Apple /// as well, Apple actually issued service notes saying to pick the computer up several inches from the desktop and to "drop it" to fix the problem.

 

Over all the build quality of the PCB's were good. I though the plastic's were not a quality finish, you could see rough edges, uneven piece joints and the grey just looked "tacky" - it just didn't have an Atari look & feel to it.

 

Other then the keyboards being mushy and white (they got dirty quickly and easily, not a good choice of color for an input device) the over computers were good.

 

The ST mice were a horrible bio-mechanical design, too big and clumsy and the buttons were too firm and difficult to multi-click, also the resolution was poor on them and they were never updated or corrected.

 

The monitors for the ST, while nice, the Tramiels could've included swivel stands for crying out loud, the monitors looks quite stupid sitting behind the ST buried by about 3" at the bottom by the computer, they really need a stand, even sold as an accessory it would've been welcomed.

 

I personally never liked the "All in one" design of the ST's, the later "pizza box" Mega ST's with the stackable HD's was a great design and I wish the ST's had continued along those lines. I think the Amiga 1000 and 2000 were more attractive looking machines.

 

I wish the Tramiels had kept the XL series in the same design, it was a very attractive look and it was what an Atari looked and felt like, the grey/white XE/ST look just felt clumsy.

 

 

 

Curt

 

Over in the 8-bit section, as the discussion goes on about "Which is best A8 overall" it is frequently brought up (as it has been everywhere) that the Atari 130XE has the shoddiest build quality. Everybody agrees the earlier (400/800/XL series) A8s are built better.

 

The keyboard is "mushy." The case is "flimsy." There are no sockets on the motherboard; *everything* is soldered in. The motherboard itself has traces so thin that it's easy to delaminate them when soldering.

 

For those unfamiliar, the 130XE (and 65XE) look exactly like a 520ST without the numeric keypad and cursor keys, so it's obviously not as wide.

 

My question is, how is the build quality of the ST series? Any complaints? Any changes over the years? Is the Falcon built as cheaply as the 130XE that it so-resembles?

 

I myself used 520/1040STs up until about 1991, but haven't since. I never had any problems, but never heard anything about it.

 

I am assuming the same thing is the case with the ST? Cost cutting was a favored Tramiel tactic.

 

Any opinions?

[mimo]

In my opinion they both are equally poor build. I reseated chips on my 520ST and 1040STf as often as I changed my underwear.

Wow, twice a year

[guitarmas]

I'd say the STs were a bit better.

 

 

You said bit better...ha ha ha.

[ggn]

Well, dunno what you guys are going on about, but my STE bought in 1990 is still in one piece, with only 1 PSU change and million floppy drives . No chip reseating, no nothing.

 

So in my book, yes, the ST definitely has a good build quality.

 

Also I have a 800XE bought at Outline 05, seems a bit flakey, but it's still ok.

[Gunstar]

ST's are better by a bit than the XE's IMHO, and got better with later models like the STE, the Mega ST's and Mega STE's and TT's were, IMHO just as well built as any other 16/32-bit computers on the market at the time, and that's expected as they were more expensive being the "flagships" so better care and quality was used in their manufacture. As for white keys being bad becuase they get dirty fast...well, 99% of PC's and Mac's from the 80's to today use white/light keys too, so they get dirty looking just as quickly.

[atarifan49]

One thing in my experience with 130XE's was how delicate the PCB was. Using an ultra cheap soldering iron and solder removal tool would likely lead to circuit traces coming up during a memory expansion. 800XL's PCB's are of a better quality. I had to fix a botched memory upgrade for a friend once. There were so many pulled traces because of the cheaper PCB.

 

I was lucky when I bought my 800XL in Oct. 1984. The entire computer was socketed which I later found out was unusual to get. But I was so happy to get it at the time. I was brand new in the Air Force and finally made enough money to be able to buy my first Atari. I paid $220 for that machine and still have it and it been working this whole time.

 

Glenn

[FastRobPlus]

I don't mind the XL/ST overall look, but they booth seem flimsy. I sometime hear folks say modern consumer electronics, laptops, consoles, etc. seem "cheaply made". When I hear this in the office, I reach into my desk and pull out an original 520ST and flex the sides of the unit. You can hear the plastic and internl creak and groan. We've come a long way since then.

[Gunstar]

One thing in my experience with 130XE's was how delicate the PCB was. Using an ultra cheap soldering iron and solder removal tool would likely lead to circuit traces coming up during a memory expansion. 800XL's PCB's are of a better quality. I had to fix a botched memory upgrade for a friend once. There were so many pulled traces because of the cheaper PCB.

 

I was lucky when I bought my 800XL in Oct. 1984. The entire computer was socketed which I later found out was unusual to get. But I was so happy to get it at the time. I was brand new in the Air Force and finally made enough money to be able to buy my first Atari. I paid $220 for that machine and still have it and it been working this whole time.

 

Glenn

 

I had that problem too. I did the 320K upgrade to the 130XE and pulled up a few traces while doing it. I just used a tracewriter pen to fix it. Sold it once I got my 1200XL upgraded to 512K (among a ton of other upgrades). I'll stick with the 1200XL forever, it's built like a tank, almost as well as the 800.

[atarifan49]

One thing in my experience with 130XE's was how delicate the PCB was. Using an ultra cheap soldering iron and solder removal tool would likely lead to circuit traces coming up during a memory expansion. 800XL's PCB's are of a better quality. I had to fix a botched memory upgrade for a friend once. There were so many pulled traces because of the cheaper PCB.

 

I was lucky when I bought my 800XL in Oct. 1984. The entire computer was socketed which I later found out was unusual to get. But I was so happy to get it at the time. I was brand new in the Air Force and finally made enough money to be able to buy my first Atari. I paid $220 for that machine and still have it and it been working this whole time.

 

Glenn

 

I had that problem too. I did the 320K upgrade to the 130XE and pulled up a few traces while doing it. I just used a tracewriter pen to fix it. Sold it once I got my 1200XL upgraded to 512K (among a ton of other upgrades). I'll stick with the 1200XL forever, it's built like a tank, almost as well as the 800.

 

And has the best keyboard you will ever find on a computer. I had a friend once find a Keytronic keyboard for the PC that came almost close the 1200XL keyboard.

 

I'm really surprised that Mitsumi has never recreated that feel in keyboard since.

[Gunstar]

Yes, that too. I LOVE the 1200XL keyboard! It's a WORLD of difference coming from an XE, and my PC too!

[TheGreatPW]

Over in the 8-bit section, as the discussion goes on about "Which is best A8 overall" it is frequently brought up (as it has been everywhere) that the Atari 130XE has the shoddiest build quality. Everybody agrees the earlier (400/800/XL series) A8s are built better.

 

The keyboard is "mushy." The case is "flimsy." There are no sockets on the motherboard; *everything* is soldered in. The motherboard itself has traces so thin that it's easy to delaminate them when soldering.

 

For those unfamiliar, the 130XE (and 65XE) look exactly like a 520ST without the numeric keypad and cursor keys, so it's obviously not as wide.

 

My question is, how is the build quality of the ST series? Any complaints? Any changes over the years? Is the Falcon built as cheaply as the 130XE that it so-resembles?

 

I myself used 520/1040STs up until about 1991, but haven't since. I never had any problems, but never heard anything about it.

 

I am assuming the same thing is the case with the ST? Cost cutting was a favored Tramiel tactic.

 

Any opinions?

 

To be honest, Atari was known for quality products whether they looked cheap or not, they usually functioned and performed well. Of all the 400/800/XL/XE/ST/TT/Falcon owners I knew, I only remember an Atari 800 owner complaining about a key not working and having to get the whole keyboard replaced. If my memory serves, the TT looked like it was the worst quality though although the owner still uses his once in a while today with only minor problems (he cleans it to keep it running sharp). Most of us were heavy users too (especially those who went online to visit BBS'es, CompuServe, GEnie, etc.).

 

All my Atari computers still function to this day although I have not tested them in a while now but from the last time I used them.

 

While cost cutting is a part of the Tramiel mythology, it was usually the people and not the products that got the shaft (from what I remember).

Edited March 25, 2008 by TheGreatPW

[kevtronics]

The ST keyboard is "usable" where that on my 130XE is somewhat mushy and the XEGS is almost unbearable.

I think the keyboard quality varied more on which parts supplier Atari was using, than on the design of each machine. I have a 520ST+ and two XEGSes. The ST has the lightest keyboard feel, while one XEGS is actually quite firm and springy, and the other XEGS has medium firmness, inbetween the other XEGS and the ST.

 

My problem with the XE/ST series keyboard is not the typing feel, but rather the shape and spacing of the keys. The keys are too flat and too closely spaced, so it's hard to get a good "feel" of exactly which keys you're hitting. Even if you're not a touch typist, it slows you down and leads to annoying typing mistakes.

 

Even with the shape/spacing issue, I still like the firm version of the XEGS keyboard better than my 800XL. Its keys are very picky about what angle you hit them from. If you're even slightly off-center, the key either makes an uncomfortable "crunch" or just refuses to go down at all. But again, I hear Atari used several different suppliers for the 600XL and 800XL keyboards, and each has its own unique feel.

 

Best Electronics sells a set of springs you can put into your XE or ST keyboard to firm up the keys, but they're a bit expensive ($22 a set) and the job of installing one spring under each keycap is quite tedious.

[atarian63]

Over in the 8-bit section, as the discussion goes on about "Which is best A8 overall" it is frequently brought up (as it has been everywhere) that the Atari 130XE has the shoddiest build quality. Everybody agrees the earlier (400/800/XL series) A8s are built better.

 

The keyboard is "mushy." The case is "flimsy." There are no sockets on the motherboard; *everything* is soldered in. The motherboard itself has traces so thin that it's easy to delaminate them when soldering.

 

For those unfamiliar, the 130XE (and 65XE) look exactly like a 520ST without the numeric keypad and cursor keys, so it's obviously not as wide.

 

My question is, how is the build quality of the ST series? Any complaints? Any changes over the years? Is the Falcon built as cheaply as the 130XE that it so-resembles?

 

I myself used 520/1040STs up until about 1991, but haven't since. I never had any problems, but never heard anything about it.

 

I am assuming the same thing is the case with the ST? Cost cutting was a favored Tramiel tactic.

 

Any opinions?

We were an atari service center back then, so for what its worth the 1st run 520st models with the external power supply were pretty flimsy. It was easy to twist the case, and therefore loosen mmu and glue chips. If you opened the case a couple times the screw holes were pretty much done.Keyboard chip that were mounted upside down(hanging) sometimes got loose. Just reseat and most of the time it fixed it. The rest was mostly fine. Probably a little worse that the 130XE, however the motherboard was of a higher grade and it of course didn't have the keyboard mylar problem the 130xe had. The later integrated 520st/1040st models were much better and far less problems. The few falcons we had were trouble free and well and the mega ST. Mega STE had some power supply issues but otherwise fine. We never really sold or saw TT models. Overall compared to PC's of today very reliable (except the early model quirks).

[atarian63]

The ST's were a little better, but still some of the cheapest construction I've seen. The case still had some flex to it and it was very easy to strip out the case screws that went into those tiny little posts. The Tramiels managed to make technology cheap, so I guess that's the tradeoff. The Amiga 500 was much sturdier feeling IMHO.

The 2nd gen amiga(a500) did appear a nice piece, thought the A1000 with all its problems was a nicely constructed machine. Thought the A500 was cheapened but better. We saw lots of blown paula chips and dead ram expansions as well as lots of bad floppy drives(not amigas fault). It was much more on par with the Atari 1040St. Most people bought them in the nice package box with a ram upgrade and a 2nd floppy and either a 1084s or the 520 video adapter if you were just going to play games.