Atari2600 vs Atari800 vs Amiga1000

[GameEngine]

VCS:

Atari 2600 is so simple but nothing was able to compete with it.

Would it fare even better if not constrained by 128B RAM and 4KB ROM Cartridges?

Lack of framebuffer ment graphics is blocky but games are action packed as on screen movement is basically at no cost. 128 colors.

Two chanell sound.

Is it perfect? I think yes (but unfortunatelly not for me as there is no keyboard - game system was never enough for me).

 

A 8 bit:

Was Atari 800 overengineered? It was obviously more capable that Apple ][ but far less expandable. Was there anyone who replaced personality board? With what? Is it possible to install 16KB XL OS? 80 column boards required more then RAM expansion slot.

 

Was there no better use for ANTIC's silicon then to implement Display List? 6502 could update graphics mode register and line address but it cannot send extra 40 bytes for 16KB graphics modes or color map to GTIA.

 

Disks drives are neither nor as simple as Apple had nor programable as C64's though they have its own processor. With smarter drives DOS would take less RAM.

 

800 XL has PBI yet there is almost nothing to connect. Clearly some important signals are missing. Thanks God 1090 was canceled - I do not think it would be possible to reliably connect this whale to light keyboard via PBI.

 

XEGS - good that cart slot is back on top and easly accessible. Separate keyboard would be even better idea if 1200 XL had it (plus some internal expandability, PC was 1981 design, right?).

 

Overall seems to me chips were beeter then the systems.

 

Still, 800XL was was my first computer. For home computer graphics was very good. Build quality much better then the competition. Perfect fit for my child / teenager need.

 

 

Amigas:

Amiga 1000 had perfect chipset if not for the lack of ergonomic high resolution mode - not good for office.

256KB RAM (the other 256 taken by the system) was twice as much as Mac but still hardly enough.

Nice case but I still think everyone would be happy if we were given Amiga 2000 instead in 1985.

 

Amiga 500 - do not know what killed it but it was not the lacking hardware. For home computer expandability was very good.

ST seduced me with its quality mono monitor and it could play games as well. I never seriously considered buying Amiga.

 

Which of the three you consider the most perfect and why?

What you consider differentiators making them stand out from the competition?

Why both Atari 2600 and Amigas sold more / did better in the market then Atari 8 bit? Was it due to more competitive chips? Better system architecture?

[frogstar_robot]

Why both Atari 2600 and Amigas sold more / did better in the market then Atari 8 bit? Was it due to more competitive chips? Better system architecture?

 

There wasn't an inexpensive A8 until the 600XL/800XL. Prior to this time, you're looking at >$600 in late seventies/early eighties dollars just to get started with an A8. So the 2600 had over 5 years to entrench itself by the time the A8 was affordable to most people. Also home computer customers and console customers weren't very interchangeable even if so-called home computers were employed as gaming rigs 99% of the time.

 

The Amiga simply belonged to another generation of machine and did more than anything else at it's price point. For many things, it did more than anything else period. A8 and Amiga customers weren't very interchangeable although the enlightened A8 user wanting a 16 bit upgrade that was more like his beloved A8 would have done better to go with the Amiga over the ST. At time both A8 and C-64 customers had strong brand loyalty so I don't think many A8 users at the time appreciated or widely understood that the Amiga was also a Jay Miner machine. I HAD an ST but still believe the Amiga a better and vastly more innovative machine.

 

Granted the ST was much cheaper at first but that crisp BW mode+monitor was only a small point at best over the Amiga. Commodore also did a much better job evolving and supporting the Amiga than any Atari product other than the 2600.

 

Other than the fact that the 2600 -> A8 -> Amiga represents a successive technical lineage, there isn't much in the way of comparison between the three. They differed in price, era, and intended customers.

Edited December 11, 2008 by frogstar_robot

[GameEngine]

There wasn't an inexpensive A8 until the 600XL/800XL. Prior to this time, you're looking at >$600 in late seventies/early eighties dollars just to get started with an A8. So the 2600 had over 5 years to entrench itself by the time the A8 was affordable to most people. Also home computer customers and console customers weren't very interchangeable even if so-called home computers were employed as gaming rigs 99% of the time.

I do not want to compare them directly. Obviously Amiga1000 is more capable then A800 which is much better then A2600 but I still think we can decide which is best. I think more and more that A2600 is the best of the three - especially now when it as accessible as the other two computers.

 

Granted the ST was much cheaper at first but that crisp BW mode+monitor was only a small point at best over the Amiga.

Is there anyone else who preffers ST mono monitor over cartoon quality graphics of Amiga?

 

Other than the fact that the 2600 -> A8 -> Amiga represents a successive technical lineage, there isn't much in the way of comparison between the three. They differed in price, era, and intended customers.

I bet designers of A800 and Amiga1000 wouldn't mind if they won again all customers who bougth A2600.

[roland p]

The way limited hardware is used in the A2600 is just brilliant. It's a sort of golden ratio.

 

I really like the idea of the SIO port of the 8bit. It's like the todays USB, but made in 1979

 

A1000 is the true technological milestone for me. A true mutlitasking OS at a level not achieved by MS for years. digitised sound, 4096 colors. Those guys made history with that machine.

[Paranoid]

The A1000 was first attempt - I didn't buy it at the time, the limitations were too severe. It was better at the time to wait for an A500 or A2000, which were exponentially better machines. Although honestly, the 520ST was a severely handicapped machine too, and the 1040 resolved a majority of the deal-breaking shortcomings of the 520ST.

 

Anyhow, of them all, I don't and wouldn't own an Amiga as a retro machine. I've got various 2600s and 5200s, but the Atari 8 bit gets the most milage and provides me with the most satisfaction of my retro collection. Again, an 800XL, the actual 800, with 48k, has too severe of limitations on it.

 

FWIW, I never owned an Atari 8 bit back in the day. I was a Commodore kid during the 8 bit home PC era.

[doctorclu]

FWIW, I never owned an Atari 8 bit back in the day. I was a Commodore kid during the 8 bit home PC era.

 

Owned an Atari 400, it was all I could afford then. Now days I use a 800.

 

The Amiga is a lot of fun, but like the ST, is one of those machines that has too much ability even today to be a clean break from modern systems.

 

I like the 800 (and the 8-bit lines, including Commodore 64 now) because of the challenge and thought involved to operate one in the modern day. But I do hang out with a local Amiga group.

[peteym5]

VCS:

Atari 2600 is so simple but nothing was able to compete with it.

Would it fare even better if not constrained by 128B RAM and 4KB ROM Cartridges?

Lack of framebuffer ment graphics is blocky but games are action packed as on screen movement is basically at no cost. 128 colors.

Two chanell sound.

Is it perfect? I think yes (but unfortunatelly not for me as there is no keyboard - game system was never enough for me).

 

A 8 bit:

Was Atari 800 overengineered? It was obviously more capable that Apple ][ but far less expandable. Was there anyone who replaced personality board? With what? Is it possible to install 16KB XL OS? 80 column boards required more then RAM expansion slot.

 

Was there no better use for ANTIC's silicon then to implement Display List? 6502 could update graphics mode register and line address but it cannot send extra 40 bytes for 16KB graphics modes or color map to GTIA.

 

Disks drives are neither nor as simple as Apple had nor programable as C64's though they have its own processor. With smarter drives DOS would take less RAM.

 

800 XL has PBI yet there is almost nothing to connect. Clearly some important signals are missing. Thanks God 1090 was canceled - I do not think it would be possible to reliably connect this whale to light keyboard via PBI.

 

XEGS - good that cart slot is back on top and easly accessible. Separate keyboard would be even better idea if 1200 XL had it (plus some internal expandability, PC was 1981 design, right?).

 

Overall seems to me chips were beeter then the systems.

 

Still, 800XL was was my first computer. For home computer graphics was very good. Build quality much better then the competition. Perfect fit for my child / teenager need.

 

 

Amigas:

Amiga 1000 had perfect chipset if not for the lack of ergonomic high resolution mode - not good for office.

256KB RAM (the other 256 taken by the system) was twice as much as Mac but still hardly enough.

Nice case but I still think everyone would be happy if we were given Amiga 2000 instead in 1985.

 

Amiga 500 - do not know what killed it but it was not the lacking hardware. For home computer expandability was very good.

ST seduced me with its quality mono monitor and it could play games as well. I never seriously considered buying Amiga.

 

Which of the three you consider the most perfect and why?

What you consider differentiators making them stand out from the competition?

Why both Atari 2600 and Amigas sold more / did better in the market then Atari 8 bit? Was it due to more competitive chips? Better system architecture?

 

Have to take in account the time each system was released, prices of ICs, and available technology. The further you go back, the more memory costs and less could be squeezed on an a single chip. This applies to every micro computer system and game console ever released.

 

The Atari 8-bit probably wasn't marketed well and poorly advertised. Atari corp was still poring lots of money into the 2600 up to the time Jack Tremial took it over, and kept both divisions separate from each other. Have to admit the 800XL is a good designed, but by the time it hit the market, the Commodore 64 already had a foothold and was selling for less.

[potatohead]

I find the Amiga very impressive. It set the bar in a lot of ways, but it's just over the edge of complexity that it's not *fun* to work with. Fun to just play though

 

Don't own one now.

 

One of the things I like about retro-computing is where the expectations are. 8 bit computing is just sweet. There are plenty of "firsts" to accomplish yet, and a small team or one person can go and do something that's just great! Of the 8bitters, I think the VCS is probably the best in this regard. The complexity of it, combined with the brevity of it make for a great challenge, and it's responsive to those challenges.

 

Heck, just look at the Ballblazer port in progress, or Boulderdash, or the many fine home brews on the thing! Excellent! That level of achievement on greater machines might just be a curio. Why go there right? That's the key to enjoying retro stuff, IMHO.

 

Atari 8 bit computers are right there too. Again, one person, or a small team and go and do stuff that's technically recognizable as some new state of the art, and not be burdened with the higher expectations that come with the next generation of systems and beyond.

 

The limits are where the art is. If gaming is fun, then there is JUST enough in the VCS to capture it. No more. Not one bit. Many of the 8bitters have just a bit more, so there is some room for sizzle, spit 'n polish to push the edge a bit more for some complexity and depth, with the same overall core limitations in place. This is good enough to expand past pure visual gaming to text adventures and such. Necessary, and just as important as the core is.

 

I love the art. I love being able to fire up the machine and do stuff. (and I do sometimes) I love watching the grey matter being applied over the years and that gets actual RESULTS! It's just killer to see happen, sometimes talk to people, maybe play a part, maybe just buy the cart because for some reason, that title just clicked. That's special today, and it's special enough to be preserved and respected a little more than it sometimes is, IMHO.

 

Of the 8bitters, the Atari machines have just enough complexity to really not be fully exploited easily. When it happens, you can just see it, feel it, play it and it's all good. However, other 8 bitters are close (C64) or maybe just different. Some of that is clearly texture and feel that clicked when all of were exposed to the machines for the first time. There is passion too. A quick look at the VS threads over the years shows that. Hate them, love them, whatever. Without what drives them, this hobby would essentially be nothing. Game on man! Prove your machine has got the stuff, and know lots of people will watch because they are right there wondering, "Is that really it?", "Have we seen the limit?"

 

Today, on Atari machines the answer is no, and that's cool. Happy for it to be right there for a good long time actually. I think some other 8bitters are in the same boat, and that's cool too. I'll watch on those, and appreciate the advances, the passion and the results, because it's fun, even if it's not MY box that I feel for.

 

In the end, I think the VCS is perfect though. The thing is pure. About as pure as it gets. If you realize anything fun on it at all, it's an achievement that everyone who has played the machines, and or understands the hardware in the machine, can appreciate. Put another way, is is actually possible to produce something with as much potential for less, with less? I don't think so, and that's where the perfection lies. If you think about it, all sorts of decisions could have killed it, or set greater expectations for it, spoiling much of the magic it has today. That sets it apart from the other retro machines.

 

16 bitters, minus the TI because it was early, just kind of marked the escalation of computing where everything slowly moved away from working on hardware, counting cycles, coding for tightness, using limited resolution palette, etc...

 

When that changed, the art changed. It's not any worse today. That's not my point at all. It's just different, and like music, many of us just like what we like!

 

When I game on modern stuff, the art is about story, character, graphics, level design, interactivity, interfaces, control and other higher level things. That's art too, but a different kind, and not often the kind that ordinary people can realize to a degree that's compelling. I suspect that will change as time passes and tastes change.

 

BTW: I think the VCS *is* retro. It defines it by it's nature and it's time. That's the perfection. Wonder if that will remain true over the years.

Edited December 12, 2008 by potatohead

[Oswald]

VCS:

Atari 2600 is so simple but nothing was able to compete with it.

 

the fairchild chanel f which came at the same time was actually cheaper, and could display gfx without having to "handfeed" the gfx with the cpu....

 

128 colors.

Two chanell sound.

Is it perfect? I think yes (but unfortunatelly not for me as there is no keyboard - game system was never enough for me).

 

perfect? in what sense? look at the fairchild, can do pacman without that flickering madness.

[Bryan]

Oswald,

 

This is the same thing you posted in the Atari v Commodore thread and it still isn't valid. If you could only choose between the 2600 and the Channel F, you'd be crazy to take the Channel F. And PacMan is still a worst-case example of 2600 programming.

[roland p]

perfect? in what sense? look at the fairchild, can do pacman without that flickering madness.

At least the Atari 2600 does ballblazer

[atarian63]

VCS:

Atari 2600 is so simple but nothing was able to compete with it.

 

the fairchild chanel f which came at the same time was actually cheaper, and could display gfx without having to "handfeed" the gfx with the cpu....

 

128 colors.

Two chanell sound.

Is it perfect? I think yes (but unfortunatelly not for me as there is no keyboard - game system was never enough for me).

 

perfect? in what sense? look at the fairchild, can do pacman without that flickering madness.

fairchild was a flop, go troll elsewhere.

[Oswald]

Oswald,

 

This is the same thing you posted in the Atari v Commodore thread and it still isn't valid. If you could only choose between the 2600 and the Channel F, you'd be crazy to take the Channel F. And PacMan is still a worst-case example of 2600 programming.

 

sorry chanel f was cheaper & had video ram unlike the "revolutionary" 2600. I dont see why would anyone think the 2600 is better. also pacman technically is impossible without flicker on the 2600 hence no vram. only 2 "sprites" "playfield", etc.

[atarian63]

Oswald,

 

This is the same thing you posted in the Atari v Commodore thread and it still isn't valid. If you could only choose between the 2600 and the Channel F, you'd be crazy to take the Channel F. And PacMan is still a worst-case example of 2600 programming.

 

sorry chanel f was cheaper & had video ram unlike the "revolutionary" 2600. I dont see why would anyone think the 2600 is better. also pacman technically is impossible without flicker on the 2600 hence no vram. only 2 "sprites" "playfield", etc.

Why are you sill here?

[Bryan]

Oswald,

 

This is the same thing you posted in the Atari v Commodore thread and it still isn't valid. If you could only choose between the 2600 and the Channel F, you'd be crazy to take the Channel F. And PacMan is still a worst-case example of 2600 programming.

 

sorry chanel f was cheaper & had video ram unlike the "revolutionary" 2600. I dont see why would anyone think the 2600 is better. also pacman technically is impossible without flicker on the 2600 hence no vram. only 2 "sprites" "playfield", etc.

You don't see why anyone would think the 2600 is better? Have you ever actually played the Channel F? Now I'm convinced you're either insane or just here to throw stones.

 

The Channel F is slow and has no efficient way to access to video memory (not memory mapped).

The Channel F gives the programmer no access to vertical blank timing. All code must run asynchronous to the screen refresh.

The Channel F has no sprite hardware whatsoever.

The Channel F has a single audio channel capable of 3 frequencies.

The Channel F can only display a few fixed colors.

The resolution of the Channel F is 102x58.

The Channel F has half the usable RAM of a 2600 (64 bytes). The video area cannot be read back by the CPU.

 

Who cares how the 2600 gets the job done? It is a much better gaming machine.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Bryan

[Albert]

Oswald,

 

This is the same thing you posted in the Atari v Commodore thread and it still isn't valid. If you could only choose between the 2600 and the Channel F, you'd be crazy to take the Channel F. And PacMan is still a worst-case example of 2600 programming.

 

sorry chanel f was cheaper & had video ram unlike the "revolutionary" 2600. I dont see why would anyone think the 2600 is better. also pacman technically is impossible without flicker on the 2600 hence no vram. only 2 "sprites" "playfield", etc.

Why are you sill here?

I have removed him from the Atari 8-bit Forum.

 

..Al

[potatohead]

BTW: I owned a Fairchild. Liked it, but here's the thing:

 

If you are gonna talk minimalist machine envy, the Fairchild is flawed because it does not have quite enough to always be fun. The VCS does, and that's why it's perfect --or more perfect than the other machines.

 

Really interesting controllers though!!

Edited December 12, 2008 by potatohead

[Bryan]

I have removed him from the Atari 8-bit Forum.

 

..Al

You know, I really try to be supportive when people are interested in real debate. But Oswald kept oscillating between valid technical points and "everything Atari sucks!"

[Bryan]

BTW: I owned a Fairchild. Liked it, but here's the thing:

 

If you are gonna talk minimalist machine envy, the Fairchild is flawed because it does not have quite enough to always be fun. The VCS does, and that's why it's perfect --or more perfect than the other machines.

 

Really interesting controllers though!!

I used to own a few Channel F's. It's a nifty system historically, but it was very much designed from "inside the box"- basically by scaling down conventional computer architecture until it was affordable. The 2600, on the other hand, was designed from the application side. "What kind of hardware is needed to support these kinds of games?" What they ended up with was something that was far more flexible than anyone initially realized.

[potatohead]

BTW: I owned a Fairchild. Liked it, but here's the thing:

 

If you are gonna talk minimalist machine envy, the Fairchild is flawed because it does not have quite enough to always be fun. The VCS does, and that's why it's perfect --or more perfect than the other machines.

 

Really interesting controllers though!!

I used to own a few Channel F's. It's a nifty system historically, but it was very much designed from "inside the box"- basically by scaling down conventional computer architecture until it was affordable. The 2600, on the other hand, was designed from the application side. "What kind of hardware is needed to support these kinds of games?" What they ended up with was something that was far more flexible than anyone initially realized.

 

Totally. That's part of the spark for sure.

 

And I'm supportive too. Really, it can get heated, and that's ok by me. As long as there is some value, I'm up for it! The posts on this thread were not an issue for me.

[Crazyace]

I think the funny thing is that if you are willing to take a few changes/tweaks to the graphics - you could make a non-flickering Pacman game for the VCS.

Use M0 / M1 with different sizes to give 2 ghost shapes that are slightly different - and P0/P1 for the other 2 ghosts, and use the ball ( maybe with PF help ) for the Pacman shape.

[atarian63]

Oswald,

 

This is the same thing you posted in the Atari v Commodore thread and it still isn't valid. If you could only choose between the 2600 and the Channel F, you'd be crazy to take the Channel F. And PacMan is still a worst-case example of 2600 programming.

 

sorry chanel f was cheaper & had video ram unlike the "revolutionary" 2600. I dont see why would anyone think the 2600 is better. also pacman technically is impossible without flicker on the 2600 hence no vram. only 2 "sprites" "playfield", etc.

Why are you sill here?

I have removed him from the Atari 8-bit Forum.

 

..Al

Sad, he has great technical knowledge, too bad we could not harness it for good A8 stuff!

[Paranoid]

I have removed him from the Atari 8-bit Forum.

 

..Al

You know, I really try to be supportive when people are interested in real debate. But Oswald kept oscillating between valid technical points and "everything Atari sucks!"

 

Well said, Bryan.

 

I'm actually shocked that so many people would respond so in such a passionate, detailed manner to this Oswald guy over and over again, though.

 

The technical discussion interests me, although most of it is WAY over my head when you're talking about registers and sync rates and whatever...

 

But, on things like the Odysee2 or the Fairchild, I often thing that ultimately the debate comes down to this...

 

(or the A800 versus the C64)

 

Which one sold the most and generated the most revenue? Winner, period. Like VHS versus Beta and HD versus BluRay, at some point, technology really *is* a popularity contest.

 

And Atari computers, maybe ONE of them got invited to the prom (the ST?), but NONE of them went to the after-prom parties with the Commodores, PCs and Apples.

 

Speaking of which... someone mentioned bad advertising. I remember the first time I went to a friend's house who had an Atari 800. Another had an Atari 400. I never knew EITHER of them existed until I saw them, but I knew about Apple at that time. I was totally blown away when I saw Pac Man on an Atari 800 when I was probably 11. (1981... sound right?) Before it was available on the 2600. But... long term, no one knew about them, and they were expensive at the time.

 

Thus, the C-64 went on to become the VHS of 8 bit home PCs.

[FastRobPlus]

I have removed him from the Atari 8-bit Forum.

 

..Al

You know, I really try to be supportive when people are interested in real debate. But Oswald kept oscillating between valid technical points and "everything Atari sucks!"

 

Well said, Bryan.

 

I'm actually shocked that so many people would respond so in such a passionate, detailed manner to this Oswald guy over and over again, though.

 

The technical discussion interests me, although most of it is WAY over my head when you're talking about registers and sync rates and whatever...

 

But, on things like the Odysee2 or the Fairchild, I often thing that ultimately the debate comes down to this...

 

(or the A800 versus the C64)

 

Which one sold the most and generated the most revenue? Winner, period. Like VHS versus Beta and HD versus BluRay, at some point, technology really *is* a popularity contest.

 

And Atari computers, maybe ONE of them got invited to the prom (the ST?), but NONE of them went to the after-prom parties with the Commodores, PCs and Apples.

 

Speaking of which... someone mentioned bad advertising. I remember the first time I went to a friend's house who had an Atari 800. Another had an Atari 400. I never knew EITHER of them existed until I saw them, but I knew about Apple at that time. I was totally blown away when I saw Pac Man on an Atari 800 when I was probably 11. (1981... sound right?) Before it was available on the 2600. But... long term, no one knew about them, and they were expensive at the time.

 

Thus, the C-64 went on to become the VHS of 8 bit home PCs.

 

That's odd logic, but by that same logic the Atari 800 was the winner in from Holiday 1981 through Holiday 1983, just before the great crash. That's basically one full computer generation. The generations were staggered (for example, the C64 and Atari 800 did not compete very much at all, but the Atari XL was out by the time the C64 was gaining momentum in Holiday 1983 and leading the industry by 1984.) Remember back to 1982-83 when the computer magazines were all shifting focus to Atari and there were a lot of upset folks clamoring that they did not believe the 800 should be allowed to unseat the TRS-80 and Apple just because it had sold more. Mags like HiRes and Softside were shifting. Atari-only magazines were launching, and the big magazines were moving more and more of their precious type-in program space to Atari listings. A very big difference is that Atari, Apple, and TRS-80 were not global computers. The global home computer revolution really started around 1984 or so and since the C64 was the machine at that time, the C64 often is seen as the trailblazer.

[Bryan]

I'm actually shocked that so many people would respond so in such a passionate, detailed manner to this Oswald guy over and over again, though.

 

:ponder: