320XE case badge?

[flashjazzcat]

Were there ever any 320XE/576XE/1088XE case badges made? I have a 4160ST with same proudly emblazoned on the case. I'd love a 320XE badge for my upgraded 65XE.

[Mathy]

Hello Flashjazzcat

 

The 65XE has 64kB of RAM. The 130XE has 128kB of RAM. So a 320kB XE would be an 325XE, a 576kB XE would be a 585XE and a 1088kB XE would be an 1105XE.

 

greetings

 

Mathy

[mimo]

I would love an 1105XE badge:twisted:

[Shawn Jefferson]

They probably only named it the "65" XE to avoid confusion (and lawsuits) with another well-known model at the time called the "64".

Edited November 14, 2009 by Shawn Jefferson

[+Roydea6]

They probably only named it the "65" XE to avoid confusion (and lawsuits) with another well-known model at the time called the "64".

 

Half of 130xe = 65xe

[MrFish]

The 65XE has 64kB of RAM. The 130XE has 128kB of RAM. So a 320kB XE would be an 325XE, a 576kB XE would be a 585XE and a 1088kB XE would be an 1105XE.

 

It looks like they're just rounding up to the nearest "5/10" (64->65, 128->130). So, wouldn't they be the 320XE, 580XE, and 1090XE respectively?

[MEtalGuy66]

What about a MEGA XE?

[flashjazzcat]

Well, whatever the numbers - I've long been toying with the idea of trying to find a company which will make badges on embossed metal to order. Not having much luck yet, but the plan would be to take orders from members of the A8 community and place a bulk order with the company of choice. Not sure how feasible it is, but if we could find a company which would do it and maybe order at least a hundred badges... who knows?

 

 

 

[JamesD]

How about a 666XE?

[flashjazzcat]

How about a 666XE?

And an interface to use it with Satandisk? No... that would be hell to get working.

 

In theory, I personally prefer to carry on with Atari's spurious numbering system, but it gets more complex than with the ST. For example, we have the 520 and 1040 ST. By that token (and as Mathy rightly pointed out at the top of the thread), a 320XE would really be 65+260 = 325XE. Sounds OK, actually. The 576XE would become a 585XE, and the 1088XE would be 1105XE.

 

I don't know: the naming convention will have to be resolved before we look any further into this.

 

...Actually I like MrFish's rounding up to the nearest 5/10 convention. 320XE, 580XE, and 1090XE look good to me.

 

Surely these badges could be made out of plastic these days? It's clearly the raised and embossed chrome-plated part which will cause complications and expense.

Edited November 15, 2009 by flashjazzcat

[Mathy]

Hello guys

 

You just take the amount of RAM, divide it by 64 and multiply it by 65. Atari did it with the XE and the ST. The 4160ST has 4160 / 65 x 64 = 4096 kB of RAM. The 1040ST has 1040 / 65 x 64 = 1024 kB of RAM. The 520ST has 520 / 65 x 64 = 512 kB of RAM.

 

That the XE has slightly higher number is because the XE has 64kB of main memory plus x amount of extra memory. This x amount is always a "round" number (in digital terms= multiple of 2). Therefore all expanded XE's (except the 130XE) should have numbers ending with a five (65 + extended RAM).

 

greetings

 

Mathy (who really doesn't like "1090XE" as that will confuse people)

[flashjazzcat]

OK - so now we need a company who'll make the badges. I trawled the Internet last night looking for one in the UK but all I could find were companies which make "domed" square PC case badges to the customer's specifications.

 

 

 

[Shawn Jefferson]

They probably only named it the "65" XE to avoid confusion (and lawsuits) with another well-known model at the time called the "64".

 

Half of 130xe = 65xe

 

Maybe it was a marketing thing... Your computer is only a 64 (or 128), well ours is a 65 / 130. Like the volume going to 11 instead of 10. But I really don't know... maybe Curt does.

 

Oh, and everyone calls it a 320XE anyway, so why not go with the de facto standard? Who cares what Atari may or may not have called it ?

Edited November 15, 2009 by Shawn Jefferson

[MrFish]

You just take the amount of RAM, divide it by 64 and multiply it by 65. Atari did it with the XE and the ST. The 4160ST has 4160 / 65 x 64 = 4096 kB of RAM. The 1040ST has 1040 / 65 x 64 = 1024 kB of RAM. The 520ST has 520 / 65 x 64 = 512 kB of RAM.

 

Ah, ok you're correct. That makes sense. Only thing is the names sound a little off because our total ram values don't equal what would have been put in a production model. Maybe it would be best in that case, to put the actual total ram value as the name: 320XE, 576XE, 1088XE. It's really hard to say what "Atari would have done" because they probably would never had made a production model with these amounts of ram.

[Mathy]

Hello Mr. Fish

 

There were rumors of a 260XE.

 

Why would our total ram value not be equal to what would have been put in a production model?

 

Atari was quite consistent when it comes to the naming of the XE series and the ST's, where it comes to total amount of memory. Except of course for the 800XE. I really don't understand why you think that Atari could have named them 320XE, 576XE and 1088XE instead of 325XE, 585XE and 1105XE. If anything, they might have called them 260XE, 520XE and 1040XE, but never 320XE, 576XE and 1088XE.

 

greetings

 

Mathy

Edited November 15, 2009 by Mathy

[Tezz]

It's a good idea, I wanted to do this myself a while ago actually. I was thinking at the time of simply piecing the "320" numbers together from various Atari badges from ST and XE peripherals/systems.

[MrFish]

There were rumors of a 260XE.

 

Why would our total ram value not be equal to what would have been put in a production model?

 

Atari was quite consistent when it comes to the naming of the XE series and the ST's, where it comes to total amount of memory. Except of course for the 800XE. I really don't understand why you think that Atari could have named them 320XE, 576XE and 1088XE instead of 325XE, 585XE and 1105XE. If anything, they might have called them 260XE, 520XE and 1040XE, but never 320XE, 576XE and 1088XE.

A 260XE would still be using an "even" multiple of ram (4 x 64kb = 256kb). I'm agreeing with your calculations being consistent with Atari's. I'm just saying they would most likely never had produced a model with these "odd" ram amounts, which are a result of doing upgrades. They always produced models that used nice "even" multiples (64kb, 128kb, 512kb, 1024kb... etc). 256kb would also fit here...

 

I'm not saying Atari would have used the names I suggested. They are just suggestions. I'm saying Atari would never have produced models with these amounts of ram in the first place. So, I think it's reasonable to call them whatever seems appropriate. Like Shawn said, we have already been using the name "320XE" for years, so why change it?