Why isn't the 130XE the dominant Atari 8bit?

[Gunstar]

 

In Jeremy Reimer's article titled "A History of the Amiga," he wrote the following:

 

 

Chronologically, this was evidently before Bushnell sold Atari to Warner Communications, and the decision by the pre-Warner Atari led Jay Miner to Hi-Toro, where the 68000-based computer was born.

 

And you're right that the new computer was supposed to land at Atari, but Commodore paid off Atari's investment and snapped up the Amiga for themselves. At least if memory serves from having read the accounts.

 

Would Atari have fared better, had they let Jay Miner go forward with the 68000-based computer? Wasn't Atari here just being cheap, preferring to stick with older technology, even in the face of the changing marketplace for home gaming units and 8bits in general? And what about the stories of Atari being cheap when it came to their developers of software, long before Jack Tramiel's shadow ever darkened the doors of Atari?

 

--Tim

So you are saying that Jay Miner wanted to do a 68000 based machine instead of the "Sweet 16" 8-bit project, and before the Atari/Amiga debacle? That I did not know. I thought the Amiga was the first time anyone involved with Atari wanted a 68000 computer. Originally the Amiga was gong to be a console, right? But Atari, when they first made the deal with Amiga company had already decided to use it as a computer, right? Or maybe both, before the crash?

 

My guess is Atari wouldn't have fared better, since the video game crash would have happened either way, sending Atari into a tail-spin, but maybe if Jack had still bought Atari he might have picked up the Jay Miner pre-Amiga 68000 design (which would probably have been very much like the Amiga) and ran with it instead of designing the ST, and neither the Amiga as we know it or the ST would have existed, and we would have had two entirely different 68000 based machines from Commodore and Atari.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Gunstar

[sanny]

To this day, I think that the Atari 400/800 is the only computer that will allow a family of 4 to sit down together and play a game at the same time.

 

Fully agree. But how about paddle games?

 

Could be played by four people on an XL/XE...

[Gunstar]

To this day, I think that the Atari 400/800 is the only computer that will allow a family of 4 to sit down together and play a game at the same time.

I can't tell you how many hours of fun the four of us had playing MULE. Now that I have the 800 working again, I think Christmas will be a

good time to put it up on the 60 inch TV.

 

DavidMil

I

 

 

Fully agree. But how about paddle games?

 

Could be played by four people on an XL/XE...

 

I agree with both of you, but there are only like half a dozen or less games that use 4 ports aren't there? I know if the XL and XE lines had 4 ports more 4 player games surely would have come out other than paddle games, but as it stands, with so few titles supporting 4 ports, it's not a big disadvantage in not having them at this point and not a reason for me to be concerned with an 800 (though I still plan on getting an 800 again eventually). Besides, if not for the loss of the two ports, would there have been memory upgrades available like the Rambo or 130XE? I'd rather have the extra memory. Would the 130XE just been another Commodore 128 with an 8-bit mode and a CP/M mode?

 

How did 800 Axlon extended memory work? Was there a loss of port B? I don't know how the Incognito works either, but if it requires port B, I'd still take either memory upgrade over four joystick ports. But that's me, without children, except for myself.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Gunstar

[tschak909]

The Axlon did not use PORTB, but rather used the unused C000 address space to switch banks.

 

-Thom

[+kheller2]

In keeping with the original poster's question, I'd be curious what people's thoughts are on which system (VCS aside) Atari most dropped the ball on, or squandered the most potential with, and why you think so.

 

For example, Atari staged the 1200XL as their business model, and then proceeded to hobble the system itself.

 

Or, the 1450XLD... would that really have been a game changer if it had made it to retail?

 

I'm looking forward to building on the OPs topic as well as gilsaluki's mention of Atari's (cheapness).

 

--Tim

I doubt very much the 1450 would have been a game changer. It would have been rather expensive and been introduced so late into 84 to make any real headway. It probably would have existed shorter than the 1200xl run as the T men took over.

 

From a quality POV, few can argue against the tankesque feel of the 800, and for all around goodness the 800XL. I think the Freddie 800XL is probably the best variant and keep in mind they did develop a 130XE circuit design as an 800XLF board (128k and all).

 

Side note: even today I'm still baffled that the 65XE was the 900XLF and the 800XL w Freddie and 128k was called a 130XE.

[DavidMil]

What I'm seeing here, is that each machine had (has) its' strengths and weaknesses. I like My 130XE with 320K (Ha!, I typed Megs the first time) for some things,

my 800XL with 256K for others, and my old 800 when I need to program or play MULE. In the mean time, my IBM PC with 640K is used as an anchor for my bass boat.

 

DavidMil

[suspicious_milk]

The variation in quality among both XL and XE lines has a large impact as well. Not to mention a users skill or lack there of with modding. If I solder anything in an Atari, I may as well use a blowtorch. I'll play devil's advocate here ... coming from someone who gets scared off by mods that involve soldering

 

128k RAM is awesome,

I've got ~10+ games that are 128k only. Games I like.

128K makes SDX usable.

128k is practically mandatory if you want to tinker with programming ON the Atari (of course more would be better; thanks Ctirad for the 320/576XE :-) ).

 

The "crappy" keyboard (I don't think it's too bad) has the graphic character set printed on the keys.

The keyboard has a cheap fix that is readily available that takes minutes to install even for someone with little experience. These replacement key-cups vastly improve the keyboard (if you don't like the default)

 

The "awkward" cart port? Maybe back in 1984. I really seldom swap carts these days. For a lot of A8 users that's not a game slot; but an upgrade slot. It's where my SIDE2 lives. The OP wanted to know about "today" not yesteryear.

 

No socketed chips? Not everyone removes them (I don't). Hmmn. No chip creep here. I'm only interested in solderless upgrades (though the 32-in-1 is tempting) due to lack of skill and wanting to "keep it stock".

 

Want S-Video? Just add cable!

 

BASIC rev C. Oh Atari BASIC, why no love? Awesome BASIC for 8k. Okay, maybe not awesome - how bout acceptable. I would hate not having BASIC C built in. I tinker with it a bit and having the latest rev built in is nice (better than "A" or "B" built in. that's like having bird sh!t on your window and you can't wipe it off).

- - - -

 

The only broken keyboards I've ran across in the wild have been 1200xl and XEGS. I've never seen a 130XE or 65XE with a non-working keyboard. Not saying this is indicative; just my experience.

 

Every 800XL I've run across has had keyboards with weird feeling "rattle-y" keys that I CANNOT tolerate. One 800XL that I picked up for free would actually play any cart game (well, any that I had) just fine, but when playing disk or tape games; would glitch out 'till it froze up. Very weird, sold it for parts. Oddly enough, however, this particular 800xl had the best quality stock video I've ever witnessed on an A8; though I understand this isn't the norm.

 

So as you can see I lean toward XE. Love the 65, 130, and XEGS for different reasons and own several of each. However, If I had a 400, 800, 600xl, 800xl, 1200xl that worked I would keep and use them. I see some benefits in each model and could enjoy anyone of them.

Edited September 20, 2016 by suspicious_milk

[adam242]

 

No socketed chips? Not everyone removes them (I don't). Hmmn. No chip creep here. I'm only interested in solderless upgrades (though the 32-in-1 is tempting) due to lack of skill and wanting to "keep it stock".

 

 

BASIC rev C. Oh Atari BASIC, why no love? Awesome BASIC for 8k. Okay, maybe not awesome - how bout acceptable. I would hate not having BASIC C built in. I tinker with it a bit and having the latest rev built in is nice (better than "A" or "B" built in. that's like having bird sh!t on your window and you can't wipe it off).

Not everyone plans on removing chips. It's a hell of a lot easier to repair a machine with socketed chips.

 

Atari BASIC gets 'no love' because Turbo BASIC XL is 100% backward compatible, vastly superior and free. And if you really want rev C in an XL, it's an easy upgrade when the chips are socketed. I also seem to remember a small patch program, loadable from disk, that will fix rev B's bugs.

Edited September 20, 2016 by adam242

[BillC]

The program was in the September 1985 issue of ANTIC magazine, it converted the code from a Revision B ROM into an executable file.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v4n5/revisioncconverter.html

[576XE]

Due to external memory wedging we have an ability not to resolder-solder but just to insert Cart or Cart/ECI. It makes all deal done.

 

But we are remember atari memory problem. Too bad chips.

AND there are too much modern inventions I'll never thinking about! (VBXE etc.)

Because they are all internal and I'm afraid to solder 130XE.

 

And as far as it's concerns atari reparation - I'm out.

 

Dear PayPal takes 24 bucks for service. (For buying 1 SuperSDX Cart from Lenore.)

 

I even can't imaging the cost of Atari 130XE postage (forse and back of course)

EZ

[Gunstar]

Ouch! I feel bad for you, 576XE, Paypal is gouging Moscow for their service, here in the U.S.A, I thought they were gouging me with their service fees, but compared to what they charge you, I'm like family to them!

Edited September 20, 2016 by Gunstar

[576XE]

Hi there Gunstar!

 

I mean that not only PayPal, but...

All of the long-long waypoints to Tepperery trying to save their money.

I can understand them but 50% charge is slightly less then bootleggers deals cost.

The postage of XF-551 from Bradley to me costs 105 bucks.

~50% - It's a fate!!!

[mozartpc27]

I am very new to the Atari 8-bit line, having "grown up" with Commodores. I am still trying to get my 1050 disk drive working.

 

I therefore don't have much of an opinion about the XE vs. the rest of the Atari 8 bit field, but I will say this: the 800XL (and the 1200XL) have the most attractive stylings of any 8-bit computers. I like the C64C/128 look, but that brown-on-beige is really sharp.

[tschak909]

The 1200XL is truly a beauty to behold, and one of the two best keyboards in the whole line, the other being the Atari 800. And I really like the default ATARI splash when nothing is attached.

 

-Thom

[ultrasteve]

I read this with interest, having just picked up a 130XE. I owned an 800XL when I was a kid, so that was my first love, and I bought one again when I got back into collecting all of the hardware I owned when I was younger. I've since bought a 65XE (as backup!) and another 800XL. I personally love the styling of both the XL and XE ranges, and I'm actually a fan of the XEGS styling, too (I bought one of those as well!).

 

As far as the OP asking why the 130XE isn't the 'go-to' machine these days, I know lots of people have intimated something similar, but I think a very large part of the reason is nostalgia, and lack of education. In my own case, I prefer to use my 800XL mainly because it has that very tangible nostalgia attached to it. Having said that, the 65XE does have better video output (I use a 5-pin 'Monitor' to SCART cable to connect all of them except the XEGS, obviously). As for lack of education, I don't know enough about (nor probably care about) the reasons why the extra RAM in the 130XE is useful. With family life etc. I don't get a chance to 'hobby' as much as I'd like, so it's mostly games I use my Ataris for these days. I might hunt out a list of games that will only run on the 130XE (or machines with 128KB, in any case), but that's probably about as far as I would go.

[peteym5]

My original Atari was the 130XE, it was backward compatible with the XL computers. My problem was there was not much software to take advantage of the extra 64K. Other than the Atari Ramdisk program and BasicXE, there was not many companies writing programs to make use of it.

[fujidude]

My original Atari was the 130XE, it was backward compatible with the XL computers. My problem was there was not much software to take advantage of the extra 64K. Other than the Atari Ramdisk program and BasicXE, there was not many companies writing programs to make use of it.

 

Probably because doing so would have instantly significantly narrowed the potential market for it. That is unless it is software that also has a more limited experience offered for those without the 128KB.

[Mercenary]

The 65 / 130XE is easily the best looking of the 8-bit Atari machines. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's the best looking of all the 8 bit computers.

The ZX Spectrum 128k Toastrack is a looker too.

Never liked the look of any of the Commodore computers. The C64 breadbin was plain ugly.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Mercenary

[+nasty niff]

XE is by far the worst 8 bit for build quality. 

[Beeblebrox]

Matter of perspective and preference. I grew up owning an 800xl and a 130xe, (PAL). Whilst I like the XE design, I have more of an affinity with the XL. 

 

In the last few years I've owed and fixed many many A8's, and from a quality, build perspective, (not withstanding the variable quality of xl keyboards) , the XE line pcb build quality is consideredly worse that 800xl. Especially the XE stock video, which is awful imho/experience. 

 

I like the design of the 800xl and 600xl, and the 1200xl is also a great variant, (mistsumi keyboard is the best keyboard ever on the a8s). 

 

I also love the 800 design and also the XEGS, despite the (imho) pastel coloured function buttons, has a real appeal. 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Beeblebrox

[Mr Robot]

When I'm emulating it's the PAL 130XE I use as a base machine spec, it's easily the most compatible machine and only ever needs a little extra memory for a few titles. 

 

When I'm using real hardware its a PAL 800XL just because it was the Atari I first owned so that's the one I think looks/feels 'right'

 

[Houdini]

1 hour ago, nasty niff said:

XE is by far the worst 8 bit for build quality. 

Especially the crappy MT RAM chips they used. I spent the better part of a day replacing mine with Motorola MCM6665BP15 chips. As usual with Atari the most difficult thing is getting the old components out!

[bfollowell]

27 minutes ago, Houdini said:

Especially the crappy MT RAM chips they used. I spent the better part of a day replacing mine with Motorola MCM6665BP15 chips. As usual with Atari the most difficult thing is getting the old components out!

 

While certainly true, a large portion of the XL line also came with crappy MT RAM chips.

 

[Houdini]

9 minutes ago, bfollowell said:

 

While certainly true, a large portion of the XL line also came with crappy MT RAM chips.

 

"The chips are fine! Just ship them out!"

[chevymad]

2 hours ago, Mercenary said:

The 65 / 130XE is easily the best looking of the 8-bit Atari machines. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's the best looking of all the 8 bit computers.

The ZX Spectrum 128k Toastrack is a looker too.

Never liked the look of any of the Commodore computers. The C64 breadbin was plain ugly.

Have to laugh, when I saw the title my first thought was because the 130xe is the ugliest Atari and I wouldn't own one just because of that. Then I click on the thread and very first comment says it's the best looking!  It's all personal taste, but I think the XL"s are some great looking computers.  Chocolate, cream and chrome definitely not appliance white.