Add-ons that FAILED for the various "Classic Computers".

[leech]

35 minutes ago, carlsson said:

Regarding a 128K and 80 column machine in 1983, it reminds me of the CBM-II series which of course were meant as PET/CBM substitutes, not home/gaming computers given they were text only and monochrome. That is except for the very rare P500 model which has the C64 chipset but 128K RAM and never made any impact much due to the success of the cheaper C64. Sure as a response to Commodore, Atari could have uppened the game a little but then again it took about 10-12 months after the C64 was released and the big price wars took place. While personal computer giants like IBM and Apple probably were unaffected by it, the question is if a $800 - $1000 Atari with 80 columns and 128K had managed to stay one level ahead when the C64 dropped from $600 to $400 in a short period of time.

Thanks Jack!

[zzip]

On 12/12/2020 at 12:36 AM, Keatah said:

Apple II, Atari 400/800, C64, Vic-20, Amiga, PC, Atari ST were harmonious machines. Both their audio and visual outputs were at the same technological level. It also goes without saying that most all cartridge based consoles are harmonious and balanced.

I don't agree that the Atari ST's sound is at the same level at it's graphics.   They put in an older, off-the-shelf chip,  instead of the custom designs we were used to getting from Atari and Commodore.

[The Usotsuki]

12 hours ago, leech said:

I didn't follow Apple all that much in the 80s, they were always under performing for the price in my Atari 800xl spoiled eyes / ears.  But surely some of the popularity of them was because Apple didn't hunt down clone makers until the Macintosh days, right?

They did, actually.

[leech]

57 minutes ago, The Usotsuki said:

They did, actually.

Interesting.  Also (only skimmed it) the fact Franklin initially won that, and their logic being that the machine code didn't have any copyright info in it!  I mean the BIOS was reverse engineered for the IBM clones.  That more or less opened the door for that.  if that hadn't happened, thr computer landscape would look very different today.

[carlsson]

See also various 1541 clones where instructions have swapped places wherever possible, sometimes entire internal routines relocated. Almost all of those clones base their firmware on Commodore's but with enough small changes to potentially confuse a non-technical judge in case they were brought to court. I don't know the full story about Apple clones, if some companies tried the same or if swapping instructions and some internal calls would break compatibility of a lot of software, knowing exactly where to jump into the ROMs.

[Keatah]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

I don't agree that the Atari ST's sound is at the same level at it's graphics.   They put in an older, off-the-shelf chip,  instead of the custom designs we were used to getting from Atari and Commodore.

Alright. I didn't know the Yamaha chip was a licensed version of the 1978 General Instruments AY-3-8910 with minor changes. Maybe it was simply chosen as an afterthought "hey we need a sound chip", in light of the ST having MIDI..?

[potatohead]

On 12/12/2020 at 12:34 PM, oracle_jedi said:

80-column add-ons always seemed to me to be both desirable and disasters.

That's an interesting observation. I would say the exception is the Apple 2 Series computers. But otherwise yeah I agree with you.

[The Usotsuki]

4 hours ago, leech said:

Interesting.  Also (only skimmed it) the fact Franklin initially won that, and their logic being that the machine code didn't have any copyright info in it!  I mean the BIOS was reverse engineered for the IBM clones.  That more or less opened the door for that.  if that hadn't happened, thr computer landscape would look very different today.

There was, eventually, a reverse-engineered BIOS for the Apple //e - that of the Laser 128.

 

The ROM banking is different, so you can't just swap the Laser firmware for Apple's (this is still true for the //c).  Also, the Laser firmware doesn't support a few well-known tricks that some software takes for granted.

[MrMaddog]

On 12/14/2020 at 6:20 AM, carlsson said:

Regarding a 128K and 80 column machine in 1983, it reminds me of the CBM-II series which of course were meant as PET/CBM substitutes, not home/gaming computers given they were text only and monochrome. That is except for the very rare P500 model which has the C64 chipset but 128K RAM and never made any impact much due to the success of the cheaper C64. Sure as a response to Commodore, Atari could have uppened the game a little but then again it took about 10-12 months after the C64 was released and the big price wars took place. While personal computer giants like IBM and Apple probably were unaffected by it, the question is if a $800 - $1000 Atari with 80 columns and 128K had managed to stay one level ahead when the C64 dropped from $600 to $400 in a short period of time.

 

According to the 1985 issues of Current Notes, there were plans for Atari to release an 80 column monitor that plugs in the PBI port but apparently there wasn't a demand for a high cost monitor...so it got dumbed down into the XEP80.  Why they went with the joystick port instead of the PBI I know not (unless the PBI's reserved for hard drive use?).

 

 

[oracle_jedi]

5 hours ago, MrMaddog said:

 

According to the 1985 issues of Current Notes, there were plans for Atari to release an 80 column monitor that plugs in the PBI port but apparently there wasn't a demand for a high cost monitor...so it got dumbed down into the XEP80.  Why they went with the joystick port instead of the PBI I know not (unless the PBI's reserved for hard drive use?).

 

 

 

I seem to recall Atari announcing all manner of exciting/interesting/wierd/dumb options and models back in 85.   The 65XEP portable, the 65XEM 8-bit with AMY, the XF351 3.5 floppy drive, the 130ST computer and so on.

 

A PBI-attached 80-col monitor would, in execution, have been an 80-col card on the PBI bus outputting a composite signal to a generic monitor rebranded as an Atari.  I guess in the end they dropped the rebranded monitor, and dropped the PBI bus interface too but besides side-stepping the XL PBI does not match the XE PBI, that second decision seemed almost as dumb as releasing the XEP80 at all.

 

It isn't clear what Atari hoped to achieve with the XEP80.   They already knew they wanted to concentrate on the ST, and the XE and 2600 lines were simply a way to capitalize on their assets and raise needed cash.  Perhaps they had already secured a stock of NS405 chips they didn't know what else to do with.

[carlsson]

Perhaps Atari wanted to keep all possible doors open in case some new market magically would arise. It reminds me of the Commodore strategic plan 1985, in particular the section of Xpress Videotext Terminal and various information systems where they expected to offload unsold Plus/4 systems in 1986. To my knowledge these were markets that up to that point virtually didn't exist, and if Commodore expected to be able to create/enter it, quite possibly Tramiel over at Atari had similar thoughts about the aging 8-bit line, that by adding a decent 80 column solution they could sell those as cheap information system terminals too if the demand somehow would arise.

 

There is a 1985-1987 strategic plan that is similar to the one above, but more brief and not quite as speculative regarding market shares to fill. The strategic plan was later followed-up by actual sales, for those interested in that.

[zzip]

9 hours ago, oracle_jedi said:

It isn't clear what Atari hoped to achieve with the XEP80.   They already knew they wanted to concentrate on the ST, and the XE and 2600 lines were simply a way to capitalize on their assets and raise needed cash.  Perhaps they had already secured a stock of NS405 chips they didn't know what else to do with.

Continue to sell stuff to the existing customer base, I guess?   It's not like they were spending tons on R&D.  It was rumored that all the new 8-bit peripherals where being engineered by one guy, and that's why they were so slow in coming.

 

9 hours ago, oracle_jedi said:

XF351 3.5 floppy drive

After talking to developers, they decided that they should do a DS/DD 5.25 drive instead.   That was probably the right decision, as the Atari market wasn't really big enough to support both formats.

 

9 hours ago, oracle_jedi said:

the 130ST computer and so on.

I chuckle every time I think of this one.   It didn't even have enough RAM to load the disk-based TOS the original models shipped with.   I get it, when it was announced in 1985,  128Mb was the next logical step in memory sizes,  and 512Mb seemed like a crazy amount!   But by the next year, the 520 was the low-end ST and the 1040 was the flagship model.

[Krebizfan]

The 130ST made perfect sense in case prices for 256 kbit chips didn't drop the way history shows. With TOS in ROM, 128 kB might have been enough RAM to run many games leaving the more expensive large memory ST models for developers. But with 512 kB turning out to be about $10 more than 128 kB, the 130ST no longer had any utility. 

[zzip]

3 minutes ago, Krebizfan said:

The 130ST made perfect sense in case prices for 256 kbit chips didn't drop the way history shows. With TOS in ROM, 128 kB might have been enough RAM to run many games leaving the more expensive large memory ST models for developers. But with 512 kB turning out to be about $10 more than 128 kB, the 130ST no longer had any utility. 

It might have worked with TOS in ROM, but it would have still been tight.   It would also likely have been delayed since TOS roms weren't ready until 1986 when the 1040ST released.

 

Ultimately it's probably a good thing, because the way developers always target the lowest common denominator for Atari systems, we would have had years of software that was crippled to run in 128K

[MrMaddog]

16 hours ago, oracle_jedi said:

 

I seem to recall Atari announcing all manner of exciting/interesting/wierd/dumb options and models back in 85.   The 65XEP portable, the 65XEM 8-bit with AMY, the XF351 3.5 floppy drive, the 130ST computer and so on.

 

A PBI-attached 80-col monitor would, in execution, have been an 80-col card on the PBI bus outputting a composite signal to a generic monitor rebranded as an Atari.  I guess in the end they dropped the rebranded monitor, and dropped the PBI bus interface too but besides side-stepping the XL PBI does not match the XE PBI, that second decision seemed almost as dumb as releasing the XEP80 at all.

 

It's a real shame that the XEP80 wasn't as good as the Bit-3 80 column board that plugged inside the 800's slot.  That thing really made good use of any program that used the E: handler like Atari BASIC and Assembler...plus it essential for using with the ATR8000 for CP/M stuff.  All the other 80 column solutions were pretty much cheap graphical hacks.

 

Quote

It isn't clear what Atari hoped to achieve with the XEP80.   They already knew they wanted to concentrate on the ST, and the XE and 2600 lines were simply a way to capitalize on their assets and raise needed cash.  Perhaps they had already secured a stock of NS405 chips they didn't know what else to do with.

 

Yeah, looking back I'm not sure if Atari would have really wanted to make a mid-range (128K, 3 1/2 drive & 80 columns) 8-bit computer that would pretty much compete with the high end ST's in terms of functionailties.  Apple IIgs anyone?

 

It's understandable that in the late 80's Atari tried to support existing 8-bit owners, which was already a small minority with the XEP80 and the newer 5 1/4" drive, but it still would not have created a market for low cost 8-bit business machines when PC's had already taken over.  And speaking of which...

 

11 hours ago, carlsson said:

Perhaps Atari wanted to keep all possible doors open in case some new market magically would arise. It reminds me of the Commodore strategic plan 1985, in particular the section of Xpress Videotext Terminal and various information systems where they expected to offload unsold Plus/4 systems in 1986. To my knowledge these were markets that up to that point virtually didn't exist, and if Commodore expected to be able to create/enter it, quite possibly Tramiel over at Atari had similar thoughts about the aging 8-bit line, that by adding a decent 80 column solution they could sell those as cheap information system terminals too if the demand somehow would arise.

 

There is a 1985-1987 strategic plan that is similar to the one above, but more brief and not quite as speculative regarding market shares to fill. The strategic plan was later followed-up by actual sales, for those interested in that.

 

CBM still trying to sell Plus/4's to a demographic that would have already gotten PC's? 

 

 

[carlsson]

Policemen and hotel managers are not so computer savvy, they would never have realized how bad the deal probably had been.