Jump to content
MrFish

Basic Dimensions (L & W) of All Atari 8-bit Systems

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for the basic dimensions of all Atari 8-bit systems. Just the lengths and widths.

 

I have an XEGS, but it's buried -- and I don't have a keyboard currently. I'd like to have a measurement for each part separately (base unit & keyboard).

 

I found these in another thread ( @Dropcheck ).

 

1200XL

L = 38 cm

W = 31.5 cm

 

800XL

L = 37 cm

W = 21.5 cm

 

130XE

L = 34 cm

W = 21 cm

 

If anybody is interested in helping with the remaining system measurements, I'd appreciate it.

 

I guess the 1400XL/1450XLD are covered by the 1200XL dimensions already -- and 65XE covered by the 130XE.

 

So, what remains is:

400

800

600XL

XEGS (base unit)

XEGS (keyboard)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The 400 is an interesting beast.. 13.125" wide at the rear, 13.5" wide at front. 11.375" length.

 

600XL is 15" x 6.625".

 

XEGS console is 12.75" x 8.125"

XEGS keyboard is 13.75" x 6"

 

Sorry, my tape measure is inches.

Edited by adam242
more info
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, adam242 said:

The 400 is an interesting beast.. 13.125" wide at the rear, 13.5" wide at front. 11.375" length.

 

Funny... I actually forgot, I still have an Atari 400; but, now that I remember, it's buried away in the same box that my XEGS is in (or at least another box that's just as difficult to get to); so, I did need that help on that one too, in spite of owning one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to sum everything up...

 

400    
length = 34.3 cm
width  = 28.9 cm
    
800    
length = 40.6 cm
width  = 32.2 cm
    
1200XL    
length = 38.1 cm
width  = 31.5 cm
    
800XL    
length = 38.1 cm
width  = 21.5 cm
    
600XL    
length = 38.1 cm
width  = 16.8 cm
    
130XE / 65XE    
length = 34.0 cm
width  = 21.0 cm
    
XEGS (Base Unit)    
length = 32.4 cm
width  = 20.6 cm
    
XEGS (Keyboard)    
length = 34.9 cm
width  = 15.2 cm

 

I know the 800 is a behemoth, but I'm a little surprised it's bigger than a 1200XL in both dimensions (I don't own either at the moment, but used to own both).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MrFish said:

 

 

I know the 800 is a behemoth, but I'm a little surprised it's bigger than a 1200XL in both dimensions (I don't own either at the moment, but used to own both).

 

I have both , but the 1200xl is in storage. I'm surprised too, thought the 1200xl was wider than the 800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mimo said:

I have both , but the 1200xl is in storage. I'm surprised too, thought the 1200xl was wider than the 800

I guess it's not as wide as I'm thinking it would be because the function keys are on top, rather than on the side like the 600XL & 800XL.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MrFish said:

I guess it's not as wide as I'm thinking it would be because the function keys are on top, rather than on the side like the 600XL & 800XL.

 

After thinking about it for a bit (and tending to agree with you), I decided to verify the differences.  Seven mm is not a lot of difference.

So, pictures tell the tale...

What surprised me more was the weight difference:

1200XL:   7 lbs. (3.2kilos)

800:        9 lbs. (4.1kilo)

David

 

Edit:  Sorry, I forgot to add the pictures!

 

Rear Alignment.JPG

Front Edge Difference .JPG

Lef Edge Alignment.JPG

Right Edge Difference.JPG

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not collecting heights? Seems odd to only do 2 of the 3 dimensions!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mr Robot said:

Not collecting heights? Seems odd to only do 2 of the 3 dimensions!

 

It's not for having specs. I need it for the ratios -- for each machine and between one machine and another.

 

If you look at my avatar, I want to do something like that for each machine. I'll be changing the size though, as I've decided it's just a bit too small. So they'll be 1.5x to 2x larger.

 

It's something that happened rather by accident -- and why it's currently a bit smaller than I want; but I have a good idea for it (the end use); and I may still be able to use the smaller sizes for something too (the initial idea it was born from).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Robot said:

Not collecting heights? Seems odd to only do 2 of the 3 dimensions!

 

i think the 800 would win that one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MrFish said:

800XL    

 

length = 37.0 cm
width  = 21.5 cm
    
600XL    
length = 38.1 cm
width  = 16.8 cm

 

I was shocked to see the 600XL and 800XL having different lengths, so I went and checked mine. Both are 15 inches (38.1 cm) on the nose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, adam242 said:

I was shocked to see the 600XL and 800XL having different lengths, so I went and checked mine. Both are 15 inches (38.1 cm) on the nose.

 

I was actually wondering about that myself last night. I was just kinda waiting for someone else to notice it and speak up. I also thought I'd seen a photo someone posted before, with the 600XL on top of the 800XL, which showed them be equal lengths.

 

[Edit: I edited the list above to reflect the information provided here.]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DavidMil said:

800:        9 lbs. (4.1kilo)

Just wait until you add ceramic-gold RAM cards, or expand it with Ramrod, AXLON, Bit3, Mosaic or 32KB boards.... even heavier!

 

😳😜

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1400XL would be identical to the 1200XL in size, the 1450XLD would be just the biggest thing ever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, _The Doctor__ said:

lol length an width are reversed...

 

I had a feeling this would be brought up.

 

First of all, I was merely sticking to the distinction made by @Dropcheck in the post where I got the first few measurements.

 

Second, I took the measurements given by @adam242 and matched them with the format @Dropcheck used, to keep everything uniform.

 

Third, I was concerned with the same thing you're bringing up, as width always meant side to side to me; but then I was thinking, "length would be front to back, and shorter?". That would be more like depth; but then depth can refer to how deep something goes from top to bottom (think of ocean depth).

 

So, I starting checking some sources online, and there seems to be a lot of debate, many stating that it's totally arbitrary what is used; but I see many following the definitions found at the top of my Merriam-Webster dictionary.

 

Length

1a. the longer or longest dimension of an object.

 

Width

1. the horizontal measurement taken at right angles to the length.

 

So, the measurements given are basically following this convention, which is how I suppose @Dropcheck was looking at it.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care; because it's obvious what each measurement refers to regarding the objects.

 

I suppose if width, depth, and height were used, it might be somewhat more meaningful to how the object (computer) is positioned in relation to the user; but following the simple definitions above seems perfectly valid, and adequate for the purpose of using the two dimensions measured.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol moar,

I was laughing, as I expected the dictionary explanation, but it should be width, depth, and height.

though if anyone chooses to do length, height, and width... what can one do?

depth could also be below, so we can really end up in a deeper subject.

 

It about position and placement as well as word...

 

It's a win win, because we have some idea of what to use and why.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said:

I was laughing, as I expected the dictionary explanation, but it should be width, depth, and height.

It's not just a dictionary definition; look around a bit; you'll find it used variously in mathematics and elsewhere.

The subject isn't as cut and dried as you want to make it sound. If you can prove otherwise (besides just saying so), I'll be glad to hear some facts instead of "lol"...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all point of view for the most part.

 

Facts? I thought we were in agreement that the word choice didn't fit the subject... wow... have some wordplay on AA. MrFish is not normally one to be testy. Did the change in avatar also change MrFish.

I also thought we both pointed to what the better word choice might be.

 

Edited by _The Doctor__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said:

Facts? I thought we were in agreement that the word choice didn't fit the subject...

 

I never agreed that the designation didn't fit the objects here. You stated that width and length were reversed and I gave my reasoning why it's perfectly fitting to use them exactly as they are.

 

I initially made a long reply in order to give you some insight into my thinking processes on the matter; but my stating that some other form of designation might be more meaningful, was only to say as such from a given alternate perspective. If I was convinced otherwise, I would have just said so and exchanged the length and width.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...