History Justice

[Allas]

PCWorld write an article about the best 25 computers of all time.

 

The 25 Greatest PC of all time

 

Our loved Atari 800 places at the 14th.

 

[+remowilliams]

Nice. Glad to see that at least for once an article on computers was written that didn't completely forget the Atari 8 bit lines ever existed.

 

It should be rated a tad higher than 14, but at least it beat out the TRaSh 80

[thomasholzer]

Greatest PCs: Number 1

1. Apple II (1977)

 

YES and well deserved too.

At least the industry gets it right

[+Marc Oberhäuser]

No ST?

[Allas]

no C64 and no Spectrum

[Almost Rice]

No ST?

 

I think somebody liked Miner's contribution to computing more than Jack's. The Atari ST and C64 are on the list of also rans.

HERE

 

The Atari Portfolio is also on there.

[Allas]

In fact. They are totally diferent.

 

Jay Miner design the 2600, 800 and Amiga computers, the best 70', 80' and 90' systems. Meanwhile, Jack Tramiel destroyed the 8-bit market selling the C64 at low cost (under cost production), he creates the infamous "price war" that dropped down every great 8bit superior model, even Commodore was at the point to bankruptcy, after that he leaves to continue the bad managing in Atari (of Course Warner cant do it better, I think).

[Heaven/TQA]

no c64 is very interesting... as it inspired so many people.

[+DarkLord]

In fact. They are totally diferent.

 

Jay Miner design the 2600, 800 and Amiga computers, the best 70', 80' and 90' systems. Meanwhile, Jack Tramiel destroyed the 8-bit market selling the C64 at low cost (under cost production), he creates the infamous "price war" that dropped down every great 8bit superior model, even Commodore was at the point to bankruptcy, after that he leaves to continue the bad managing in Atari (of Course Warner cant do it better, I think).

 

First, let me just say I"m glad to see Atari on there!

 

Second, there's another angle to look at on Jack's infamous "price war"...

 

If not for his pricing, and the low cost of the 520ST, I personally would have never

made it into the 16 bit world.

 

The Amiga A1000, while an awesome system, was so far above my income (at

that time) at around $1200-1500, that I never would have got one. I'm willing to bet

that others were in the same situation...

 

Just a random thought...

[+remowilliams]

Second, there's another angle to look at on Jack's infamous "price war"...

 

If not for his pricing, and the low cost of the 520ST, I personally would have never

made it into the 16 bit world.

Same here. No way I could afford the Amiga back in the day. It was a stretch to get my 520STfm and a nice printer at the time. But it was sooooo worth it

[Heaven/TQA]

me either... even an A1200 was far too expensive (or even PC) so i got my 1040ste...

[+FujiSkunk]

No Commodore 64.

 

This list fails.

[Gregory DG]

Wow. Maybe this list would be more accuratly called the "25 Most Innovative Computer of All-Time" instead...

 

I never owned a C64. Only saw one for a few minutes because a neighbor had one. I was a firmly entrenched Atari 8-bit user. That said, even I know the C64 should be on that list. Shoot, about 1/2 of those machines I've never heard of or were just another PC clone . What makes them so great considering they're just another Wintel box?

 

My list would go something like this:

 

1. Atari 800

2. Apple II

3. Commodore 64

4. Atari ST

5. Commodore Amiga

6. TRS-80

7. Macintosh

8. IBM PC

9. Altair 8800

10. Xerox Alto

[+remowilliams]

Shoot, about 1/2 of those machines I've never heard of or were just another PC clone . What makes them so great considering they're just another Wintel box?

Yeah, it's pretty stupid overall to have several PC laptops in there and even a case form factor. Woohoo

 

I was just glad to see the 800 get some credit somewhere.

[Allas]

No Commodore 64.

 

This list fails.

 

 

I think PCWorld Editors considered C64 the same thing as Apple and Atari 6502 technology. Nothing new have the C64.

 

In this way Apple II has been considered, and later Atari 800 only for his innovator chips architecture.

[ThomSW]

No Commodore 64.

 

Is commodore a computer???

 

I always thought that it's just a paperweight.

[re-atari]

Hi All,

 

I think the Apple II is deservedly in nr. 1 place, but the 800 should have been rated a few steps higher. To properly assess the impact these machines had on the computer industry you need to look at the situation this industry was in at the time they were first introduced. Back then computers were only used in big firms, as they cost a fortune to buy, operate and maintain. There was no such thing as ready built programs, everything needed to be custom made, usually by an inhouse group of staff. There were a few hackers operating their own homebuilt computers, but these machines were often put together with glue and sticky tape with wires hanging out everywhere, and hence quirky to operate.

 

In 1977 the Apple I, and a year later the Apple II, changed all this. A computer with all vital elements on one board, featuring a cassette port to store programs and data, that could be connected to a TV instead of requiring a monitor, and that was affordable, was simply unheard of at the time. Apple had a strong belief, and went to great efforts, to document the ins and outs of the design of their computer in detail. This was done out of Apple's strong conviction this was the way it should be, rather than a means to gain broad support from third party developers. It's fantastic that it in effect did lead to this. In doing so Apple made it possible to own and reliably operate your own affordable computer for both business use (Visicalc) and pleasure (The Bard's Tale). As such it really brought computing to the masses. The huge success Apple had in a relatively short time was the main reason IBM wanted a piece of the action, and introduced the IBM-PC in 1982. Funny thing is, this computer was not even developed out of a company spec issued by IBM's headquarters (which was standard operating procedure back then), but development had already been done off the record by a group of enthusiasts surrounding Don Estridge at IBM's Boca Raton plant. In their design they took the same approach as Apple did in creating the I and II, by using standard off-the-shelf components.

 

The Atari 800 was a technological first in that it in 1978 incorporated highly integrated IC's for video, sound and TV interfacing. AFAIK to this day the 800 is the only computer to have a video processor (ANTIC) with an own programming language. Atari's choice of a proprietary cassette interface was undoubtedly inspired by the bad experiences Apple users were having with theirs. Atari also has to be acclaimed for supporting their customers by developing and marketing a variety of software for the 8-bit, and by maintaining backward compatibility in their later designs.

 

IMHO the C64 and the ST did not incorporate any technological development over computers that already existed. They were just hastily designed and marketed out of a 'me-too' motivation (VIC-20 and C64), or out of a negative incentive to get even with Commodore and Amiga (ST). The Tramiels were not dedicated towards their products or their customers, but just saw them both as a means to provide funds to wage their wars.

The C64 and ST could only be shelled out in such numbers in that they were made a little bit cheaper than competing products, thus giving the public the impression that these competing products were overpriced. It could only be done by cutting quality corners everywhere possible during production. There's a big difference between being cheap and being worth the money... No matter whatever is invented and built, there is always someone able to produce it cheaper and in inferior quality.

 

If you´re interested in the history of homecomputing, and how the Apple I and II came into being, check out Steve Weyhrich´s Apple II History page at http://www.apple2history.org/. Be warned though, it is a lot of info there (23 chapters)!

 

re-atari

[cas]

AFAIK to this day the 800 is the only computer to have a video processor (ANTIC) with an own programming language.

 

Texas Instruments developed the TIGA Adapters in the end of 1980ies, which were remarkable similar to the ANTIC; they had even a Display List Programming Language. Unfortunatly, they never made it into the mainstream PC world.

 

But it was used in Atari Arcade Games, see http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=770

 

Carsten

Edited August 15, 2006 by cas

[Moleater]

Shame the C64 was not included, that and the Atari were my two fave machines shortly followed by my much loved Amiga.

 

As for the C64 not being innovative I'd say sprite wise it was vastly superior to other machines and like the Atari it used a customised sound chip with filtering rather than a standard 'noise generator'.

 

Apart from that it deserves to be there just for the userbase it had..

 

Btw, it's the ST that's the door stop / paperweight

Edited August 15, 2006 by Moleater

[+DarkLord]

Btw, it's the ST that's the door stop / paperweight

 

Agreed with what you said until you got to that last line...

 

You honestly didn't think that nobody was going to disagree with that,

did you? Or are you just trolling from sheer boredom????

 

I'd take any ST over any Commodore 64 any day...

 

Later...

[re-atari]

Cas,

 

Those were awesome boards. I remember reading articles about them and how to program them in C'T. I still have a TIGA board (Eizo MD-B12, 50 Mhz 34010) in storage somewhere in my attic, to serve as a historical artifact.

 

I later began to doubt my earlier words about ANTIC being the first and only video processor with it's own programming language, though, as I realised that Jay Miner would undoubtedly have implemented something similar in AMIGA's video processor. As I have never owned one, I am not sure about this. Maybe some of our fellow readers here can shed some light on this?

 

re-atari

Edited August 16, 2006 by re-atari

[Moleater]

Btw, it's the ST that's the door stop / paperweight

 

Agreed with what you said until you got to that last line...

 

You honestly didn't think that nobody was going to disagree with that,

did you? Or are you just trolling from sheer boredom????

 

I'd take any ST over any Commodore 64 any day...

 

Later...

 

Not trolling at all, a jovial throw away remark perhaps but based around a list that seemed to be based on 'inovation' I just can't see how an ST would have ever made the grade for it in the first place. Technically the ST is a 'bitsa' machine imho, quite a simple OS, missing simple multimedia OS features like hardware scrolling, more than 1 sprite, some form of graphical adjuster along the lines of DLI, Copper etc.

 

I don't deny it had a good userbase but I see it like the Amiga...Badly marketed, aimed at the wrong area's.

 

Personally I preffered the Amiga hands down.....

[carmel_andrews]

Btw, it's the ST that's the door stop / paperweight

 

Agreed with what you said until you got to that last line...

 

You honestly didn't think that nobody was going to disagree with that,

did you? Or are you just trolling from sheer boredom????

 

I'd take any ST over any Commodore 64 any day...

 

Later...

 

Not trolling at all, a jovial throw away remark perhaps but based around a list that seemed to be based on 'inovation' I just can't see how an ST would have ever made the grade for it in the first place. Technically the ST is a 'bitsa' machine imho, quite a simple OS, missing simple multimedia OS features like hardware scrolling, more than 1 sprite, some form of graphical adjuster along the lines of DLI, Copper etc.

 

I don't deny it had a good userbase but I see it like the Amiga...Badly marketed, aimed at the wrong area's.

 

Personally I preffered the Amiga hands down.....

 

 

 

 

 

From what i remember, the ST was 90 percent complete before tramiel started poaching commodore engineers (wikipedia say's something similar to this)

 

Atari already had a 'contract/agreement' with hi toro/amiga corp regarding any computer/chip set amiga came up with

 

So i say that the ST isn't realy an 'Atari' machine since it was 90 p/c developed by CBM

 

The Amiga is an 'Atari' Machine because Atari financed/funded the company that built/design it

 

The ST unfortunately started the slippery slope to the Atari policy of buying in technology rather then develop anything itself

 

Heres why

 

ST (mostly CBM...accepted) STe/TT/Falcon (all based on ST technology)

Re-released 7800 (orig. designed by GCC)

Portfolio (Designed and manuf by DIP in England

Lynx (Orig designed by epyx, Atari made no changes to the custom hardware chipset)

Jaguar (orig. chipset designed by flare2 in england)

ATW/Abaq (Atari apparently only helped in regards to developing some aspects of the sound/graphics hardware for this machine, most of the system had being designed by a british company 'perhillion' and also the o/s as well)

Even the Fabled 'C-DAR' (Atari's attempt at a CD rom drive/device for the ST) was originally designed and manufactured by a 3rd party back in 1985 called 'Activenture', Atari decided to buy into the project and basically piggyback onto activenture's product

 

Even the XE's from what i was told were designed around the unreleased 'XL-F' motherboards (more shades of 'penny pinching' by tramiel)

 

Atari could'nt develop or design anything itself as by the time tramiel got his mits on Atari he decimated and obliterated Atari's R&D infrastructure, Atari's R&D effort would never recover to 'pre tramiel' levels

[+DarkLord]

Not trolling at all, a jovial throw away remark perhaps but based around a list that seemed to be based on 'inovation' I just can't see how an ST would have ever made the grade for it in the first place. Technically the ST is a 'bitsa' machine imho, quite a simple OS, missing simple multimedia OS features like hardware scrolling, more than 1 sprite, some form of graphical adjuster along the lines of DLI, Copper etc.

 

I don't deny it had a good userbase but I see it like the Amiga...Badly marketed, aimed at the wrong area's.

 

Personally I preffered the Amiga hands down.....

 

Okay, glad you weren't...

 

But the ST did have a few firsts, MDI built in, bit-mapped display, etc,...

 

I realize that the Amiga OS multitasked from the get-go, but the original

Workbench? Ugh, sucked vacuum hard. Never did like the Amiga OS

until v2.0 came out, which was a dramatic improvement.

 

Also, as I noted earlier, for what I would have paid for the Amiga (box)

only, $1500.00, I got an ST, a monitor, floppy drive, and a printer, with

change left over...for software.

 

The Amiga had awesome hardware, just too darn expensive...

 

See ya...

[TMR]

But the ST did have a few firsts, MDI built in, bit-mapped display, etc,...

 

Ummm... can't disagree with the MIDI but the first bitmapped display? The Apple ][ has a bitmapped mode, the Acorn BBC Micro, Sinclair Spectrum and Amstrad CPC run purely on a bitmapped display and have no text mode... unless you meant something else by the term?