What if....Atari 8bit

carmel_andrews · July 25, 2009

Following on from a similar thread on the 7800 forum and going by all the dev. work what was going on with the A8 (pre tramiel) brings me to this particular thread/topic

What if.....Atari 8bit (style)

Firstly the Atari 800 and its competition

atari missed two golden opportunities here, firstly in the upgrade stakes of the a800 and it's brother the 400

As i am sure we all know, atari planned to develop higher capacity memory modules for the a800, like 64k and 128k apparently

Now if atari were watching the market properly (including what was happening at commodore, re: the sub 300 usd computer) and apple/ibm planning higher ram capacity machines

Instead of bothering with the 1200, which lets face it, it was basically a knee jerk reaction to the c64, atari should have just pumped a shedload of money into the a800, by A, implementing the colette motherboard and making it two port (as very few games utilised all 4 ports anyway) replaced the rom slot with another ram slot and implement o/s on the motherboard so you have 4 ram slots instead of 3

Go ahead and release the 64k ram module (and possibly a 32k ram module as well) back in 1981/2. reduce the 400 price to 249-259 (to compete with the vic 20) and reduce the standard 48k 800 to 449 and bring in a sub 500 usd 64k 800 which would be capable of accessing (if using the colette mobo) 256k ram (if using all 4 ram slots) and since it's 2 port, because the 2 port makes portb ($D301) redundunt make it into an xl/xe like bank switch

Also, by the time Commodore released the vic20 Chuck peddle had left commodore, since he still had certain patents/IP's relating to the 6502, what atari could and should have done is sign an exclusivity deal with Peddle and obtain rights to the 6502 and get in bed with either Rockwell or synertek and start developing a 16bit 6502 (65816 alike..i.e with a full back 6502 mode)...after all, didn't Bill Mench (Co designer of the mos 650x range, with peddle) do exactly that in 1984 and get into bed with apple (re: 65816) and implement that processor that atari could have been developing into some upscale atari 800

Additionally according to the Atari System reference manual by Bob DuHamel (don't ask me how to say his familyname) because of the way the atari memory map is arranged it is possible to populate and decode additional antic/pokey, gtia and PIA chips (or multiple hardware chipsets) within a typical A800 or 400, therefore adding additional capability to the a800 or 400 (according to the text, you could add 15+ pokey/Antic chips and 7 GTIA and a Seocnd or 64 PIA, as long as the original one is disabled)

Now instead of putting all their eggs in one basket and relying solely on the atari/amiga agreement actually coming into fruition (i.e atari ending up with some version of the lorraine c/s) what atari could and should have been doing is thinking along the lines of the amiga/lorraine concept with the a800 by combining multiple antic onto one chip, multiple pokey onto one chip and the same for PIA and GTIA and just adding the decoding logic onto the cpu card (where the A/P and G chip were so that the atari would have this additional gfx/sound capability

What atari could have done eventually is offering different configurations of the 800/400 with multiple A/P/G's on single chips...i.e 3 or 4 different configs, each config having more and more A/P/G implemented on each chip in addition to the 64k 800 (which would have been expandable) and also the possibilities offered by a upscale processor (i.e 16bit 6502)

I reckon that a 64k 800 would have been more successful then the 1200, also, as there would have been no o/s incompatibilities, the 800 with 64k and with the ability to expand beyond 64k as well (bearing in mind that the c64/128 ram upgrades didn't become popular till sometime after the systems were originally released) as well as the possibilities offered by having additional sound/graphics capabilities via multiple A/P/G's each onto one chip, would probably have kept both the vic 20 and the c64 in check (sales wise) and the possibilities offered by a 16bit 6502 would have given atari a foot into the upscale computer market (i.e competing with 1/286 systems and the 68000/68008 based systems)

Rybags · July 25, 2009

For starters, by 1982 the RAM slots were much bigger than they needed to be... I'm pretty sure the C64 from day 1 used 64Kx1 bit RAM chips, so you could quite easily have put 128K on a 400/800 sized memory board back then.

Secondly, the multi-board design was only one facet of the large production expense compared to the cardboard+alfoil breadbox of the C-64. The military grade construction of the 400/800 case and shielding probably added as much or more to production costs.

Aside from those points (and I'm sure there's more), you have the arrogance of the Warner's management to contend with. In their minds the 2600 was a juggernaut that would last forever and fight off all comers, and the arcade division was doing quite nicely in it's own right.

To them, the 8-bit computer line was nothing more than being able to say they had most segments of the small computer/console and arcade industries covered.

frenchman · July 25, 2009

You're always going on about Atari 8 bit and C64 competing.

The competition of the Atari 800 was Apple ][, not C64.

In UK the comtetition of C64 was Spectrum 48K, and Spectrum won. Atari 8-bit came under 'bubbling under' (Although it was the second most successful import computer in UK)

Rybags · July 25, 2009

Not necessarily...

by 1982 the battle with Apple II was already lost. When the C64 came along, it was pretty clear they had to repostition themselves further downward in the market.

So far as Spectrum goes... UK people might have considered it a serious computer, but most of the rest of use thought of it as a toy.

peteym5 · July 25, 2009

I think Atari should have geared toward the 800XL design sooner to give them a leg up on the competition. They could have got the 600XL, 800XL, and similar computers down in price to compete with Commodore. I think they should not have invested in the 5200 and the 1200XL which were expensive back in the 80s. They should also have gone forward with the CGIA (combining the Antic/GTIA to one chip) that would further drop down the pricing in the long run. Maybe make some minor improvements since both chips are one.

I always like using memory modules and they could have easily made smaller ones for the XLs, but soldering chips directly to the main board was cheaper. Maybe have some memory on board and sockets for more.

Rybags · July 25, 2009

With the XL, or in fact you could argue the whole 8-bit range, they took the mentality that still exists today.

Offer a cheap model, and the only way you can up the specs is to buy their crap which costs 3 times what it should.

I remember the pain I had upgrading... 400 to 600XL with the expectation that I could pick up the 64K upgrade at a fair price. Ended up just getting an 800XL because it wasn't much more expensive than their stupid 64K module.

Crazyace · July 25, 2009

In a perfect world Atari should have replaced the 400/800 with two new machines in 1982.

Instead of a 5200 have a ultracheap 400 style ( flat keyboard ) machine for games use.

Then have an 800XL style machine to go against the c64 and Apple machines - with 64k ram as base ( and bankswitching for 128/256k ram )

Rather than just repackaging the Antic chips an enhanced Antic ( 80 column support, 80x192x256col, 160x192x16col , 320x192x4col etc with 8 16pixel players - and switchable 50/60Hz on chip ... ) and 4 pokeys on a single chip .. ( 16 channels - plus 4 bit SIO for faster disk drives )

The reason for 50/60Hz is that Atari could then supply a 50Hz over-scanned monitor to give 296x640 50Hz for wordprocessing ( 37 lines of 80 chars )

Backwards compatibility with the 7800 wouldn't be as important - as the machines would still run all of the old 8 bit software , as well as much more powerful new software - ( compatibility with 400/800 would be around the same as the original XL )

For the cartridge ports I'd put the refresh signals on, so that DRAM could be placed on the cartridge for the game machine - or extra ram could be plugged in as a cartridge on the computer.

carmel_andrews · July 25, 2009

A major reason why atari under performed against the competition is largely because it was run by people who know nothing about the technology or the products the technology the product is/was based on

what Atari should and could have done (whilst bushnell/warners were still in bed together) is a 2 way split of the company

Hardware and software manufacturing/production/product developement, r & d as well as distribution as one company and given ultimate automony (with it's own managment)

central management and sales marketing as another company, taking the product developed by the hardware side, getting orders/sales and passing that onto the other company for distribution

that way you don't have management that know sod all about what atari are doing (i.e r&d and product developemnt) and making decision based on what they don't understand and most importantly you don't get sales/marketing people parking there nose into things they don't understand and ultimately f**king up the product (like the 1200, like ET and like Pacman...and on and on Ad infinitum)

In relation to the software side of things, some strategies...1st...set up an independent company to look after 3rd party software development and licensing, get them to deal with the coin op companies/movie studios etc for licensing atari versions of that IP and handing the project over to software development themselves...in addition implement nintendo like software licensing agreement s with the 3rd party software publishers...i.e the publishers merely develop the software, be it disk or cartridge (US) or Cassette/Cart (UK etc) and offer them 40 p/c of sales per unit, atari sells/markets, manufactures and distributes the software through it's distribution network

Also to bolster more end user software development, get the retailer/dealers to interact more with the atari users, the way this would be done is by extending the so called 'sales and service centre' network to be more all encompassing...i.e a cross between the 'sales and service network' and the retail concept Atari UK disasterously tried in the late 80's (the 'games centre' approach) but something like Atari approved computer centre (incl sales and hardware servicing) which would have employed a specialist that understands things like atari basic and assembler etc so that the retailer/dealer has more a hands on access to the end user, also atari benefits because they can use the dealer/retailer as a drop off/drop in centre for end user written software that atari could possibly distribute...commodore were very successful at doing this in UK/europe in the late 70s/early 80's..also so that atari can get more accurate picture of what the consumer is looking for so far as new hardware and software is concerned

Also, just like acorn did with the BBC , Atari should and could have teamed up with a media company that was dominant in the education sector and beyond, allowed the media company to sell atari hardware under it's own name (but informing consumers/education authorities that it was atari compatible) that way, atari would have gotten a big push into the education sector and free advertising for the general consumer as the media company concerned would have wanted every opportunity to market it version of atari hardware through it's own tv/radio stations/channels

Also for atari to allow 3rd party development of atari compatible computer hardware (i.e 3rd party versions of a800 800xl etc etc), the 3rd party developer merely develop/make the product and atari produce/manufacture it under the name of the 3rd party developer and distribute it under atari's own dist. n/w, the 3rd party developer gets 40 p/c of sales per unit, atari the remainder, also for any new developments in the hardware made by the 3rd party companies are shared with atari and other 3rd party manufacturers, that way, keeping atari computer technology and computer hardware products/developments several steps ahead of the competition

Edited July 25, 2009 by carmel_andrews

+CharlieChaplin · July 25, 2009

Well,

regarding the floppy drives...

the 1050 should have been a true DD drive right from the start. Then most games after 1982 (or 1983 when the 1050 really appeared) could have used 180k bootdisks, so multi-disk games a la Dark Crystal, AR City, AR Dungeon and many others would have used only half the number of disks/disksides. And a 5,25" external floppy (single or double sided) that would have used the PBI would also have been very nice instead of the slow SIO floppy drives...

regarding the XL computers...

the 600XL should have been a 64k model right from the start (with monitor port of course!) and the 800XL a 128k model (if not in 1982 then at least in 1983), both with freddy chips, supervideo and at least 2xpokey (or 4xpokey) onboard (the multiple pokey in one chip of course). An upgrade to Antic and GTIA would also have been very nice, something like the already mentioned 320x200 pixels x4 colours, 160x200 pixels x 16 colours and err, 80x200 or better 160x100 with 256 colours, all non-interlace of course. Maybe a 640x200 mode with b & w also; then a b+w and a colour monitor from Atari...

In 1985 could have been more gfx upgrades (meaning even more colours, higher resolution), sound upgrades (e.g. AMY/Amie), memory upgrades (256k, 512k 1024k RAM), 3,5" floppy drives, a harddisk system and a new colour monitor, all coming from Atari...

Alas, only in a perfect world... -Andreas Koch.

kskunk · July 25, 2009

It seems the topic is 'How could the 8-bit be a better value?' Some people are proposing more features for the same money, other people are proposing less money for the same features. Either way people want more value.

Maybe that's why the C64 comes up. The C64 was a great value, because in those days Commodore was totally organized around selling advanced technology cheaply.

In 1985 could have been more gfx upgrades (meaning even more colours, higher resolution), sound upgrades (e.g. AMY/Amie), memory upgrades (256k, 512k 1024k RAM), 3,5" floppy drives, a harddisk system and a new colour monitor, all coming from Atari...

Some systems of the 80s were good values and others weren't, but only two mass market platforms from the 80s are still alive today: PC and Macintosh. Neither started life as an 8-bit system.

I don't think the Atari 8-bit has any of the qualities that would allow it to evolve as the PC and Mac have. In 1985, I would not want to program a 6502 with 512K of RAM, especially with alternatives like the ST's 32-bit flat memory model. Even a PC from 1981 has a better memory model than the 65816.

So anything that makes the 8-bit hugely successful in 1985 would just make things harder on Atari when the ST came out. People would be demanding more 8-bits and Atari would be splitting their resources trying to nudge people toward the ST without killing the 8-bit cash cow. Apple had the same problem with the Mac and Apple II, and all it did was slow down Mac adoption and piss off loyal Apple customers.

Unless you're saying the ST should not have come out, it's a good thing the 8-bit was winding down by the time it did!

- KS

Edited July 25, 2009 by kskunk

JamesD · July 25, 2009

I think the 8 bit chipset should have been developed further after the intro of the machines. I also think the 5200 should have been introduced in early 1981 with the fruits of that effort. That would have differentiated it from the 8 bit line. I also think it should have been designed to be smaller and cheaper.

A cheaper to manufacture version of the 8 bit should have been introduced in spring of 1982 with 64K. 64K was already becoming a factor in sales.

A chip manufacturer had been talking about a 6516 CPU as a competitor to the 6809 in the late '70s. It would have been pretty much like a 65816 without 24 bit address features and possibly without some 65c02 features. It wouldn't have been quite as powerful as the 6809 but would have been much better than the 6502 and still compatible with the old software. Atari should have purchased that company and gone ahead with that CPU. Development would probably have taken a couple years but they should have been able to have it ready by 1982 or '83. A revised 8 bit family could have been introduced based on that chip, an upgraded chipset, and ability to upgrade to 128K. It could have been the new high end machine and the existing machine could be the low end machine.

Phase out the low end machine and lower the price of the high end machine as sales drop. Include 128K standard at some point.

If a next gen machine had been supported inside Atari, Amiga may never have existed. Some sort of next gen machine with Amiga like features would have been introduced at Atari and Commodore would have countered with with the Commodore ST.

Crappy management at Atari from day one made that impossible.

peteym5 · July 25, 2009

It seems the topic is 'How could the 8-bit be a better value?' Some people are proposing more features for the same money, other people are proposing less money for the same features. Either way people want more value.

Maybe that's why the C64 comes up. The C64 was a great value, because in those days Commodore was totally organized around selling advanced technology cheaply.

That was the point I was trying to make when referring to the 600XL & 800XL computers, Atari should have jumped on development of these computers back in 1981, 1982 and try to get them down in price to compete better with Commodore. Have to keep in mind Commodore Corp. owned MOS so they can get a hold of 6502 & other chips cheaper. However Atari at that point was stock piling their 6502s, Pokeys, Antics, & other chips and they also could have got away with marketing their computers at a low price. I did mention consolidating the 2 video chips into one and would have been a great ideal the would have driven down the price in the long run. They could make the CGIA address the same as the ANTIC + GTIA on the 400/800 or just put all the registers on one page. I personally would not have gone for 80 columns/640 pixel modes because then people will then need a monitor and thus adding an expense.

The other factor people don't look at is SOFTWARE. The 8-bit systems already had a user friendly front-end for Atari DOS, Basic, word processors, a large selection of games already made for the 8-bit line. Commodore had to have different software for each computer model.

landondyer · July 26, 2009

Making the 8-bit family better wasn't going to make that product line last much longer. If you make radical changes to a platform, you don't have a platform any more. So it's much better to simply break with the past and have a completely new product.

Certainly fixing the 5200 controller would have helped. Having some kind of quality review before titles went out would have helped (note that Coin-Op already had this, in the form of field play testing -- while the consumer groups just shot out cartridges without worrying about whether they were any good or not).

One serious problem: The video game industry was /tanking/, and Atari was a video game company.

I think that Tramiel had essentially the right idea, in that a new platform and a complete break with the past was necessary, but a team that was far, far too small for the real job, and the work had to have been started a couple years earlier. Corporate research was full of LISP Machines and whatnot, and there were interesting projects going on there (based on the 286, for instance), and possibly some of the ideas in this group could have been turned into a product. There were top-notch engineers in Coin-op and elsewhere. A project to essentially do what the Amiga folks had started, with the vision of Alan Kay, and serious systems-level engineering that people in the company did posess might have been possible.

Imagine something like the Macintosh, but with a gamer soul at its core. Atari would have had to ditch its addiction to the living room TV, and it would have had to understand how to /really/ do word processors and such (but probably could have gotten Microsoft interested in a project of this scope).

It's always easy to look back on this kind of thing with 20-20 hindsight. I think that a lot of the pieces were around, but there wasn't any vision or coordination to make something like this happen.

Rybags · July 26, 2009

I think we also have to consider that Atari didn't have the vertical integration advantage of Commodore, so by the time the 130XE, 800XL and 65XE were finally price-competitive with the C64, the ST/Amiga war had already started.

The profit margin they made on the XEs would have been so small that it wouldn't have warranted spending much money on further development.

With the 64K machine around $100 and the 130XE at $199 or whatever it was around 1986, I'd be surprised if they were actually making more than $15-$20 per machine sold.

TheGreatPW · July 26, 2009

Go ahead and release the 64k ram module (and possibly a 32k ram module as well) back in 1981/2. reduce the 400 price to 249-259 (to compete with the vic 20) and reduce the standard 48k 800 to 449 and bring in a sub 500 usd 64k 800 which would be capable of accessing (if using the colette mobo) 256k ram (if using all 4 ram slots) and since it's 2 port, because the 2 port makes portb ($D301) redundunt make it into an xl/xe like bank switch

There were memory expansion options for the Atari 400/800 computers but they were expensive at the time plus with so few software to take advantage of it back then (early 80s), people would not upgrade.

Actually not enough Atari 800 owners upgraded at all which forced many software publishers to have to stick to the 48K memory limit thus hurting Atari during the end of the 8-bit era (mid 80s). 64K games did not sell well on the Atari 8-bit computers.

TheGreatPW · July 26, 2009

You're always going on about Atari 8 bit and C64 competing.
The competition of the Atari 800 was Apple ][, not C64.

In UK the comtetition of C64 was Spectrum 48K, and Spectrum won. Atari 8-bit came under 'bubbling under' (Although it was the second most successful import computer in UK)

You're right about that. It was the Atari 800 vs. Apple and PC while the Atari 400 took on the Commodore Vic-20 at the beginning. The Vic-20's whole "computer at the price of a toy" thing really got people into the idea that computers can be bought cheap (well when it was made by Commodore anyway). Atari vs. Commodore 64 was much later.