carmel_andrews, on Fri Jun 3, 2011 5:34 AM, said:
wasn't that the idea behind the mega series (i.e seperating the keyboard from the main unit) and allowing expansion cards to be made (since i recall you could expand the mega in that way)
The separate keyboard idea was almost certainly there from day 1 . . . why else use both a dedicated microcontroller (with embedded serial interface) and a dedicated ACIA (to decode that serial output back to something the 68k could read) on the 520 ST from day 1 if you weren't planning on a detachable keyboard? (albeit the XEGS did a detachable board without a serial interface, but with a bulky and very short cable and 15 pin connector -I wonder if the annoyingly short cable was due to reliability issues at longer lengths)
The Mega form factor and expansion support are 2 separate issues (some overlapping, but a lot that's totally separate). Expansion or not, they should have had a desktop box from factor from day 1 simply for the professional look (for marketing reasons, especially in the US).
If they wanted any chance o being taken seriously in the "serious" business market, they needed a desktop form factor. (not that they shouldn't have had a console model too -I argued above than an even cheaper model might have been worthwhile, but a desktop machine in addition to the low-end model . . . the desktop wouldn't actually be much more costly to build, but probably a lot more costly on the price end -albeit probably still cheaper than most contemporaries, maybe not as cheap as the Tandy 1000, but probably somewhat less than the Amiga 1000)
As for expansion, they should have pushed it from day 1 from high end systems to the bottom end ones (again, expansion might have even made it more attractive to make even cheaper models that lacked some peripheral ports, RAM, etc). Though, with expansion, not only should there have been console and pizzabox style desktops, but big-box models with internal apple/IBM style slots. (the slim desktops might fit a couple hoizontal mounted slots internally with provisions to an extended external expansion box while the console models would have just 1 port/slot and probably also have support for an external expansion module -the modules would obviously be priced such that the overall cost of computer and module would be at least as much as the high-end box models as to avoid cutting into their bottom line -albeit, perhaps have more limited extensions for a couple slots on consoles to bring them closer to the slim desktops)
Tower models could have been introduced as well.
Having more socketed chips (CPU, SHIFTER, YM2149, etc) would have made expansion more flexible too. (plug-in upgrade for the SHIFTER or sound chip, possible CPU upgrade boards, etc)
Quote
Also I seem to recall that atari licenced the TT (and similarly the falcon) for 3rd party manufacturing, i recall that some german and canadian companies made TT's and falcons (clones) using tower configs (like modern pc's) therefore making it easier for the systems to be upgraded
That was pretty late though, and seems to have been limited to those rather uncommon (and expensive -especially the TT) models. (unless you have any info on other ST models being licensed)
Quote
One Q. about the atari plan/proposal for the so called ' blitter chip upgrade' for the original ST series (i.e not STE or mega series, which has them as standard), did atari get around to officially releasing the upgrade or did atari drop the upgrade and simply improve the ST architecture to incorporating the blitter chip (hence the mega series and the STE)
I've heard similar things, but I haven't seen any details on the issue. It would seem like a blitter upgrade would be rather cumbersome to add to a console ST (it would require internal modification -at best, they could have made up upgrade kits to be installed at service centers).
That and Atari seemed to be that interested in providing hardware upgrades or expansions though, if they had (even changing plans after the fact), they could have been offering various upgrade services for older models (with newer ones adding more provisions for plug-in expansion), like offering the piggyback RAM upgrade at service centers, CPU accelerator installations, sound upgrades, etc, etc.
If there was ever a time for Atari to make a drastic change in their market/business trends, it was 1988 with the DRAM shortage and Amigas dropped to ST prices. (pushing the blitter upgrade out ASAP might have gone a long way towards retaining dominant interest for the ST over shifting to Amiga . . . let alone if they also started offering CPU accelerators, RAM upgrades, perhaps sound upgrades too -be it a DMA sound circuit, or perhaps a YM2203 board to replace the YM2149 -which probably would have either meant a clip-on socket to piggyback on the YM2149, or desoldering the 2149 and soldering in the new module -same thing for CPU accelerator upgrades; clip-on would almost certainly be cheaper and quicker but probably somewhat less reliable . . . having the service centers take and keep the old CPU/sound chips -perhaps send them to Atari to re-use in "new" systems- could have at least partially mitigated the added work needed to desolder the chips -a shame they weren't socketed
)
JamesD, on Fri Jun 3, 2011 11:21 AM, said:
I don't think it would have made much difference.
The Amiga died in spite of having expansion slots/connections and part of what helped the ST initially was the inexpensive all in one design.
Again, I'm not saying to compromise that low cost or drop the low-end models (hell, even cheaper models might have been merited -perhaps to the point of displacing the 130XE), but to add a consolidated expansion port (probably in place of the cart slot) to low-end models, and more comprehensive internal expansion to higher end models. (and again, a separate issue, but professional looking desktop models should have been there from day 1 -better expansion or not -Commodore probably should have had lower cost Amiga models to complement the A1000 much earlier than the 500, but that's another topic too
)
Then there's some of the other issues I mentioned that (while not so much expansion related) do tie into the premise of missed opportunities that wouldn't have involved delaying the release (which things like addign scroll registers or DMA sound might have caused), namely the potential for PC file compatibility. (something the Amiga and -especially- Macintosh would have had more trouble pulling off due to incompatible file systems and/or disk formats -neither of which the ST had, other than using single sided floppies initially -and using 3.5" disks when very few people had compatible drives on PCs)
Of course, if Atari failed to push expansion (regardless of easier support for such on the system itself) and 3rd parties didn't take up the slack (and they eventually did for PC), expansion support wouldn't have helped much either.
If they had had decent support, but still never managed to pull off much better sales in the US (the business-like form factor is probably more important than expansion in that respect, but limited advertising funding early on would have been a major problem regardless), Europe still could have had a huge impact from regular upgrades to the systems. (Atari already had the dominant 16-bit computing platform in the late 80s, all they had to do was hold onto it and extend that going forward -as 16-bit became dominant over older 8-bit platforms in the low-end and the 32-bit/nextgen market really started to open up)
Why the Amiga did as it did is a topic all its own, and is far more related to business decisions than any technical ones. (albeit those management decisions had a major impact on the technology end as well)
The expansion issue is more business model/management decision related than technical too. (the idea of closed box designs and forced total upgrades makes sense in a certain school of thought, but by 1985 it really didn't make that much sense -it had Taken Atari/Warner management in some 3-4 years to come to terms with what their engineers had wanted to do from day 1 -that adding flexible expandability was really important)
Hell even the Spectrum and C64 had better expansion support than the ST.
(albeit, had the ST featured an expansion port, it should have been more comprehensive than either of those . . . the ST's cart slot was weaker than either -or the Tandy's cart slot, or MSX, etc, etc)
0
