HiroProX

From the original discussion:http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/154910-reposed-from-general-chat/page__p__1897625__fromsearch__1#entry1897625 (also this related discussion) http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/155306-one-tangent-of-my-atari-what-if/page__p__1903226__fromsearch__1#entry1903226 At least the way I was trying to push the discussion, I suggested MIPS, or ARM rather than Alpha which is what Kalvan had been sticking on... However, in the context I was referring to (favoring ARM personally), RISC would not come in until the tail end of the 1980s at earliest, rather, they'd stay with the 650x architecture prior to that. (starting with faster 6502s, 65C02s, then 65816s prior to going to RISC) The Idea was that at soem point, atari could get a licence for the 65816 core (relatively easy for that chip) and implement it in their own cusom, integrated chip to provide backwards compatibility on later models. I preferred ARM as the lower cost and more reasonable option compared to MIPS. (though that became much more reasonable with the expansion to the embedded market int he early 90s) ARM would probably be easier to license or obtain from alternate vendors than MIPS would have been, at least prior to the mid 90s. This pretty much echos my thoughts. A movement to a fully incompatible RISC architecture would require more capable interim machines that would likely need to be backwards compatible with the previous 8-bit computers. And the insistence on the Alpha was kind of WTF? to me. I like Alphas, I owned some back then and still do, but they were expensive machines, and the architecture pretty much ran out of gas with the axp21264, as the axp21364 is a minimalist design meant to be used in massively parallel systems, not exactly a desktop box. Moving from more advanced 65xx designs tends to favor ARM more than MIPS. SGI went to MIPS CPUs from MC680x0 CPUs. Though it does become a possibility that if WDC can sell many more 65816s, that a "65832" might have happened, which would make a move to RISC more questionable, especially if the "WDC65832" offered performance comparable to the i386 or MC68020. Though I think that would result in a delayed move to RISC, probably when 64-bit RISC CPUs such as StrongARM, MIPS R4000, UltraSPARC, and DEC axp21064 became more available. But all of this would only be truely usable if Atari could move the 8-bits to an OS with an API so that major changes in the underlying hardware could be masked from programs. Otherwise, there would be massive compatibility problems with software that (as most A8 software did) directly access the hardware. In many ways, maintaining compatibility with the original A8s for Atari, or the C64 in the case of Commodore would have been next to impossible past 16-bit machines. PCs only managed this compatibility back to the 8088 by the use of several modes, Real Mode, 286 Protected Mode, 386 Protected Mode, and Virtual x86 Mode.

But the primary problem with the idea of an 'Atari Triumphant" timeline is that everything in the computer industry was headed for standardization. The closest possible thing would be three competing standards, with atari as a manufacturer of machines fitting one of those standards. Then again, I have trouble with the idea of Atari going to MIPS CPUs, as this would delay a replacement for the 8-bits by another year, when the 8-bits were getting hammered in the market by the C64. Likewise, a MIPS-based machine would be VERY expensive, like IBM PC/AT kind of expensive ($4000+). In that case, Apple could release a MC68000 machine for $2000 and be "the low price leader". If Apple had a hard time selling Macs OTL for $2000, Atari trying to sell a $4000+ machine would be hopeless. At least the IBM PC/AT had the PC's software library to use, and being an IBM product it could command a $4000+ price. Keep in mind that the major user of MIPS CPUs OTL was SGI, and a "cheap" SGI machine in the late 80s, the Personal Iris 4D/25 was a $10,000 machine. So I somehow doubt Atari could bring a MIPS based machine to market for under $4000.

Heh, nothing like that to make your sphincter pucker. Lots of close calls, but it was deciding to use the VAX in military school as a rendering co-processor for my A500 that got me nailed.

Even then, MSX is going to be a primarily japanese-only platform, like in real life. The instant one MSX machine showed up on American shores with serious intent, Jack Tramiel and Commodore would do to them what they did to TI. Remember, Tramiel was absolutely paranoid about a japanese entry into the US computer market. ThE MSx2 and MSX2+ machines might have been contenders, but by the time they were brought out, the US market had already seen the introduction of 16-bit machines by Apple, Atari, and Commodore. MSX1 machines were no competition technically against either the Atari 8-bits or Commodore's C64. Even if they could be brought in against the VIC-20, they'd still be outclassed by the Atari 400 and 800. If they were to manage any degree of success, it'd be at the TI-99/4A's expense, and then they would meet TI's fate at the hands of Commodore. but even then, if a Z-80 machine didn't have an 80-column text display and run CP/M, it was toast.

Covox allows you to use music tracker programs to play mod files... (I'm sure someone else will give a lot more detailed info on it) As for other mods I guess it would depend on what you want to use it for Now my question is, What solder sucker did you get? I've always had terrible luck working on XE's and would be interested in knowing what you are using. What are you using? I've had no problems with both of my 130XEs. I use a run of the mill solder-sucker and a butane powered soldering iron.

AROS, an AmigaOS 3.x clone, runs on x86-32 and x86-64, and there's unofficial ports to Sparc64, Alpha, MIPS, and ARM.

I'd still say ARM makes sense for Atari for the same reason it made sense for Acorn, aspects of its design were inspired by the 6502, a CPU Acorn and Atari have experience with.

Okay, first of all, a RISC computer circa 1984 is going to be a very expensive machine. Even in 1986 OTL the majority of the cost of the Atari 1040ST was its 1Mb of RAM. Also in the 1988-1991 timeframe you have the US protectionist tariffs against Japanese DRAM chips which caused an industrywide DRAM shortage. By 1984, the only options for RISC CPUs would be the Berkley RISC-1 or RISC-2 (which evolved into the Sun SPARC V7 in 1986), the Stanford MIPS design (first commercialized in the MIPS R2000 in 1985, followed by the R3000 in 1988, and R4000 in 1991), The Acorn RISC Machine ARM1 in 1985, followed by ARM2 in 1986, the AMD Am290x0 family in 1988, the Apollo PRISM in 1988 (later folded into PA-RISC when HP aquired Apollo), and the Intel i860 in 1989 followed by the i960 in 1991. So any delivery of CPUs to Atari for a RISC machine would not be at any remotely feasible price until 1987. In any case, this would delay next-gen RISC machines from Atari or Apple by several years and both companies would be making a major leap in system complexity as practically all of the early RISC CPUs were 32-bit. So in the interim, Apple may have had to release the Apple IV as if anything a stopgap until RISC CPUs were available. Likewise, Atari would have had to either go with Jay Miner's idea or keep extending the 8-Bits to try to at least maintain the existing customer base. As for the PC clones, your timeline doesn't even slow them down. Digital Research's continued development of CP/M-86 in OTL led to Gem DOS which then begat DR-DOS, a PC-DOS compatible OS which would have fueled the wave of PC clones in the absence of MS-DOS. Another side-effect would have probably been acceptance of GEM as the de facto standard GUI in PC clones, eventually causing a repeat of how MS-DOS in clones pretty much sabotaged OS/2. In the end, IBM would have PC-DOS, but would have to buy GEM from DR. About the only way to change this outcome may have been if IBM chose the MC68000 for the IBM PC 5150. This would have cut off Intel's PC cash cow, but given the dynamics at play at IBM, there was no compelling reason to select the 68000. Oddly, a possible outcome might be Apple and Atari both opting for WDC85816 CPUs for interim machines, and from the 65xx series, the ARM2 would be the most logical upgrade. So the realities of CPU availability may force Jobs to have to devote needed resources to the Apple IV (Apple IIgs analog) simply because of the limited availability of R2000 CPUs, and instead may cause a revision in the interim to use the R3000 instead. Atari would probably build a 65816 machine using Jay Miner's input incorporating many Amiga-like technologies, but with backwards compatibility to the 8-bit line. The follow-up ARM2 based Atari would probably use an as identical as possible sound and video chipset and have an optional "65816 cart" for backwards compatibility. Odd possibility, Atari licensing MS Windows as the new OS. Windows' driver system would allow Atari more latitude to improve the A/V hardware chipset without breaking software compatibility, except for the usual games written with gross violations of the programmer's guidelines. Another possibility is a way that Jack Tramiel's paranoia about an invasion of Japanese home computers can play out. Faced with a stronger MSX standard making his fear more realistic, the possibility of Commodore and Atari agreeing to a standard configuration for a next generation computer becomes a remote possibility. With MOS producing licensed ARM2 CPUs, and using a hardware independent OS allowing each company to come out with a machine characteristically their own, but software compatible. Eventually with a merging of R&D efforts, they create a standard RISC computer architecture that could be licensed and result in a competing standard against the PC and MSX. The main requirement to make that happen would be an Atari chief executive who was actually aware of the computer market, and was able to speak Jack Tramiel's language. Apple is pretty much going to be stuck in the "Boutique Technology" niche they've always occupied, but with Jobs in the picture that can't be helped. About the only way to impact apple would be a scenario where Jobs leaves, but Woz stays. But that opens up a huge can of worms, as Woz was no businessman.

LMAO - but they say they are fair and balanced. I guess their definition of balanced means so far to the right that left doesn't exist. Which would be the photonegative of MSNBC. MSNBC is centrist. Only in America would they be considered leftist. They are after all owned by major corporations and operated for their interest. Try Democracy Now! for some real leftist media. Seen it. In the US it's as fringe as my market anarchist politics.

LMAO - but they say they are fair and balanced. I guess their definition of balanced means so far to the right that left doesn't exist. Which would be the photonegative of MSNBC. Anyhow, awesome to see the old gear getting some press.

And raw speed was something the 286 did not have against the 68000. The 286, like previous Intel CPUs required more clock cycles to execute an instruction than the 68000. In addition, the Atari ST and the Amiga had the advantage of flat memory model from Day One. 286 PCs had to make due with the various kluges such as LIM Extended Memory to access more than 640K of RAM. Also at the time, MS-DOS and the vast majority of its application software was written for the 8088/8086, so most apps couldn't use more than 640K, period. Extended Memory System performance was also an absolute dead dog performance-wise. In addition, the 286 had a very serious bug, in order to use Expanded Memory, it had to switch into Protected Mode, but the bug was that there was no stable way to switch it back into Real Mode. This is what made DOS compatibility such a nightmare under OS/2 1.x. When it came to raw CPU speed, memory access speed, and direct addressing range support in the OS, the PC would be drop-kicked by either the ST or Amiga. CPU-wise, PCs didn't catch up until the 386DX/SX, and they didn't have a widely used OS that could support a flat memory map until Win32. In addition, PCs suffered from an I/O bottleneck inflicted by the ISA bus that wasn't addressed until the advent of the VESA Local Bus and PCI bus. Sure, that fancy 486DX/33 talked to its mainboard at 33MHz with 32-bit data path, but every time it had to access disks or video it had to drop to 16-bits at 8Mhz. So an 80s 286 PC was pretty hopeless in a direct competition against either the Atari ST or Amiga. The much vaunted "raw CPU power" of PCs wasn't a factor until the 486 came to market. But even then, PCs were still expensive for what you got. The same $4000+ that an IBM PC/AT cost in 1986 would build an insanely buffed ST or Amiga. For $4000 one could have an A1000 with 4+Mb RAM, HDD, and a 16MHz 68000 or 68020 accelerator. So for the same cost, an ST or Amiga would absolutely crush the PC/AT without mercy. Heck, after upgrading my A500 with a HDD, a 16MHz ICD AdSpeed accelerator, and 4Mb RAM, it still cost less than an IBM PS/2 Model 50, or Dell's comparable 12MHz 286 at that time and had more raw CPU power than either. I know databases and spreadsheets, contrary to popular opinion, that's what some of us used our Amigas and STs for. My old A500 got a new job when I got my A3000/UX, it replaced the Apple IIc+ that was used to keep the cadet database for the Air Force Junior ROTC unit I was in during high school. Took the Deputy Data Processing Officer and I a week to do so, and the results impressed the PC-centric DP CO, beat his 286 PC based solution, and delivered the user friendly application our Aerospace Science Instructor had always wanted. i heard at my 10 year class reunion that the machine was finally retired in 2002 because the monitor died. So I know what databases and spreadsheets require, and the Atari ST and Amiga had as much or more than a 286 PC. What they didn't have was Lotus 123 and dBase (though having used both on PCs, I don't consider that a loss, both programs were hideous). As has been said, Atari had an uphill battle because of its video gaming business, and Commodore was handicapped by a reputation for cheap machines won via the C64. But the truth is in the silicon and the software, both machines were in every way the IBM PC/AT's superior.

Well, in a way Tramiel was responsible for the PC winning. He started a race to the bottom in price, and the machine that's built from nothing but off-the-shelf parts will always beat a design relying on custom silicon in a price war. The only reason the C64 succeeded was because Commodore owned MOS, so their costs for custom silicon were lower. But this came back to bite them in the backside when off-the-shelf PC parts managed to start reaching Amiga levels of performance, though that was more Irving Gould's fault since he practically strangled R&D in favor of tax shelters in the Bahamas. At Atari, Tramiel didn't have that luxury, and hence the high comparative cost of the Falcon 030 compared to 386SX/DX PCs or even the A1200. Guess one could say Atari and Commodore died due to the same cause, idiotic corporate management.

Not really. Many PC clones of the day were priced at $2000+ and were vastly underpowered even compared to an original Mac or 520ST. At its intro price the Amiga 1000 was vastly more powerful than an AT class PC and cost a good bit less. No this is simply not true, in RAW CPU terms an AT spec PC, especially with 287 co-processor to complement the 286 CPU, @ even 8mhz was probably 3x faster (my exact MIPs ratings for all x86 vs 680x0 CPUs are in the ST area) and so if you actually wanted to do any business work or mathematical calculations etc you plumped for this setup. As a multimedia machine and games machine or even just a plain simple cheap and dirty Fairlight sampler system type unit it was the ultimate machine, but in raw CPU speed it wasn't as there was simply too much of a speed difference. This is why to numbnutz at Commodores surprise businesses did not flock to buy an over priced medium/small business machine as they did with the original PET (which was a superior business machine on launch come to think of it). Actually, my experience on 68000 vs. 80286 was much different> When I had an Amiga, my dad had a PC's Limited 8MHz 286. Both machines had (initially, I upgraded the Amiga in short order) 1Mb RAM and my Amiga frequently stomped the 286 (8MHz 286, 1Mb Ram, 40Mb HDD, EGA). And adding the 287 to the equation makes no sense, unless you add a 68881/2 to the 68000 machine. Back then, 287s were rather rare as little to no software made use of it. In addition, 286 machines ran MS-DOS, which made taking advantage of the additional address range or modes an excruciating headache from both the end user and programmer perspectives. And, at the time of the 520ST and Amiga 1000's introductions, pricing was as follows... Atari 520ST $799.95 (Mono), $999.95 (Color) Amiga 1000 $1795 Macintosh 512K $2795 IBM PC/AT 256K, $4875 (And pretty bare-bones too)

Not really. Many PC clones of the day were priced at $2000+ and were vastly underpowered even compared to an original Mac or 520ST. At its intro price the Amiga 1000 was vastly more powerful than an AT class PC and cost a good bit less.

Next run of them, I'm up for it. I'll even put off one of my hobby projects (Home-made 65816 SBC) to do so.

Atari 800XL, a 1010, and 1020. Mowed many, many, MANY lawns that following summer to get a 1050. And traded a friend some rare comic books for his 850 and 830, and bought my dad's Epson MX-80 from him.

This is grounds for DIVORCE! LOL Your wife must of not known you are a Retro Geek huh.... Seconded. When me and my Mrs. got together it was clear, love me, love my Ataris/Commodores/Apple2s/Amigas. Turned out to not be an issue since she uses my 130XE more than I do to play Joust. Recently caved to her demands and put a MyIDE on it so she doesn't have to cartridge swap.

Kind of, but with some differences.

Does anyone know the dimensions and basic layout information for the 1200XL's mainboard. I have a project I've been considering doing for the last couple of days, and that would be helpful. Likewise if anyone has the same info for a 1040STf, that'd be helpful too.

The Irvine memory is better than I thought Any users of the Le Stick? I had one, used it with my 2600 first and then with my XL. It made playing Decathlon easy, just shake the stick.

Had one of those. It was in the stuff I got for christmas in IIRC 1983. 1200XL, 1010, 1020, 850, and the 830. The summer of 1984 I mowed lawns like a madman and got a 1050, 1030, and bought my dad's Epson MX-80 (w/Graf-Trax) from him.

My wish list... Joust Star Raiders Caverns of Mars Asteroids (Maybe even Blasteroids?)

Meh, made it work. Apparently the issue might be arc in SDX 4.42. I loaded the ATR with the archive under 4.22 and it unarc'd fine. Might look into that later.

CON.SYS is not extracting by any method under XP. Half the time it says that a so named file already exists. So far, I'm not having any luck in extracting this at all. In addition, extraction of the ARC package fails on both wintel and A8 (SDX 4.42).

And now..... back on topic. I dug out the genuine Apple IIgs Hardware Reference Manual, and the verdict is..... The engineering team on the IIgs were masochists. The thing has a good bit of custom silicon in it, definitely more than a ST, though not as much as an Amiga. Apple IIe Enhanced compatibility is done by what amounted to an Apple IIe Enhanced on-a-chip (probably the same chip Apple later used for the IIe compatibility cards for the Mac LC). But like all machines with custom graphics hardware, there are several software driven modes, including one that will display all of the IIgs's 4096 colors on the screen.