Evolution of Handheld Consoles

[Albert]

There's an interesting article at Pocket Gamer that compares the Lynx to most of the other portables that have come out over the last 20 years. Not in-depth by any means, but they do have some pretty interesting charts:

 

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Various/feature.asp?c=2850

 

As for what they had to say about the Lynx,

 

Atari Lynx

Released 1989, US launch price $189.99

The skateboard-sized Lynx was technologically way ahead of the Game Boy, but was also twice the price and needed six AA batteries for two-four hours play. D'oh!

 

..Al

[HP Atari King of Michigan]

That is interesting and informative.

[per]

Oh Atari, Atari, Atari. What the hell were you THINKING?! Look at the size of the Lynx. You would want one to fall on you that's for sure. 273mm long! That's over 100mm longer than the PSP, and getting on for twice as thick.

 

...'Salted! (lol )

Edited May 1, 2007 by per

[Cobra Kai]

I hate the way they wrote about the Lynx, like it was some big colossal failure through and through. It seems like all their comparisons were designed to make the Lynx look idiotic, while making the PSP look like the portable Messiah delivered from the great God Sony.

 

There's not a single flattering thing about the Lynx in there, and they totally ignore any comparisons that would show the Lynx as the most technologically advanced portable until the GBA, they were too busy complaining about how 'big' it was. Boo hoo.

 

Really there's not that much comparison going on in that article, I guess any more comparisons added would have had to show some Lynx advantages to its competition, so they cleverly only included things that would make it look like the worst handheld ever created to someone reading that has never played one.

[cthulhu]

How can they compare a PSP with older handhelds? To be honest, I think the whole article is a bit amateuristic and incomplete since they also left out quite a few others (WonderSwan, Neo Geo Pocket Color etc.). Still, the Lynx I is still my favorite...it looks good and holding the Lynx is way more comfortable than the Gameboy.

[davidcalgary29]

I hate the way they wrote about the Lynx, like it was some big colossal failure through and through. It seems like all their comparisons were designed to make the Lynx look idiotic, while making the PSP look like the portable Messiah delivered from the great God Sony.

 

There's not a single flattering thing about the Lynx in there, and they totally ignore any comparisons that would show the Lynx as the most technologically advanced portable until the GBA, they were too busy complaining about how 'big' it was. Boo hoo.

 

Really there's not that much comparison going on in that article, I guess any more comparisons added would have had to show some Lynx advantages to its competition, so they cleverly only included things that would make it look like the worst handheld ever created to someone reading that has never played one.

 

I agree. This is an old and illogical argument: commercial failure = technological failure.

 

Personally, I've never seen what the fuss about the Lynx's comparatively great size has been all about. I use both the Lynx and PSP as my primary consoles, and I simply find the Lynx more comfortable to use. The Lynx is rightly faulted for short battery length, and this is something that Atari should have addressed, but it's certainly not a fatal flaw.

[Albert]

I agree. This is an old and illogical argument: commercial failure = technological failure.

 

Personally, I've never seen what the fuss about the Lynx's comparatively great size has been all about. I use both the Lynx and PSP as my primary consoles, and I simply find the Lynx more comfortable to use. The Lynx is rightly faulted for short battery length, and this is something that Atari should have addressed, but it's certainly not a fatal flaw.

I also agree, although I prefer the Lynx II because of those nice, rubber grips on the back and it's much easier to extricate Lynx cards from (especially the completely flat ones). However, as a "portable" goes, the Lynx does fall a bit short compared to the other consoles. Battery life sucks (is the Lynx the only portable with a huge, external, first-party battery pack accessory?) and you're not going to fit the Lynx in any of your pockets. But when it came out there was simply nothing like it and it was extremely powerful for the time. Nothing could touch it technologically for many years..

 

..Al

[+karri]

The Lynx screensize in the article is wrong it says 106 by 102 when it should be 160 by 102.

 

And there is a few things about the Lynx that make it very advanced. The unlimited sprite engine that works without CPU help is absolutely wonderful. And broadcast-like ComLynx was far ahead of its time. Even the 22 cent sound enging shows some clever design as it works without need for CPU to keep the sound going.

 

Atari is also for the hobby scene as it has published the 3 keydisks for doing the RSA encryption. A thing Sony would never do.

 

--

Karri

[Atariman]

(is the Lynx the only portable with a huge, external, first-party battery pack accessory?)

 

Nope - I have a rechargeable official Game Gear battery pack. It isn't quite as big as the Lynx D-Cell backpack, but then again, I never got anything close to 20 hours of play out of the Game Gear NiCd pack, either.

[twatkins]

that and there is a GIGANTIC gaping hole there ... no Turbo Express

 

yea I know it was expensive but I thought it was the best portable until the DS came out

[Cobra Kai]

I hate the way they wrote about the Lynx, like it was some big colossal failure through and through. It seems like all their comparisons were designed to make the Lynx look idiotic, while making the PSP look like the portable Messiah delivered from the great God Sony.

 

There's not a single flattering thing about the Lynx in there, and they totally ignore any comparisons that would show the Lynx as the most technologically advanced portable until the GBA, they were too busy complaining about how 'big' it was. Boo hoo.

 

Really there's not that much comparison going on in that article, I guess any more comparisons added would have had to show some Lynx advantages to its competition, so they cleverly only included things that would make it look like the worst handheld ever created to someone reading that has never played one.

 

I agree. This is an old and illogical argument: commercial failure = technological failure.

 

Personally, I've never seen what the fuss about the Lynx's comparatively great size has been all about. I use both the Lynx and PSP as my primary consoles, and I simply find the Lynx more comfortable to use. The Lynx is rightly faulted for short battery length, and this is something that Atari should have addressed, but it's certainly not a fatal flaw.

 

I've often wondered though, was the LYNX really a commercial failure? From my perspective it seemed to be fairly successful, it just got annihilated by the GB. I actually had 3 other friends with Lynx's we used to lynx-up Slimeworld, Warbirds and Checkered Flag on a regular basis (during the LYNX heyday).

 

Surely Atari must have sold a few million of these babies, anyone know what the sales were for the Lynx? It must have been alot because they aren't exactly scarce as far as Ebay is concerned, plus I've found a few for sale locally. They are much more readily available than a Turbo Express, or Neo Geo pocket (which I consider a commercial failure in the US, but I would be glad to be proven wrong and straightened out).

[Cheez27]

Wow, That article is riddled with BS. And the Lynx is estimated to have sold 750,000 consoles.

[Trip_Cannon]

Come on, the PSP is 16 years newer!

 

They could have at least compared the Lynx 2....

 

The complaints about the size have always boggled me. Compared to other "portables" of the time it wasn't really too much larger. The game gear was roughly the same size, the Nomad too. Gameboy and Turboexpress weren't THAT much smaller. I mean, who cares? If you're on a long trip in the back of the car and have a cig adapter hooked up, I'd rather have something a little more form fitting and comfortable.

[dalton4life]

I like the Lynx, but I don't see what's such BS about the article. It's mainly talking about the tech specs and off course PSP is going to come out on top in that area when it comes to handhelds. If Lynx sold about 750,000 units it's the only one on the list not to hit the 1 million mark which is said. Lynx I was too big and a bit too ahead of it's time. I remember it sucking through batteries like there was no tomorrow. Alkaline batteries didn't last as long then and the rechargables of the time had very low capacities. Game Gear was a battery gobbler too. I agree Turbo Express should have been mentioned though if they were going to include Sega Nomad. I'd say Lynx II should have been mention, but I guess it's fair it's omitted since number the Gameboy redesigns are as well.

Edited May 1, 2007 by dalton4life

[davidcalgary29]

I like the Lynx, but I don't see what's such BS about the article. It's mainly talking about the tech specs

 

The problem is that it's really not. The Lynx is obviously not competitive with the PSP, or even the GBA, but it had some advanced features (scaled sprites; MIKEY; SUZY; multi-user gaming; for awhile, it was unique in having a colour screen) that were absent on other contemporaneous systems. There's little enough point in comparing systems to their peers, and the exercise loses all value whatsoever when the comparison is made with systems released decades (and gaming revolutions) apart. It's like comparing the Altair 8800 to the IBM AT, or the original Pong to the Atari 7800: ridiculous. The question of what was the "best" system will always be open to endless debate, and if the author of this piece thinks that the Game Boy takes that prize, then fair enough. The article does, however, misrepresent itself as a technological essay, and that is quite misleading.

Edited May 1, 2007 by davidcalgary29

[+SpiceWare]

What, no Microvision? I had lots of fun with mine, even had most of the games for it.

 

CPU: Intel 8021 or TI TMS1100 (CPU was part of the cartridge)

Screen: 16 x 16 pixel LCD

Speed: 100 kHz

RAM: 32 nybbles (nybble = 4 bits = 1/2 byte)

ROM: 2K (built into CPU)

[per]

The Lynx screensize in the article is wrong it says 106 by 102 when it should be 160 by 102.

 

And there is a few things about the Lynx that make it very advanced. The unlimited sprite engine that works without CPU help is absolutely wonderful. And broadcast-like ComLynx was far ahead of its time. Even the 22 cent sound enging shows some clever design as it works without need for CPU to keep the sound going.

 

Atari is also for the hobby scene as it has published the 3 keydisks for doing the RSA encryption. A thing Sony would never do.

 

--

Karri

agree, it sounds more logical. send the author of the article a mail about it.

[Atari5200]

Was the Game.com even on there? lol that thing was huge too before the re-design. But yeah the Lynx was pretty powerful, but still the Turbo Express is the big miss on this article. The Turbo Express IMO is a better system than the Lynx all around, had TV tuner, plus it used the same HuCards as the TG-16.

 

I think the fact remains, the Lynx was big..no shet, but there were other systems as large as the Lynx, SUPERVISION, GAME.COM, and size is not even mentioned.

[4ever2600]

I stlil think the Lynx was THE best handheld of that era... It's a shame that more mainstream titles didn't play a factor with this unit. I would have loved to see a Mortal Kombat on this system...

[Atari5200]

It was 2nd best of the era. Was not better than Turbo Express. Lynx was damn good don't get me wrong, but since the Turbo Express was completly nothing but a portable TG-16, it beats the Lynx hands down. The turbo express was playing games no system could match up until GBA and even then, with the TG-16 having decent graphics, the Turbo express could probably hang with the GBA on some levels if not most.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Atari5200

[Trip_Cannon]

I can't remember what the technology was called that the Turbo express had, but the screen had no motion blur when objects on screen moved, which made its LCD tops in that department... However, its $300 price tag would eventually hurt its appeal.

[Spector]

I can't remember what the technology was called that the Turbo express had, but the screen had no motion blur when objects on screen moved, which made its LCD tops in that department... However, its $300 price tag would eventually hurt its appeal.

 

There was a slight shimmering distortion effect on the Turbo Express when backgrounds moved, similar to the effect you get playing games through an RF connection. It wasn't blur free like, say, the GB Color, but yeah it was technically the best at the time. However, for me, the screen with the most charisma (if that's the right word) was definitely the Lynx. The colour was the best too.

[Atari5200]

I can't remember what the technology was called that the Turbo express had, but the screen had no motion blur when objects on screen moved, which made its LCD tops in that department... However, its $300 price tag would eventually hurt its appeal.

 

There was a slight shimmering distortion effect on the Turbo Express when backgrounds moved, similar to the effect you get playing games through an RF connection. It wasn't blur free like, say, the GB Color, but yeah it was technically the best at the time. However, for me, the screen with the most charisma (if that's the right word) was definitely the Lynx. The colour was the best too.

 

See i think the Lynx screen sucks only because it washes out the colors pretty bad, at least mine does. It's a large screen, but it's not pretty, i guess at the time it was a great screen but now after playing with other back lit systems, it really wasn't that great. I guess the technology to do a good backlit screen wasn't around back then.

[TailChao]

I can't remember what the technology was called that the Turbo express had, but the screen had no motion blur when objects on screen moved, which made its LCD tops in that department... However, its $300 price tag would eventually hurt its appeal.

 

There was a slight shimmering distortion effect on the Turbo Express when backgrounds moved, similar to the effect you get playing games through an RF connection. It wasn't blur free like, say, the GB Color, but yeah it was technically the best at the time. However, for me, the screen with the most charisma (if that's the right word) was definitely the Lynx. The colour was the best too.

 

See i think the Lynx screen sucks only because it washes out the colors pretty bad, at least mine does. It's a large screen, but it's not pretty, i guess at the time it was a great screen but now after playing with other back lit systems, it really wasn't that great. I guess the technology to do a good backlit screen wasn't around back then.

 

The Turbo Express uses an Active Matrix screen. You have to remember that it had NEC behind it, so the technology at its disposal was quite impressive. It used the same display panels as their portable TVs. The rippling/shimmering was a side effect of how the pixel groups were designed. The screen was the full 240 pixels in height, however, horizontally the 320 pixels were divided into individual RGB elements, giving it a discrete horizontal resolution that while less than the actual 320 if counting RGB groups, was still suitable to display multiple high resolutions.

This is basically a side effect of using a portable TV screen, and the general limits of the technology at the time. A "real" TFT active matrix screen would have been prohibitively expensive, and would conflict with the TG/PCE's multiple resolution capability. Let's not forget, it was released in 89'

 

The Lynx screen had an excellent response time, but it did wash out colors terribly. A higher contrast screen would have bumped up cost, and increased production cost was a bit unlikely, since we all know how fragile the Lynx II's were made.