Atari v Commodore

[atarian63]

That has not been my experience. I have 2 Commodore 64s and they are both the later model (breadbin) and they both had (past tense) the cardboard with tinfoil for the heat shield. I promptly discarded that crap in the hopes of cooling and longevity.

To me the original breadbins are the earlier models. The majority of C64s are C64Cs, those are the ones being sold most over the longest time.

 

And I heard discarding the tin foil was very common

 

Really? I'm not too up to speed on the C= computers, but I kind of thought things were on the way out (towards 16-bit) by the time the 64C (and 128) came out. I was thinking of the "early" 64 as the one with the monochrome nameplate/emblem and the "late" as the colored nameplate (talking breadbins here)....and the 64C as kind of an afterthought! I would have thought even though 64C may have been for sale for a long time, the 8-bit party was winding down and the volume/year would have been less. I suppose the Commodore 8-bit party lasted longer than the Atari (in sheer volume), and I wasn't aware.... Anybody have the volume sales/year for 64? When did the 64C come out? Did they abruptly end breadbin production, then? When was that?

in addition to this, anyone know usa sales only of c64 by the year? Seems like it realy started dying in mid to late 87.

I imagine most of the continued sales were in europe.

[atarian63]

Colecovision owners come here to flamewar 5200 owners.

 

AtariAge sells ColecoVision Homebrews, and even has a forum for Coleco Programming. Said forum was link #2 when I Googled "ColecoVision Programming", so between the homebrews and the forum it's not at all surprising that somebody interested in the ColecoVision would find AtariAge.

 

Just imagine if Atari Age started selling C64 homebrew... the fights that'd start after that!!

 

(i think i'm the only C64 coder here with homebrew cartridges to his name...? =-)

Maybe but why not?

It would be kind of ironic to use profits from c64 soft sales to support ATARI stuff!

[Heaven/TQA]

If the thread stayed on topic, I would agree. The poster asked the Atari 8 bit forum which of the titles released on both Atari 8 bit and Commodore 64, the Atari version was better. A pro-Atari 8 bit subject. A look at the Atari 8 bit in a positive light, in the Atari 8 bit forum. Makes sense to me.

 

Shame it went down the tubes within the first couple of pages after an Atarian started using it as an excuse to give the C64 a kicking then, really...

 

It's just that this thread is like a car accident that you feel compelled to stare at, sucking energy from other positive threads.

 

To be honest, i disagree because i've seen more interest in the A8 on a technical level from this single thread than anything else around it; feck it, i've already got the domain registered for an entire site dedicated to this kind of discussion and if i ever get the damned templates done... =-)

 

yeah, the technical bits and pieces are ok... but is it 10% of the whole thread??? ;=)

[atariksi]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

 

No, another fact twisted with a biased mentality and the myth of C64 being more expensive being propated. I purchased my Atari 800 for $899 and around that time C64 was around $500. Just doing some random searches on the internet is not going to help. You have compare prices at same time from start of marketing of C64 and onwards where the starting is more significant. What the heck is the point of finding some expensive prices if the C64 is already flooded the market (i.e., inferior product has already saturated the market and left no choice to the competitor but to drop prices and take losses).

and that is exactly correct! Well put!

 

Many products take over markets that way. Breyers ice-cream is very expensive but it's better than most other brands that cost like half the amount. Of course, I wait for bargains to come along (but that doesn't make them cheap).

[+wood_jl]

Tell me, in all seriousness, if you SINCERELY believe that Rockford, Oswald, and Wolfram own Ataris.

 

Considering how popular the VCS was, it's entirely possible they had one or played one at a friend's house.

 

Indeed. However, the relevance of that to coming here in 2009 to kick A8 users is - at the very least - in question. Does the fact that they played a 2600 once justify an eternal anti-A8 flame war? (In an Atari-8 forum, within an Atari site,no less)

 

Colecovision owners come here to flamewar 5200 owners.

 

AtariAge sells ColecoVision Homebrews, and even has a forum for Coleco Programming. Said forum was link #2 when I Googled "ColecoVision Programming", so between the homebrews and the forum it's not at all surprising that somebody interested in the ColecoVision would find AtariAge.

 

Likewise, does that justify fanatical Colecovision owners to flame poor A5200 enthusiasts, in an A5200 forum within an Atari site? Please justify.

 

Just curious: You like the 2600 but you don't like the similar 400/800? Why not?

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing I've ever said against the 400/800 was that I disliked the 400's membrane keyboard. I even added ATASCII support to my MusicTerm software so I could call a friend's BBS that was run on an Atari. In this post I posted links to support Allas' post about the Atari's use of artifact colors(Allas was responding to Barnacle boy's post w/monochrome screenshots of Nebulous).

 

No, I didn't mean to suggest you were "anti" A8. It just didn't seem on your radar screen, and the 2600 and Commodore seems to be in a big way, and it was sheer curiosity as to the jump. No offense intended: merely curious. I certainly have respect, esp. as you turned me onto the "Mega Cart" for Vic-20 which is a barrel of 8-bit fun. [i suggest everybody check out the Mega Cart for Vic-20 as it is a game-changer for Vic] A far cry from flame, it was totally worthwhile Commodore advocacy - which is cool.

[+wood_jl]

[

The problem with a thread with "Vs" in the title though is you're asking for trouble. Within the first page there's already someone saying the A8 is a more powerful machine and someone asking them to quantify it. Off topic within 20 posts, what else can you expect for the next 400+ pages

 

Hah! You certainly are correct, sir! What's funny is that - to most of the participants of this thread - the thread itself is, somehow, one of the most interesting places to go ON THE ENTIRE INTERNET, or they wouldn't be here. That says something, as the net is a big place. I think everybody in this thread - regardless of their opinion - are most likely (in the grander scheme of things) more alike than different. After all, in this era, what percentage of (overall) computer enthusiasts are so excited by 8-bit hardware - to the point they want to debate? Certainly a minority. All the guys at work care about is the latest Nvidia/ATI cards and respective first-person-shooter performance, etc. They think this old stuff is "gay." (not my term - that's how young people talk nowdays)

 

Having said all that, I hope the thread doesn't get locked, and I suggest all participants realize they're ALL in a small boat of (sadly) waning 8-bit enthusuasm, which should be a theme of unity instead of devisiveness, whether you prefer A8 or C64. Everyone in this thread is part of an 8-bit lunatic fringe, considering the modern era. Ain't it grand?

[TMR]

To be honest, i disagree because i've seen more interest in the A8 on a technical level from this single thread than anything else around it; feck it, i've already got the domain registered for an entire site dedicated to this kind of discussion and if i ever get the damned templates done... =-)

 

yeah, the technical bits and pieces are ok... but is it 10% of the whole thread??? ;=)

 

That doesn't matter, as long as the thread itself isn't somehow harming the rest of the message board and as long as Albert doesn't have an issue with it, there's that percentage of technical detail, another percentage taken up by actually comparing games and the rest is just a delivery system. =-)

[TMR]

Indeed. However, the relevance of that to coming here in 2009 to kick A8 users is - at the very least - in question. Does the fact that they played a 2600 once justify an eternal anti-A8 flame war? (In an Atari-8 forum, within an Atari site,no less)

 

As someone else has pointed out, people drifted in from other interest areas because the site's own "related threads" feature (speaking of which, is it just the proxy i'm currently behind or has that disappeared?) pointed this one out. If you're a C64 user in another part of the message board and a thread pops up where some rabid Atarian is dribbling about how nothing to do with the C64 is any good, that's more than enough reason to stick an oar in.

 

Wandering into someone else's forum isn't something that Atarians are innocent of though, the one that always springs to mind was about four years ago but someone from Atari Times went around a few of the Commodore forums posting what was essentially flame bait about the "article" where Charles Gray and Carmel Andrews accused Commodore of reverse engineering Atari kit.

[Barnacle boy]

That's one of the nice features of the 64 that I've always liked, having that available mix of hi and low res elements would be something I'd love the A8 to have available (amongst others ). It's possible to a degree with some cpu grunt to mix modes on the same scanline exploiting the well known GTIA quirk of course. I did the Chimera picture below this way a few years back.

 

So, the restrictions of our colour usage in hi-res can be overcome somewhat with miscanline mode and colour changes along with pm under/over lays which you can see some examples from Tebe below.

 

Certainly some good examples there... just a couple of years ago, if someone had shown me those pics and asked me to guess what platform they were on, I would never have guessed the Atari. Nowadays, I know better.

 

Actually, that's something for Atari lovers to bear in mind when feeling like they have c64 lovers crawling through their windows and scuttling down their chimney. Somewhere, amidst all the hoo-hah, info is exchanged and maybe horizons are broadened a little. You can bet that if I encounter someone else on another forum who says something like 'The Atari can only display two shades of the one colour in hires', I'll be piping up with 'Well, that's not really true!' etc etc...

 

As for c64 owners signing up to defend the honour of the c64 - no doubt there have been a few. Considering the link to this thread was posted over on lemon64 months ago, it's almost surprising that there haven't been more righteous defenders mounting their 8-bit steeds. (hmm... now there's a metaphor that doesn't bear close inspection.)

 

But that's bound to happen, isn't it? I don't think any of the pro-c64 guys are wanting (let alone expecting) Atari fans to forgo their preference and prostrate themselves at the Commie alter. But dagnabbit, that doesn't mean they're going to sit quietly if some posters decide that the best way to praise the Atari is to say crazy misleading or inaccurate things about the c64. I mean, I signed up back in 2007. Normally I just lurk - maybe drop by every couple of weeks to see what's up in Atariland. I even watched this thread stagger along for more than 80 pages before some wild claim finally drove me to dig out my password and sign in. Hell, I'm only human!

 

 

 

Nevertheless, there are no rabid Atari users over there attacking Commodore users, so the question still stands why the opposite is so common here. Just inviting speculation as to why that is constantly the case. Rabid goes both ways, it seems, but somehow the rabid Atari users don't "invade" Commodore forums for the sole purpose of flamewar; I'd say Atari Age is a reasonable place for them.

 

There are a couple of other possibilities to consider. I don't know if they're correct, or even likely, but they're possibilities:

 

a) Maybe the Atari isn't discussed much on c64 forums.

b) Maybe when it is, there aren't many posters making outrageously flamebaity anti-Atari posts likely to goad wandering Atari fans into wanting to set the record straight.

 

Or maybe there are simply more c64 fans out there (consider how many millions of units were sold), so whereas a 'vs' discussion like this on a c64 forum might see a couple of Atari fans enter the fray, when it goes the other way, you get a minivan full of c64 fans on your doorstep (although as has been mentioned, it seems that most of the ones in this thread were already Atariage members).

Edited October 13, 2009 by Barnacle boy

[Rockford]

 

XL machines in 84 were being liquidated at a loss by cheap ass Jack Tramiel from Commodore.

Actually the machines were not at a loss as he got the companie for a song and a dance,but there were better machines than the c64 so it was quite a bargain. I believe consumer reports in the us said in 84 or 85 the 800xl was a best buy!

This is all different than the 1982 to 84 interation of the poor quality and cheaply made c64.

 

so again for the hard of hearing apparently..

 

in late 1984 the "superior" 800xls were being liquidated at £130 and in the middle of '85 the "cheaply made crap old c64" were starting to sell like hot cakes at £175-200. what exactly does that do to your constantly repeated theory of the 64 outselling the a8 simply because it was cheaper. because it obviously wasn't the case.

 

A800 was contemporary of C64. 800XL came later. There were a bunch of ads in magazines and the prices clearly were higher for A8s.

 

So anyone thinking A8s were cheaper than C64s is doing something wrong in his analysis.

 

 

 

XL machines in 84 were being liquidated at a loss by cheap ass Jack Tramiel from Commodore.

Actually the machines were not at a loss as he got the companie for a song and a dance,but there were better machines than the c64 so it was quite a bargain. I believe consumer reports in the us said in 84 or 85 the 800xl was a best buy!

This is all different than the 1982 to 84 interation of the poor quality and cheaply made c64.

 

so again for the hard of hearing apparently..

 

in late 1984 the "superior" 800xls were being liquidated at £130 and in the middle of '85 the "cheaply made crap old c64" were starting to sell like hot cakes at £175-200. what exactly does that do to your constantly repeated theory of the 64 outselling the a8 simply because it was cheaper. because it obviously wasn't the case.

Facts are facts C64 started as the cheapo model, poorly made and sold cheap, that continued until Jack Tramiel sold liquidation 800xl's for a dump price, Quite a great deal for users considering the superior quality.

Also sold boatloads of 800xl's during 85 and 86, like a semi load every other week.C64 on the otherhand slowed down during this period.People are cheap.

So it actually was the case.

 

Atariksi is partially wrong, whereas atarian63 is completely wrong again. Let's facts talk for themselves.

 

ATARI 800 XL

"The 800XL has sold almost 500,000 units through 1984" --Atari's Sigmund Hartmann, Atari Explorer magazine, Summer 1985, p. 33.

 

"By the end of 1984, the Atari 800XL will have sold more than 600,000 units since its introduction more than a year ago, according to Kenneth Lim of Dataquest, a market research firm in San Jose." InfoWorld January 7/14, 1985”

 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/atari-8-bit/faq/section-95.html

 

COMMODORE 64

During the Commodore 64's lifetime, sales totalled 17 million units, making it the best-selling single personal computer model of all time. For a substantial period of time (1983-1986), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with between 30% and 40% share and 2 million units sold per year, outselling the IBM PC clones, Apple computers, and Atari computers. Sam Tramiel, a former Atari president said in a 1989 interview "When I was at Commodore we were building 400 000 C64s a month for a couple of years."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64

 

So, in other words it means that in 2 months Commodore sold more C64s than Atari A800XLs in its whole market lifetime (it was replaced by 65XE in 1985), even though ATARI 800 XL was cheaper than C64 :!: Atari 65 XE (US$99.95) was even cheaper than ATARI 800 XL but the most striking fact was that ATARI 130 XE with 128kb RAM was also cheaper (it cost US$149.95.) than C64 :!: It didn't help at all and C64 dominated the market till the end of both computers. C64 was indeed cheaper than ATARI 800 (NOT 800 XL) and ATARI 1200 XL (which was a flop) only in the short period of time (1 year, from September 1982 till fall 1983). From that point of time (800XL launch), ATARI was always a cheaper choice. So, let’s compare – 1 year of C64 cheapness contra 8 years of A8 cheapness (ATARI stopped production in 1991, Commodore did it 2 years later). These are hard facts based on reality. Like them or not.

Wrong again as usual..or always

The price drop happened after Atari had been sold and Commode had had 2-3 years of software dev and cheapo sales to build a user base, by that time it did not matter if Tramiels dropped the price or remade the unit to be more cost effective (i.e. cheap like c64) the game was up by then. The damage from the crash to atari's reputation did them in. C64 up until the tramiel/atari price drop/dump was always the cheaper choice. Though quality was always sketchy at best.

These are the actual facts from someone who sold and serviced both throughout the entire period.

It’s pointless explaining anything to you, because you simply don’t read. I provided (many times) the link that shows the chronological history of ATARI 8bit. There are many data in the text and I know it’s hard to read, but at least try. After all, it’s the history of your beloved computer, not mine. Let's back to facts:

 

1981

 

May 5: At the National Computer Conference in Chicago, Atari announced that

the 8K Atari 400 was being discontinued and that the price on the 16K version

was being reduced to US$399 (was US$630); also, the 400 would no longer be

sold with the Atari BASIC cartridge and the Atari BASIC: A Self-Teaching Guide

book. Other price reductions: CX852 8K RAM module now US$49.95 (was

US$124.95), CX853 16K RAM module now US$99.95 (was US$199.95), 820 printer now

US$299.95 (was US$449.95). Also introduced: Personal Financial Management

System, Dow Jones Investment Evaluator, Atari Microsoft BASIC,

Macro Assembler and Program-Text Editor.

 

December 30: Atari said that it would cut the retail price for the 800 home

computer (with 16K RAM) to US$899 from US$1,080.

 

1982

 

June 6-9: At the Summer CES in Chicago Atari announced Atari Speed Reading

(US$74.95), Music Tutor I (would ship in 1983 as AtariMusic I), Juggles'

House, Juggles' Rainbow, TeleLink II (US$79.95), and the Communicator II kit

(new 835 modem + Telelink II) (US$279.95). Atari also announced the new

retail price for the 400 computer was US$349 (previously, US$399).

(CC Oct82 p180)

 

Fall: The suggested retail price for the Atari 800 was US$679 with 48K RAM

standard (previously: US$899/16K). The Atari 400 retail price was US$299

(previously, $349).

 

1983

 

January: The retail price for the Atari 800 (with 48K RAM, without Atari

BASIC) was reduced from US$679 to US$499. The retail price for the Atari 400

was reduced from US$299 to US$199.

 

May: The retail price for the Atari 400 was reduced from US$199 to US$100.

 

September: The Atari 800 (with 48K RAM, without Atari BASIC) would now retail

for US$165 while supplies lasted.

 

1984

 

July 1: Agreed on this date, effective June 30, the assets of the Atari home

computer and home video game businesses were sold by Warner Communications to

Tramel Technology Ltd., which had been formed on May 17, 1984 by its chairman

and CEO Jack Tramiel (pronounced truh-MELL), the founder and former president

of Commodore International. The transaction included exclusive use of the

"Atari" name and "Fuji" logo in the home computer and home video game markets,

along with the intellectual property rights (patents, trademarks, and

copyrights) owned by Atari in conjunction with its home computer and home

video game businesses. The home computer and home video game rights to Atari

coin-operated arcade games developed to date were included as well.

 

It clearly proves that the price drop also happened before Atari was sold to Tramiel. Reading is knowing, so next time, read and check before posting please, because I’m not going to lead you by the hand anymore and I don't get paid to endlessly correct your mistakes. This will also save everyone a lot of time. Thank you.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Rockford

[Rockford]

And one more thing, the substantial price drop (before Tramiel bought ATARI) didn't help at all and ATARI went into bankruptcy anyway.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Rockford

[Gury]

And one more thing, the substantial price drop (before Tramiel bought ATARI) didn't help at all and ATARI went into bankruptcy anyway.

Same with Commodore.

[Rybags]

The Atari was practically always more expensive than the C64.

 

I think at one point, the 800 might have been on par, but still you have a 16K shortfall and have to fork out the extra for Basic.

 

It wasn't until Tramiel had the company for a while that he undercut the C64. I can remember Compute running the column ads which had the 130XE about level, by that stage both were well under $250 (or even $200), and all the focus was on ST and Amiga anyway.

[Rockford]

And one more thing, the substantial price drop (before Tramiel bought ATARI) didn't help at all and ATARI went into bankruptcy anyway.

Same with Commodore.

Oh dear...what a fantasy In the 1984 (when Tramiel bought dying Atari), Commodore was flourishing. After all, Tramiel had money because of the Commodore success.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Rockford

[Gury]

Then, after Tramiel left, Commodore didn't know clearly how to sell out C16, C116 and Commodore Plus/4 series, which followed by its collaps. C128 came to late.

[Rockford]

Then, after Tramiel left, Commodore didn't know clearly how to sell out C16, C116 and Commodore Plus/4 series, which followed by its collaps. C128 came to late.

HOLY COW !!! Haven't you heard about Amiga ?

[Gury]

I did. I mean, both companies were slowly dying anyway.

[Rockford]

I did. I mean, both companies were slowly dying anyway.

Yes, but I was talking about 1984. At that time Atari was on its knees, while Commodore ruled the 8bit world.

[Rybags]

Not really... both were going OK until 1989 or so.

 

The failure of the Plus/4 and 16 probably barely made a dent.

 

The real failure in both cases was keeping the Amiga and ST up with what PC and clones were doing.

[Gury]

I did. I mean, both companies were slowly dying anyway.

Yes, but I was talking about 1984. At that time Atari was on its knees, while Commodore ruled the 8bit world.

No, not true. Atari 8-bit home computer was still there. It lasted to the end of 1991 with XE line. Nop, C64 didn't rule, it was time for 16/32 bit technology.

[Rockford]

Not really... both were going OK until 1989 or so.

 

The failure of the Plus/4 and 16 probably barely made a dent.

 

The real failure in both cases was keeping the Amiga and ST up with what PC and clones were doing.

Nope check the sales rates. Besides, if Tramiel hadn't bought ATARI, it would habe been the deceased in 1984.

[Rockford]

I did. I mean, both companies were slowly dying anyway.

Yes, but I was talking about 1984. At that time Atari was on its knees, while Commodore ruled the 8bit world.

No, not true. Atari 8-bit home computer was still there. It lasted to the end of 1991 with XE line. Nop, C64 didn't rule, it was time for 16/32 bit technology.

ONLY BECAUSE JACK TRAMIEL (COMMODORE MAN) BOUGHT DYING ATARI AND MADE XE LINE. WITHOUT HIM IT WOULN'T HAVE HAPPENED. JACK WAS ABLE TO DO IT, BECAUSE HE HAD ENOUGH MONEY HAD EARNED THANKS TO COMMODORE SUCCESS. I COULDN'T WRITE IT ANY SIMPLER.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Rockford

[Gury]

Not really... both were going OK until 1989 or so.

 

The failure of the Plus/4 and 16 probably barely made a dent.

 

The real failure in both cases was keeping the Amiga and ST up with what PC and clones were doing.

Nope check the sales rates. Besides, if Tramiel hadn't bought ATARI, it would habe been the deceased in 1984.

Atari 8-bit is still better overall machine than C64.

[Rockford]

Not really... both were going OK until 1989 or so.

 

The failure of the Plus/4 and 16 probably barely made a dent.

 

The real failure in both cases was keeping the Amiga and ST up with what PC and clones were doing.

Nope check the sales rates. Besides, if Tramiel hadn't bought ATARI, it would habe been the deceased in 1984.

Atari 8-bit is still better overall machine than C64.

WOW considering the fact that we are talking about who bought who, when and why, that's the crucial argument,

[Atarigmr]

Not really... both were going OK until 1989 or so.

 

The failure of the Plus/4 and 16 probably barely made a dent.

 

The real failure in both cases was keeping the Amiga and ST up with what PC and clones were doing.

Nope check the sales rates. Besides, if Tramiel hadn't bought ATARI, it would habe been the deceased in 1984.

Atari 8-bit is still better overall machine than C64.

WOW considering the fact that we are talking about who bought who, when and why, that's the crucial argument,

 

Just to underline the "overall machine" bit.