Atari v Commodore

[Artlover]

Smaller and lighter equals less materials used in construction and less channel operation cost. It's cost reduction 101 and the reason that cheap, thin plastic and barely-meets-the-FCC regulation RF shielding is the norm. It's not what customers want beyond the fact that it makes the unit cheaper and more affordable.

So Atari did the same thing for the 800XL then, and I'm to assume that customers didn't want that either?

 

 

Atari used a crappy keyboard on their first computer, and fixed it on their second. CBM was using real keyboards on their first computer.

Only in terms of considering 400 first and 800 second. My mistake. I was wrong there.

 

To that end (since someone else wanted to turn it in this direction): Who was using real keyboards first. Sorry, not false. CBM PET was using a real keyboard by 1978. A year before the 800.

 

I see you can make any unit the "first" and then build a straw man argument around it. Okay, since you want the Atari 400 to be Atari's “first” so very, very badly, let's compare it to the KIM-1, which I will arbitrarily state is Commodore's “first.”

 

Hmm... looks like the 400 has the better keyboard after all.

I already conceeded to being wrong on the 400 first issue. It's even right there. That nice little trickery of yours there in taking two quotes from two different messages (one of which was already replied too) and combining them into one (stripping out from when and which post it was made) just for the purpose of making your "I so very very badly" remark doesn't go unnoticed and is not appreciated.

 

I'm not cheating and skewing your or anyone elses quotes for the purpose of making comments that don't reflect what has transpired.

 

If that's how you're going to play, then I'm done with responding to you.

[HiroProX]

Smaller and lighter equals less materials used in construction and less channel operation cost. It's cost reduction 101 and the reason that cheap, thin plastic and barely-meets-the-FCC regulation RF shielding is the norm. It's not what customers want beyond the fact that it makes the unit cheaper and more affordable.

So Atari did the same thing for the 800XL then, and I'm to assume that customers didn't want that either?

 

 

No, because in the case of the C64, it was a breadbox. The XL line was just dead sexy.

[Allas]

Just for fun. This magazine is from 1983, look at the table comparing features, a C64 cost $199 and an Atari 800 with only 48K cost $500, the 1200XL cost $800

Easy can see why C64 sold million of units.

 

[potatohead]

I'll second that one also.

 

Love the XL line. They should have stuck with those design ideas. Given the cost reductions, they were a good overall compromise.

 

--->and who's dissing the 400? The thing rules! Sure, it's got the coke proof keyboard, but otherwise it's very futuristic and powerful looking. And as a gaming machine, at the time, it was without peer. Gotta put that one into context. It's not really the "serious" computer, but the gaming, fun, entertainment computer. Looks it too.

 

For gaming, the keyboard is reasonable. For anything else, it JUST SUCKS though. Blech...

[atarian63]

Was that the argument?

I got one of these ugly C64 I models (brown, bread box style)

Seems to have been mentioned.

 

 

Your claim was laid out and refuted in very short order. I appreciate you trying to salvage some level of parity here, (height is similar, color is similar, etc) but let's keep in mind your original premise was not "Let's agree the C64/Atari 800 are about the same", It was "Let's at least agree the C64 was sleeker/nicer than the Atari 800"

It was more about refuting the repeated claims that the Atari was sleeker/nicer then the C64, which is valid only when you get to the XL series. When it comes to the original 800, yeah, I do believe there is evidence supporting that the C64 is sleeker/nicer.

 

1: It's smaller and lighter. Same qualities Atari apparently thought were important and implimented on the XL and later computers.

2: It's lower - ergo, more egonomic by some of the same critera A8'ers use to judge.

 

 

 

Can't honestly compare things if you are going to use a double standard in order to satisfy your bias.

So you do understand!

Beyond my claim that the C64 is more ergonomic then the original 800, which I do find hard to argue given the above, when have I ever tried to claim the C64 was "better" then the A8? I've always been in the camp that realisticly, they are pretty much both the same in the end. Most of my replies are strictly a matter of trying to dismiss claims that the A8 is better, but rather are mostly equal. There are too many biased C64'ers in this thread grasping at straws all the same as A8'ers in some asinine contest to think they are better too. Given most of the replies here, I tend to believe I'm the least biased person here.

 

Oh, I did mention Zaxxon too, but that was actually 100% on topic with the intent of this thread by the OP too. Tho to be honest, I don't see why the A8 version was as bad as it was as I believe it could have done better.

 

Why exactly is it so important for either side to think they are "better" anyways? Is everyone on both sides really that insecure about their choices?

 

I have, like, and use(d) both. Both have their good & bad points, both can more or less do the same thing. They are in the same league meant to compete with one another. How anyone can quanitivly call one better then the other is ridiculous and futile.

 

 

Atari used a crappy keyboard on their first computer, and fixed it on their second. CBM was using real keyboards on their first computer.

Wow, square one city! Short summary of the past 10 pages:False.

Only in terms of considering 400 first and 800 second. My mistake. I was wrong there.

 

To that end (since someone else wanted to turn it in this direction): Who was using real keyboards first. Sorry, not false. CBM PET was using a real keyboard by 1978. A year before the 800.

Though nobody cared as it did not sell (CBM)

[FastRobPlus]

Smaller and lighter equals less materials used in construction and less channel operation cost. It's cost reduction 101 and the reason that cheap, thin plastic and barely-meets-the-FCC regulation RF shielding is the norm. It's not what customers want beyond the fact that it makes the unit cheaper and more affordable.

So Atari did the same thing for the 800XL then, and I'm to assume that customers didn't want that either?

 

 

Atari used a crappy keyboard on their first computer, and fixed it on their second. CBM was using real keyboards on their first computer.

Only in terms of considering 400 first and 800 second. My mistake. I was wrong there.

 

To that end (since someone else wanted to turn it in this direction): Who was using real keyboards first. Sorry, not false. CBM PET was using a real keyboard by 1978. A year before the 800.

 

I see you can make any unit the "first" and then build a straw man argument around it. Okay, since you want the Atari 400 to be Atari's “first” so very, very badly, let's compare it to the KIM-1, which I will arbitrarily state is Commodore's “first.”

 

Hmm... looks like the 400 has the better keyboard after all.

I already conceeded to being wrong on the 400 first issue. It's even right there. That nice little trickery of yours there in taking two quotes from two different messages (one of which was already replied too) and combining them into one (stripping out from when and which post it was made) just for the purpose of making your "I so very very badly" remark doesn't go unnoticed and is not appreciated.

 

I'm not cheating and skewing your or anyone elses quotes for the purpose of making comments that don't reflect what has transpired.

 

If that's how you're going to play, then I'm done with responding to you.

 

Sorry, If I try and reply to each straw man individually I'd use up my ISPs bandwidth!

 

 

Smaller and lighter equals less materials used in construction and less channel operation cost. It's cost reduction 101 and the reason that cheap, thin plastic and barely-meets-the-FCC regulation RF shielding is the norm. It's not what customers want beyond the fact that it makes the unit cheaper and more affordable.

So Atari did the same thing for the 800XL then, and I'm to assume that customers didn't want that either?

I see what you did there. The ol' "I'm done with you now, so I'll just get one parting shot in a little higher up in the post so you can't reply."

Anyway, here's the reply:

Please carefully re-read what I have already written something like two or three times now. We - and by this I mean the entire electronics industry - are only just recovering from the massive cost reduction push that traces its roots back to Commodore that the entire home PC market had no choice but to follow if they were to stay competitive. The 800XL is an Atari 1200XL that has been cost reduced to be as competitive in Jack Tramiel's "Computers are War!" world as it could be. Cheaper plastics, less shielding, etc. That said, you have to admit there was a bit more effort put into aesthetics than Commodore could muster. Did customers want less shielding? Did customer's want a less heavy-duty chassis? Do customer's ever want less?

Sony removed hardware backward compatibility from the PS3 last year. Did customers want that? Was cost no factor? The Atari XL lost its 3rd and 4th joystick ports. Do you think this was due to a write-in campaign from customers telling Atari "Please remove the extra ports, we'll buy more systems if you do!"

Edited December 9, 2008 by FastRobPlus

[atarian63]

Smaller and lighter equals less materials used in construction and less channel operation cost. It's cost reduction 101 and the reason that cheap, thin plastic and barely-meets-the-FCC regulation RF shielding is the norm. It's not what customers want beyond the fact that it makes the unit cheaper and more affordable.

So Atari did the same thing for the 800XL then, and I'm to assume that customers didn't want that either?

 

 

Atari used a crappy keyboard on their first computer, and fixed it on their second. CBM was using real keyboards on their first computer.

Only in terms of considering 400 first and 800 second. My mistake. I was wrong there.

 

To that end (since someone else wanted to turn it in this direction): Who was using real keyboards first. Sorry, not false. CBM PET was using a real keyboard by 1978. A year before the 800.

 

I see you can make any unit the "first" and then build a straw man argument around it. Okay, since you want the Atari 400 to be Atari's “first” so very, very badly, let's compare it to the KIM-1, which I will arbitrarily state is Commodore's “first.”

 

Hmm... looks like the 400 has the better keyboard after all.

I already conceeded to being wrong on the 400 first issue. It's even right there. That nice little trickery of yours there in taking two quotes from two different messages (one of which was already replied too) and combining them into one (stripping out from when and which post it was made) just for the purpose of making your "I so very very badly" remark doesn't go unnoticed and is not appreciated.

 

I'm not cheating and skewing your or anyone elses quotes for the purpose of making comments that don't reflect what has transpired.

 

If that's how you're going to play, then I'm done with responding to you.

The 800xl was light years better in construction than C64, at least they used actual steel sheilding, the c64 used tinfoil cardboard, it was laughable

[Godzilla]

my god this thread is insane i can't keep up with it, it's like a giant monster. I have to hunt back just to find all the responses

 

So, in a nutshell, yes, nothing like numen on the c64. Imho, those modes, the colors, computer speed etc. (the things that heaven/tqa) talked about (that the c64 can't do,) are what (on a hardware level,) makes the a8bits superior to the c64.

 

I consider slinging 3d on an 'ol 8bit to be kinda the ultimate 'muscle test' if you will and (as examples,) I've never seen anything on the c64 as fast or as smooth as on the a8bit (eidolon, fractalus, numen, the new space harrier, etc.)

 

Their 2d capabilities seem to come out about equal, (with a great coder, that is.) with the c64s tile/scrolling advantage vs. the a8bits color/speed advantage. In 2d, it is a lot easier to look better on a c64. But the really great stuff doesn't seem demonstrably better on one or the other (though i personally prefer the more colorful look of the a8bit stuff.)

[+warerat]

Just for fun. This magazine is from 1983, look at the table comparing features, a C64 cost $199 and an Atari 800 with only 48K cost $500, the 1200XL cost $800

Easy can see why C64 sold million of units.

 

 

ENTER. I remember reading that as a kid and thinking it was one of the worst magazines ever! I remember my folks plopping down $599 for the 800.

[Artlover]

I see what you did there. The ol' "I'm done with you now, so I'll just get one parting shot in a little higher up in the post so you can't reply."

No, it's about not wishing to deal with people who will deliberately modify quotes for the sole purpose of making sarcastic statements that they couldn't have otherwise made.

 

That whole "since you want the Atari 400 to be Atari's “first” so very, very badly" was uncalled for, since I ALREADY said I was wrong. You even quoted me saying I was wrong about that. As a matter of fact, thats the very same quote you tweaked just so you could say what you said.

 

If you want to debate, then debate. But I'm not going to be your toy so you can play games.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Artlover

[Fröhn]

The 800xl was light years better in construction than C64, at least they used actual steel sheilding, the c64 used tinfoil cardboard, it was laughable

But it did it's job. And btw, C64C, C64G, C128, C128D, C128DCR all had metal shieldings. Only the early C64s had that paper stuff.

[guyjin]

Just for fun. This magazine is from 1983, look at the table comparing features, a C64 cost $199 and an Atari 800 with only 48K cost $500, the 1200XL cost $800

Easy can see why C64 sold million of units.

 

 

That article is awesome, thanks for sharing

 

I find it amusing that, even though people talk about the C64 like it was the best gaming computer ever, the article lists its 'game/educational software availability' as "fair" - compared to the Atari 8-bits and Apple ]['s "excellent". (then again, it was 4 years newer than either...)

[aftermac]

Just for fun. This magazine is from 1983, look at the table comparing features, a C64 cost $199 and an Atari 800 with only 48K cost $500, the 1200XL cost $800

Easy can see why C64 sold million of units.

 

 

That article is awesome, thanks for sharing

 

I find it amusing that, even though people talk about the C64 like it was the best gaming computer ever, the article lists its 'game/educational software availability' as "fair" - compared to the Atari 8-bits and Apple ]['s "excellent". (then again, it was 4 years newer than either...)

 

I agree, the article was fun to read. I would have loved to have had any of them when I was a kid in the 80's... specifically an Apple IIe, C64, or Atari 800.

[Goochman]

15 - POPEYE

 

Atari screenshots

 

A lot of fun with this game, one of my favorites arcades on my Atari and C128. Atari version is very playable and fast, despite the low resolution, the programmer did a great job. C64 version is too slow, and it's not according to the feel of arcade version.

 

C64 screenshots

 

Allas,

 

These are some of the best posts in this thread

[FastRobPlus]

Just for fun. This magazine is from 1983, look at the table comparing features, a C64 cost $199 and an Atari 800 with only 48K cost $500, the 1200XL cost $800

Easy can see why C64 sold million of units.

 

That article is awesome, thanks for sharing

 

I find it amusing that, even though people talk about the C64 like it was the best gaming computer ever, the article lists its 'game/educational software availability' as "fair" - compared to the Atari 8-bits and Apple ]['s "excellent". (then again, it was 4 years newer than either...)

 

Yeah, that's funny and a neat microcosm of the customer at the time. Interesting how the 3 Atari computers have different features; The 1200 has "good" software availability versus the 800 with "excellent". Are they trying to say that incompatibilities are large enough on the 1200 that it reduced the software basse? Perhaps the ROM chages or the loss of joystick ports?

[potatohead]

my god this thread is insane i can't keep up with it, it's like a giant monster. I have to hunt back just to find all the responses

 

So, in a nutshell, yes, nothing like numen on the c64. Imho, those modes, the colors, computer speed etc. (the things that heaven/tqa) talked about (that the c64 can't do,) are what (on a hardware level,) makes the a8bits superior to the c64.

 

I consider slinging 3d on an 'ol 8bit to be kinda the ultimate 'muscle test' if you will and (as examples,) I've never seen anything on the c64 as fast or as smooth as on the a8bit (eidolon, fractalus, numen, the new space harrier, etc.)

 

Their 2d capabilities seem to come out about equal, (with a great coder, that is.) with the c64s tile/scrolling advantage vs. the a8bits color/speed advantage. In 2d, it is a lot easier to look better on a c64. But the really great stuff doesn't seem demonstrably better on one or the other (though i personally prefer the more colorful look of the a8bit stuff.)

 

IMHO, this is a fairly rational way to look at things. As with all things, we have differences though. I think the Atari scrolling capabilities are excellent compared to C64. Doesn't do tiles as good however. Still, both are competitive, which is why I liked your quote. A great developer can probably get it done on either machine well enough to impress, leaving the differences as minor.

 

Numen is really a benchmark in a lot of ways. I sometimes like to go and show off 8 bit stuff to people, who are into computers, but who may not appreciate their roots. I think if we were to go through a set of demos, for capabilities, Numen does set Atari apart in a definitive way. Lots of sprites can be done on Apple ][, and it can look really good, by way of taking your post into some context. Go play ROBOTRON on the Apple someday. All of you would be impressed at that title, on such an old, unassisted machine. Examples through 2D all play out much the same.

 

Well done man. Nicely done, and this thread 'aint easy to sort out.

 

(and remember I do enjoy the C64 a lot! It's a fun machine, particularly some of the later titles.)

[FastRobPlus]

The 800xl was light years better in construction than C64, at least they used actual steel sheilding, the c64 used tinfoil cardboard, it was laughable

 

I forgot about that! It gave a new meaning to burn-in! I think I'm spoiled by my SX-64s.

[potatohead]

It's worth noting the SX-64 is just excellent! Packs a hell of a punch even today, for that cool factor. Wanted one huge back then. Trendy stuff. Lots of people talked about them.

 

Wonder if an Atari Franken-case mod isn't in order here! (ducks!) We can spare just one right?

[FastRobPlus]

It's worth noting the SX-64 is just excellent! Packs a hell of a punch even today, for that cool factor. Wanted one huge back then. Trendy stuff. Lots of people talked about them.

 

Wonder if an Atari Franken-case mod isn't in order here! (ducks!) We can spare just one right?

 

There was a proto mockup of a portable Atari 65XEP that's a kockoff of the SX-64 made under the Tramiel era. That would be the ultimate for me.

[Bryan]

Just for fun. This magazine is from 1983, look at the table comparing features, a C64 cost $199 and an Atari 800 with only 48K cost $500, the 1200XL cost $800

Easy can see why C64 sold million of units.

The big thing Commodore did was make it unprofitable for most people to be in the computer business. Either you were willing to take minuscule profits and fight for market share or you simply got out. Commodore owned their own chip fab and changed the game entirely. No matter where you rank it among other computers, the 64 was a hell of a deal.

[atarian63]

The 800xl was light years better in construction than C64, at least they used actual steel sheilding, the c64 used tinfoil cardboard, it was laughable

But it did it's job. And btw, C64C, C64G, C128, C128D, C128DCR all had metal shieldings. Only the early C64s had that paper stuff.

The c64 had it for Years and years, the models you mention were much later in the c64's life, the vast majority of the c64s were the cardboard foil type, in other works cheap. How else can you sell a machine for $199 in a $599 to $800 age? You have to make shortcuts and leave things out from a quality standpoint.

[atarian63]

Just for fun. This magazine is from 1983, look at the table comparing features, a C64 cost $199 and an Atari 800 with only 48K cost $500, the 1200XL cost $800

Easy can see why C64 sold million of units.

The big thing Commodore did was make it unprofitable for most people to be in the computer business. Either you were willing to take minuscule profits and fight for market share or you simply got out. Commodore owned their own chip fab and changed the game entirely. No matter where you rank it among other computers, the 64 was a hell of a deal.

From a dealers standpoint the commodore was a wreck, it did not make profits for us, to the contrary it was a hassle due to high defect rates, software returns, piracy etc. It became a low priority for us as it was a low margin high problem item. We had a Kmart next door that sold C64's, I knew the manager and he showed me the mounds of defective C64's they had. Not to mention returns direct to commodore for big box retailers were non existent. They gave them an extra 5% off for defects up front,which was a bad deal for the big box retailers. The defect rate was much higher.

We bought ours through the distributor channel. They eventually stopped accepting returns as they were getting killed with defects. Tramiel pulled this same stuff when he bought Atari.

So they certainly had a new scheme for making pc's, make them as cheap as possible, try to deflect the ton's of returns, price is all that matters. Sadly the consumer agreed.

Edited December 9, 2008 by atarian63

[atarian63]

It's worth noting the SX-64 is just excellent! Packs a hell of a punch even today, for that cool factor. Wanted one huge back then. Trendy stuff. Lots of people talked about them.

 

Wonder if an Atari Franken-case mod isn't in order here! (ducks!) We can spare just one right?

Gotta give you that one, it was a cool box and much nicer and not cheap feeling.

[atarian63]

Just for fun. This magazine is from 1983, look at the table comparing features, a C64 cost $199 and an Atari 800 with only 48K cost $500, the 1200XL cost $800

Easy can see why C64 sold million of units.

 

 

That article is awesome, thanks for sharing

 

I find it amusing that, even though people talk about the C64 like it was the best gaming computer ever, the article lists its 'game/educational software availability' as "fair" - compared to the Atari 8-bits and Apple ]['s "excellent". (then again, it was 4 years newer than either...)

In 1983 there was virtually nothing in software for the c64, it was new and had no following yet. Atari had been at it since 78-79 and there were tons of titles. Made no difference, that $199 price changed things. Still not sure why apple was able to ride it out, back in the day it was considered an overpriced crappy pc, only good for kiddie edu stuff.

[FastRobPlus]

Just for fun. This magazine is from 1983, look at the table comparing features, a C64 cost $199 and an Atari 800 with only 48K cost $500, the 1200XL cost $800

Easy can see why C64 sold million of units.

The big thing Commodore did was make it unprofitable for most people to be in the computer business. Either you were willing to take minuscule profits and fight for market share or you simply got out. Commodore owned their own chip fab and changed the game entirely. No matter where you rank it among other computers, the 64 was a hell of a deal.

From a dealers standpoint the commodore was a wreck, it did not make profits for us, to the contrary it was a hassle due to high defect rates, software returns, piracy etc. It became a low priority for us as it was a low margin high problem item. We had a Kmart next door that sold C64's, I knew the manager and he showed me the mounds of defective C64's they had. Not to mention returns direct to commodore for big box retailers were non existent. They gave them an extra 5% off for defects up front,which was a bad deal for the big box retailers. The defect rate was much higher.

We bought ours through the distributor channel. They eventually stopped accepting returns as they were getting killed with defects. Tramiel pulled this same stuff when he bought Atari.

So they certainly had a new scheme for making pc's, make them as cheap as possible, try to deflect the ton's of returns, price is all that matters. Sadly the consumer agreed.

 

It could also be argued that this is what eventually killed Commodore. They got lucky when they got the Amiga, but what did they do with it? Mainly, they cost reduced it and tried to repeat the sucess of the C64 even as the home computer age was coming to a close.