What COULD the 5200 have done?

[kenfused]

 

I ask because again, I just cannot- after over two decades- shake the feeling that the 7800 just wasn't that big a leap from the 5200, especially when I see games like Pengo.

 

Have you played 5200/8 bit Pengo? It looks good but IMO it plays really slow, and slows down when more snow bees are on screen. 5200 Mario Bros is similar to me in that it seems sluggish. Both use bitmapped graphics modes and some softsprites which probably contributes a lot to that (Although Donkey Kong also uses a bitmapped mode and it plays really well).

[mellis]

1) Atari showed no concern for 5200 owners- their customers- by just dumping the 5200. Really, did any 5200 owner ask them to do that, or did Atari in effect tell its customers what they wanted? AND- what they were going to get, whether they wanted it or not. In the Dilbert comics, deciding what customers want by asking marketing "experts" is called a "one-off" activity, which can doom a company. Scott Adams could have been writing about 1984 Atari.

 

While I feel that Warner should have kept going with the 5200 (the expansion port on the back is just BEGGING to be used), they did have a plan to keep 5200 owners from being orphaned. Warner intended to release the Slam-PAM, and it would have allowed the 5200 to also play 2600 and 7800 games. I was a 5200 owner back then, and I was drooling over that adapter (and being able to play all of the games on one system).

 

Of course, the Tramiels killed that whole plan.

[DracIsBack]

A few things to consider here with regards to all systems:

 

1. Many of them were never pushed as far as they could go. Perhaps the 5200 could pull off ALIEN BRIGADE like the 7800? On the other hand, is ALIEN BRIGADE the best the 7800 could do either? I'm not convinced either the 5200 or 7800 (or the Colecovision) were 'pushed to the max' during their lifetimes.

 

2. One of the things that constrained all three systems (regardless of graphics hardware) was that their original publishers didn't use cartridges with a lot of storage space. The 7800 used bankswitching more than the other two, but Tramiel was too cheap too pay to build really big cartridges like you saw on the NES and SMS. Could the 5200, Colecovision and 7800 have more sophisticated games with bankswitched 512K cartridges? Sure.

 

3. Homebrewers have a few inherent advantages over original coders from back in the day. Making a game is a labor of love and not necessarily 'time' and 'budget'. That's why it's cool to see Opcode, GroovyBee and all the others sit down and squeeze out great games you didn't expect. No one is telling them, "you've got to learn this system and have this game done in three months". There's also the advantage of having modern development tooling, graphics software and techniques to factor in when developing. Would any 2600 developers back in 1981 even comprehended doing digitized video on the 2600 like Andrew Davie did? This isn't a slam on original developers, but rather pointing out that digital video techniques were common place in 2003, but pretty unheard of in 1981.

[Lynxpro]

Hardly.

 

1) Atari showed no concern for 5200 owners- their customers- by just dumping the 5200. Really, did any 5200 owner ask them to do that, or did Atari in effect tell its customers what they wanted? AND- what they were going to get, whether they wanted it or not. In the Dilbert comics, deciding what customers want by asking marketing "experts" is called a "one-off" activity, which can doom a company. Scott Adams could have been writing about 1984 Atari.

 

 

For all the stupid things Warner Atari [and Tramiel Atari after that] did, I wouldn't count that one. There was concern for the 5200 owners; Atari planned a 7800 adapter for them.

 

The 7800 was meant to save Atari in the video game field. If it was cheaper to build and yet still more powerful - except for sound - than the 5200, then why would Atari continue to pump out the 5200 which natively lacked compatibility with Atari's most successful product [the 2600]? Far too many 2600 owners had already jumped to the CV because the CV had the 2600 adapter out first before Atari could do the same for the 5200; Atari didn't need to bleed more of those owners. Plus, going with the 7800 would've silenced any of the remaining bickering from the computer division continuing to complain that the 5200 was cannibalizing sales of the XL computers. It was only because the release of the 7800 got held up - for various reasons - over 2 years which led many of the remaining 2600 owners to jump ship to the NES. Had Warner Atari remained en-tact and gave a full push for the 7800 in 84/85, the NES would not have been a success.

 

 

And with Coleco and Intellivision for all intents and purposes dead, Atari would've had the remnants of the industry all to itself.

 

 

However, since the 7800 got held up until 1986, I really would've liked to see what the console could've done had Atari Corp. bumped up its memory to 16k/32k/48k/64k and popped in a worthy sound chip such as the POKEY, Dual POKEYs, or even the AMY. As it stands, the NES was not more powerful than the 7800 except for the ability to move the background easily and the standard sound being better. The NES memory was weak.

 

 

What I do not understand was the lack of complaints from the Atari 8-bit computer owners in not demanding that the MARIA chip not being offered as an upgrade to their computers. I cannot recall any articles in any of the magazines about that. I do remember bickering from 8-bit and ST owners in the AMY chip not being finished at the time, but then again, maybe that was from people at user's group meetings and on certain BBSes. Maybe there was some on Compuserve, Delphi, or GEnie, but I never had memberships so I cannot comment on that...

[GroovyBee]

What I do not understand was the lack of complaints from the Atari 8-bit computer owners in not demanding that the MARIA chip not being offered as an upgrade to their computers.

 

The display list format of the 7800's MARIA is not compatible with A8's ANTIC. Therefore all software using display lists would have to be rewritten. Most games companies would not support anything but the base machine back in the day so such an upgrade (even if technically possible) would not get much support from the commercial sector.

[Ransom]

That's why it's cool to see Opcode, GroovyBee and all the others sit down and squeeze out great games you didn't expect.

 

Is that really how it's done??

[GroovyBee]

That's why it's cool to see Opcode, GroovyBee and all the others sit down and squeeze out great games you didn't expect.

 

Is that really how it's done??

 

It is indeed!

[CV Gus]

Hardly.

 

1) Atari showed no concern for 5200 owners- their customers- by just dumping the 5200. Really, did any 5200 owner ask them to do that, or did Atari in effect tell its customers what they wanted? AND- what they were going to get, whether they wanted it or not. In the Dilbert comics, deciding what customers want by asking marketing "experts" is called a "one-off" activity, which can doom a company. Scott Adams could have been writing about 1984 Atari.

 

 

For all the stupid things Warner Atari [and Tramiel Atari after that] did, I wouldn't count that one. There was concern for the 5200 owners; Atari planned a 7800 adapter for them.

 

The 7800 was meant to save Atari in the video game field. If it was cheaper to build and yet still more powerful - except for sound - than the 5200, then why would Atari continue to pump out the 5200 which natively lacked compatibility with Atari's most successful product [the 2600]? Far too many 2600 owners had already jumped to the CV because the CV had the 2600 adapter out first before Atari could do the same for the 5200; Atari didn't need to bleed more of those owners. Plus, going with the 7800 would've silenced any of the remaining bickering from the computer division continuing to complain that the 5200 was cannibalizing sales of the XL computers. It was only because the release of the 7800 got held up - for various reasons - over 2 years which led many of the remaining 2600 owners to jump ship to the NES. Had Warner Atari remained en-tact and gave a full push for the 7800 in 84/85, the NES would not have been a success.

 

 

And with Coleco and Intellivision for all intents and purposes dead, Atari would've had the remnants of the industry all to itself.

 

 

However, since the 7800 got held up until 1986, I really would've liked to see what the console could've done had Atari Corp. bumped up its memory to 16k/32k/48k/64k and popped in a worthy sound chip such as the POKEY, Dual POKEYs, or even the AMY. As it stands, the NES was not more powerful than the 7800 except for the ability to move the background easily and the standard sound being better. The NES memory was weak.

 

 

What I do not understand was the lack of complaints from the Atari 8-bit computer owners in not demanding that the MARIA chip not being offered as an upgrade to their computers. I cannot recall any articles in any of the magazines about that. I do remember bickering from 8-bit and ST owners in the AMY chip not being finished at the time, but then again, maybe that was from people at user's group meetings and on certain BBSes. Maybe there was some on Compuserve, Delphi, or GEnie, but I never had memberships so I cannot comment on that...

 

 

 

You are only looking at it from the Atari perspective.

 

Again, remember that the 5200 was only released less than 18 months before they decided to dump it. What had changed so much in just 18 months that they just HAD to do it? Didn't they see it wouldn't work in 1982? Was it a bad idea after all? If so, then the CV must have REALLY pounded the 5200 in sales; did it?

 

When Atari released the 5200, they were committed. That was it. To have dumped it so soon was to betray the TRUST- and that is the thing here- the TRUST of their customers.

 

Back in 1984, Atari 5200 owners felt abandoned and betrayed by Atari. They had lost much of the trust. This would be a millstone around the 7800's neck, because people would wonder if Atari was going to dump that, too.

 

But again, Fate forced Atari's hand in 1982. The CV was coming out, and the 2600 was inferior to it; if Atari wanted to try and win that generation of gaming, they had to have something, and even late 1983 would have been too late (even the head start the CV got on the 5200 gave it an edge the 5200 never overcame).

 

So- the 5200. And that was it. They'd made their move. But when they decided it wasn't a good one, they wanted to, in effect, take it back. Only consumers didn't want to play anymore. And who could blame them? Atari shafted too many people even by then.

 

Atari's only chance was to stick it out with the 5200, and possibly, in the meantime, strengthen the 7800 prototype, so when it would eventually be released, it would be better able to handle what was out there by then.

 

And although Coleco itself was gone, someone else carried on with the CV, don't forget. This was why it was being advertised AFTER 1984, even.

 

Look- I know the 7800 had technical advantages over the 5200. But does this apply in ALL areas, or only certain ones? In either case, then by how much? And, aside from sound, did the 5200 have any advantages? Was it easier to program? If so, then practical business considerations come into play here- just as if the CV could do smooth scrolling, but it would take too much more work and time, then schedules and budgets might make it prohibitive. You also have to look at all of this from the perspective of 1984, since that was a key year in all of this.

 

Overall, it just seems as though games on the 5200 are more vibrant, and I prefer it over the 7800.

Edited March 20, 2010 by CV Gus

[GroovyBee]

You are only looking at it from the Atari perspective.

 

And you aren't looking at it from a ColecoVision prospective?

 

Was it easier to program?

 

This is subjective. Unless you have experience of both systems at the same time with a set goal to achieve on each you can't answer it. All game programmers are not created equal. What is simple to programmer A is hard to programmer B.

[DracIsBack]

The point is this: if in fact the 7800 is not as superior to the 5200 as many thought (myself included- GroovyBee, what kind of version of Sirius do you think the 5200 could have done? A good one? Do you have any "samples" of what the 5200 could do?), then that decision made back then was even more ridiculous than I believed.

 

Comparing modern CV homebrews with games from 25+ years on the 7800 isn't a very good comparison in my opinion. How about you tell me if the following games (developed by me - I'll take the flak) could be done exactly as shown in the images on the 5200 :-

 

 

If we add in the Colecovision as well, maybe then CV Gus will quit starting these same threads over and over, year in and year out ... and just get back to enjoying video games!

 

But to make this truly fair, GroovyBee, you have binaries for the Worm game and Apple Snaffle but not the Halloween game. People who can answer this question should be able to try it in order to give thoughts!

 

On this silly topic, I just remembered this site from a few years ago.

 

http://www.atarihq.com/5200/cv52/

Edited March 20, 2010 by DracIsBack

[GroovyBee]

But to make this truly fair, GroovyBee, you have binaries for the Worm game and Apple Snaffle but not the Halloween game. People who can answer this question should be able to try it in order to give thoughts!

I also have binaries for quite a few other things too .

[kool kitty89]

Again, remember that the 5200 was only released less than 18 months before they decided to dump it. What had changed so much in just 18 months that they just HAD to do it? Didn't they see it wouldn't work in 1982? Was it a bad idea after all? If so, then the CV must have REALLY pounded the 5200 in sales; did it?

Who says they were going to dump it? There's every indication that Atari intended to continue support, release upgrades (including the 7800 adapter), etc.

 

The thing is, Atari was already pretty screwed up due to previous management issues, and with their own collapse and related crash in '83, that brought the problems to a crest. There was a chance for Atari to get rebuilt into a lean, streamlined company through James Morgan's efforts, but Warner decided to get out of the business and sell Atari (without the knowledge of Morgan or Atari Inc -relating in some litigation by some Atari Inc personnel)

 

So Atari Inc never got a chance to dump anything, Warner decided to dump the whole company; and of course, it was Warner pushing the 7800 to Atari, not purely Atari. (GCC's association was with Warner, NOT, Atari Inc, hence a lot of the problems with the 7800 when Tramiel came in -a lot of nitty gritty over who actually had he rights tot he 7800 that had to get worked out before it could finally be released)

 

Back in 1984, Atari 5200 owners felt abandoned and betrayed by Atari. They had lost much of the trust. This would be a millstone around the 7800's neck, because people would wonder if Atari was going to dump that, too.

How do you know this, did you perform a study surveying 5200 owners, or have access to such a study?

Again, the plan with Warner Atari was to release an adapter for the 7800 on the 5200, thus 5200 owners could then play games for a 3 Atari consoles on one system.

 

But again, Fate forced Atari's hand in 1982. The CV was coming out, and the 2600 was inferior to it; if Atari wanted to try and win that generation of gaming, they had to have something, and even late 1983 would have been too late (even the head start the CV got on the 5200 gave it an edge the 5200 never overcame).

Why are you ignoring the Intellivision, that had a ton to do with it as well, if not more than the CV...

 

So- the 5200. And that was it. They'd made their move. But when they decided it wasn't a good one, they wanted to, in effect, take it back. Only consumers didn't want to play anymore.

Who's "They" Warner or Atari? It was Warner who got the 7800 presented to them by GCC, and Warner who then pushed it to Atari, an independent initiative by GCC due to the flaws they saw with the 5200 (compatibility, cost, size, etc).

If you look back, Atari had their own Sylvia design in the works in 1980 (lower cost and backwards compatible), but that was dropped due to time constraints and competition by the Intellivision. (CV was most definitely a non-issue in 1080/81)

They probably could have had the 5200 out sooner and with fewer problems if it had been a direct conversion of the 8-bit computers, just hardware incompatible (different cart slot, no SIO) to keep it separate -having lockout would have been significant too. (to save on cost, they probably could have had the consolidated board design in parallel with the XL project)

 

Atari's only chance was to stick it out with the 5200, and possibly, in the meantime, strengthen the 7800 prototype, so when it would eventually be released, it would be better able to handle what was out there by then.

In light of the Crash, that wasn't too likely. Backing off on the 5200 and 2600 as quickly as possible would have been the only option there to minimize losses, and of course the reformation Morgan was working on (but Warner truncated). The best bet durring the crash was competing in the home computer game market, but the problem there is that they'd already screwed up a fair bit with their transition to the XL line, putting them in a pad position relative to commodore. (the 1200XL debacle and then the loss of the 1983 holiday season due to the hold on producion across the board necessary for Morgan to assess the problems he needed to confront) That's a major argument toward the 5200 being a full 8-bit computer, like the XEGS, it would have been in the perfect situation to weather the crash. (problems being with Atari inter-division conflicts and lack of lock-out, though the latter is a nonissue compared to the historical 5200, and Atari still saturating the 2600 was a big problem)

 

I agree that holding off on the 7800 and beefing it up a bit might have been an interesting option. (simplest enhancements would be adding POKEY and having more RAM) In light of the crash, holding off for a 1985 release might have been prudent. (8-16 kB would have been nice -especially considering some later games included a big chunk of RAM too, like Summer/Winter games)

 

And although Coleco itself was gone, someone else carried on with the CV, don't forget. This was why it was being advertised AFTER 1984, even.

Just like the Intellivision. (which supposedly sold as many units under Intev post crash as Mattel had)

 

Look- I know the 7800 had technical advantages over the 5200. But does this apply in ALL areas, or only certain ones? In either case, then by how much? And, aside from sound, did the 5200 have any advantages? Was it easier to program? If so, then practical business considerations come into play here- just as if the CV could do smooth scrolling, but it would take too much more work and time, then schedules and budgets might make it prohibitive. You also have to look at all of this from the perspective of 1984, since that was a key year in all of this.

Sound is a given (lacking POKEY on-cart), but other issues are lack of standard character or graphics modes on the 7800 compared to the 5200 which supports both. (I think some 7800 games may have used on-cart RAM to allow for bitmap graphics) MARIA is apparently rather tricky to work with compared to contemporaries (well, not so much compared to the 2600), but it's capabilities are generally different than what the 5200 does; so like most comparisons there's no finite "better" or "worse" blanket statement, rather a list of trade-offs.

[+wood_jl]

I see many formidable replies by very intelligent members to this thread. My advice is for you to save your time. The entire point of this thread is just to create an opportunity to scream out "The Colecovision pounded the Atari 5200 in sales" or perhaps just "The Colecovision pounded the Atari 5200." It's been over a quarter-century since that time, it's totally irrelevant in today's retro-scene. I don't understand the obsession with bringing this up.....over and over and over and over....

 

I really think the Colecovision is cool; I wanted one and never had one. I see extremely cool things being done with it; I see programmers on here making awesome games, I see people restoring and improving it. I love this stuff. I keep buying other stuff instead, but a part of me will never be satisfied until I get one, I am beginning to think. That having been said, WHY THE HELL DOES THIS "DEBATE" KEEP HAVING TO GO ON? It's just plain silly! silly silly silly!

[GroovyBee]

Sound is a given (lacking POKEY on-cart), but other issues are lack of standard character or graphics modes on the 7800 compared to the 5200 which supports both.

 

The 7800 has both bitmap graphics and character/text modes.

 

(I think some 7800 games may have used on-cart RAM to allow for bitmap graphics)

 

You don't need RAM in a cart for bitmap graphics. If you want to recreate a pixel by pixel modified frame buffer then yes, it is required.

 

MARIA is apparently rather tricky to work with compared to contemporaries (well, not so much compared to the 2600), but it's capabilities are generally different than what the 5200 does

 

MARIA isn't tricky to deal with at all in my opinion. If you understand arrays and pointers (as used in a language like "C") you can make it do interesting things very quickly.

[jetset]

I see many formidable replies by very intelligent members to this thread. My advice is for you to save your time. The entire point of this thread is just to create an opportunity to scream out "The Colecovision pounded the Atari 5200 in sales" or perhaps just "The Colecovision pounded the Atari 5200." It's been over a quarter-century since that time, it's totally irrelevant in today's retro-scene. I don't understand the obsession with bringing this up.....over and over and over and over....

 

I really think the Colecovision is cool; I wanted one and never had one. I see extremely cool things being done with it; I see programmers on here making awesome games, I see people restoring and improving it. I love this stuff. I keep buying other stuff instead, but a part of me will never be satisfied until I get one, I am beginning to think. That having been said, WHY THE HELL DOES THIS "DEBATE" KEEP HAVING TO GO ON? It's just plain silly! silly silly silly!

 

It's fun to argue! Seriously, yea it is pretty apparent the same person continuously stirring the same pot but it gets tons of replies. It's just another cat vs dog, pc vs mac, democrat vs republican debate. So long as it doesn't get personal there's no harm done imo.

 

I'm in the 5200 camp but love my CV just as much, and HIGHLY recommend you get one! Even without the new stuff it's a great system, and a retro collection without one is just not right.

[DracIsBack]

Who says they were going to dump it? There's every indication that Atari intended to continue support, release upgrades (including the 7800 adapter), etc.

 

There was actually some indication at the time that they were dumping this. Here's an article circa 1984:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/22/business/atari-video-game-unit-introduced.html

 

"Company officials disclosed for the first time yesterday that the 5200 is no longer in production, and Atari appears to be selling off its inventory.

 

Sound is a given (lacking POKEY on-cart)

 

One important element that is sometimes forgotten is what GCCs original sound strategy actually was for the 7800. The 7800 had TIA sound first because they wanted the system to have 2600 compatibility and second because of cost savings (the 7800 reused an existing case and there wasn't room).

 

GCC recognized that the sound was subpar but also that not all games required enhanced sound. That is why cartridges were deliberately designed to include sound chips if required. POKEY was in right out of the gate, as demonstrated by the fact that Ballblazer (originally intended to be a near launch title) had it. However, they had been working on a low-cost sound chip called GUMBY to make it more cost effective to do this.

 

When Tramiel took over, that all disappeared. The only other game to use POKEY at all was COMMANDO, which made use of both the TIA and the POKEY for six channels of sound.

 

 

On the issue of RAM, one thing I've always wondered was if memory prices at the time caused manufacturers to reduce the amount of RAM in consoles? The NES, 7800 and (I think) SMS all have less RAM than the 5200.

[kool kitty89]

I see many formidable replies by very intelligent members to this thread. My advice is for you to save your time. The entire point of this thread is just to create an opportunity to scream out "The Colecovision pounded the Atari 5200 in sales" or perhaps just "The Colecovision pounded the Atari 5200." It's been over a quarter-century since that time, it's totally irrelevant in today's retro-scene. I don't understand the obsession with bringing this up.....over and over and over and over....

 

I really think the Colecovision is cool; I wanted one and never had one. I see extremely cool things being done with it; I see programmers on here making awesome games, I see people restoring and improving it. I love this stuff. I keep buying other stuff instead, but a part of me will never be satisfied until I get one, I am beginning to think. That having been said, WHY THE HELL DOES THIS "DEBATE" KEEP HAVING TO GO ON? It's just plain silly! silly silly silly!

The whole point is moot though since there aren't solid sales figures for either available, or at least not yet discovered. (like emerged for the 7800)

 

The 7800 has both bitmap graphics and character/text modes.

 

(I think some 7800 games may have used on-cart RAM to allow for bitmap graphics)

 

You don't need RAM in a cart for bitmap graphics. If you want to recreate a pixel by pixel modified frame buffer then yes, it is required.

... I always seem to screw up when talking about MARIA... but in the latter case, I was talking about a framebuffer arrangement. (I'm not sure if that's what the 16 kB in summer/winter games is used for though)

Edited March 21, 2010 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

Who says they were going to dump it? There's every indication that Atari intended to continue support, release upgrades (including the 7800 adapter), etc.

 

There was actually some indication at the time that they were dumping this. Here's an article circa 1984:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/22/business/atari-video-game-unit-introduced.html

 

"Company officials disclosed for the first time yesterday that the 5200 is no longer in production, and Atari appears to be selling off its inventory.

Was Atari still producing the 2600 at that time? It was the midst of the crash, and I'd though it was a similar case with that as well, it could have made sense to halt production of all the game systems at the time to avoid overstock. Wasn't Atari Crop still selling off stockpiled 2600s and 5200 for a good while later. (the 2600 Jr's release in mid 1985 would probably give some indication that they still weren't overstocked by then though)

 

Even if they had indeed decided to discontinue manufacturing of the 5200, that still wouldn't change the planned Slam-PAM module to bridge the gap for 5200 owners. (especially those who hadn't bought the VCS adapter already)

 

 

 

Sound is a given (lacking POKEY on-cart)

 

One important element that is sometimes forgotten is what GCCs original sound strategy actually was for the 7800. The 7800 had TIA sound first because they wanted the system to have 2600 compatibility and second because of cost savings (the 7800 reused an existing case and there wasn't room).

 

GCC recognized that the sound was subpar but also that not all games required enhanced sound. That is why cartridges were deliberately designed to include sound chips if required. POKEY was in right out of the gate, as demonstrated by the fact that Ballblazer (originally intended to be a near launch title) had it. However, they had been working on a low-cost sound chip called GUMBY to make it more cost effective to do this.

Yes, but the whole thing about the sound expansion being used on cart is a bit sloppy, or at very least planning such to be used for most games. In the case of POKEY, if even 1 popular game used it on-cartridge, that's enough to merit it being onboard the console (for pure cost reasons), yet 2 big games used POKEY. Not only that, but having POKEY onboard the main unit would also have allowed for its use for polling pots and reading keys (for the keyboard expansion -if provisions had been made for such). Supporting audio expansion on the cart slot wasn't a bad idea in general (the Famicom used it well, though the NES removed that feature), but it really would make more sense with POKEY there from the start. (something like a YM2413 on-cart later on would be an interesting possibility though, or GUMBY/MINI from GCC for added channels)

 

Lack of PCB space (and using the 2800's case) is often cited as a reason for POKEY not being included, but at worst, POKEY could have been included on a riser board and later incorporated onto the main board. (in fact, I think early revisions already use a riser board for some components, and later rivisions seem to have a bit more board space open too)

 

On the issue of RAM, one thing I've always wondered was if memory prices at the time caused manufacturers to reduce the amount of RAM in consoles? The NES, 7800 and (I think) SMS all have less RAM than the 5200.

For one thing the 8-bit computers and 5200 used DRAM, while the 7800 (and NES) used SRAM, so the cost would be much higher for the 7800 to use that much RAM at the time. (or suffer lower bandwidth from slow DRAM -I don't think incorporating DRAM refresh circuitry would have been too much of an issue though)

The SMS (and SG-1000 and ColecoVision) do have more RAM than the 5200, albeit only when including video RAM, each have 16 kB of DRAM for the VDP (I think the VDP includes the refresh circuitry), I think all of these (SMS, SG-1000, and CV) use SRAM for main memory, though the SMS has 8 kB to the SG 1000's 2 and CV's 1 kB. (except I think the CV actually has 8kB of SRAM chips onboard, but has them mirrored to the same 1 kB address -I'm not entirely sure why that was done)

 

Still, a later release (or later planned release, as the 7800 wasn't properly launched until '86) would have facilitated using more RAM. (like 1 or 2 8kB chips instead of the 2 2kB ones)

[+wood_jl]

It's fun to argue! Seriously, yea it is pretty apparent the same person continuously stirring the same pot but it gets tons of replies. It's just another cat vs dog, pc vs mac, democrat vs republican debate. So long as it doesn't get personal there's no harm done imo.

 

I'm in the 5200 camp but love my CV just as much, and HIGHLY recommend you get one! Even without the new stuff it's a great system, and a retro collection without one is just not right.

 

Agreed, it's always interesting. What is objectionable is when an intended flamewar thread like this is started by masquerading under the guise of an "innocent" question about the 5200. If flamewar is desired (and it obviously is) then why not just start another "Colecovision vs. ___________" thread? Oh, there have been too many of those? Rather, just insult the intelligence of everybody with some mocked interest in the 5200, then [not so subtly although thought to be] segue into the TRUE point of this thread - dissing on Atari and/or 5200 - as is so typically done HERE:

Again, remember that the 5200 was only released less than 18 months before they decided to dump it. What had changed so much in just 18 months that they just HAD to do it? Didn't they see it wouldn't work in 1982? Was it a bad idea after all? If so, then the CV must have REALLY pounded the 5200 in sales; did it?

 

When Atari released the 5200, they were committed. That was it. To have dumped it so soon was to betray the TRUST- and that is the thing here- the TRUST of their customers.

 

All the while, ignoring stuff that can't be answered like THIS, which was ignored:

 

Just how much effort does extensive backgrounds take from a 7800- even if it does redraw things automatically? And what if you want to change something in the background?

That's too vague a question to give you an definitive answer. It would be better of you described the problem in terms of colour depth, sprite sizes, game scenario etc.

 

I have more respect for balls-out-from-the-getgo flamewar threads like the infamous "Atari vs. Commodore" thread here, which billed itself as such, and hid behind nothing.

[ZylonBane]

MARIA isn't tricky to deal with at all in my opinion.

So requiring the programmer to juggle lists of lists of lists for something as trivial as moving a sprite up and down the screen isn't "tricky" in your opinion?

[Lynxpro]

Who says they were going to dump it? There's every indication that Atari intended to continue support, release upgrades (including the 7800 adapter), etc.

There was actually some indication at the time that they were dumping this. Here's an article circa 1984:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/22/business/atari-video-game-unit-introduced.html

"Company officials disclosed for the first time yesterday that the 5200 is no longer in production, and Atari appears to be selling off its inventory.

Sound is a given (lacking POKEY on-cart)

One important element that is sometimes forgotten is what GCCs original sound strategy actually was for the 7800. The 7800 had TIA sound first because they wanted the system to have 2600 compatibility and second because of cost savings (the 7800 reused an existing case and there wasn't room).

GCC recognized that the sound was subpar but also that not all games required enhanced sound. That is why cartridges were deliberately designed to include sound chips if required. POKEY was in right out of the gate, as demonstrated by the fact that Ballblazer (originally intended to be a near launch title) had it. However, they had been working on a low-cost sound chip called GUMBY to make it more cost effective to do this.

When Tramiel took over, that all disappeared. The only other game to use POKEY at all was COMMANDO, which made use of both the TIA and the POKEY for six channels of sound.

On the issue of RAM, one thing I've always wondered was if memory prices at the time caused manufacturers to reduce the amount of RAM in consoles? The NES, 7800 and (I think) SMS all have less RAM than the 5200.

 

 

There are many flaws in the strategy of loading carts with POKEY chips instead of the console itself from the start.

 

First, without a standard POKEY, you can't do straight sound ports from the Atari 8-bit computer versions [for the games that already existed on the 8-bit] so that means extra cost in creating new substandard audio on 7800 games.

 

Second, by having to add the POKEY to actual carts, you reduce profits on those game sales. It is better to sell the console itself for cost and/or at a small loss and make up for it on profits per cart sold.

 

Tramiel Atari Corp. blew it when they tried to compete with Nintendo on the cheap. The 2 year hold up was detrimental enough without Jack Tramiel blundering every step of the way after going ahead with the release. The 7800 could've received a revision to include a POKEY and added memory. Had Tramiel not sued the company that ended up improving on the AMY chip, that could've been used not only in the 8-bit computer line and the ST line, it could've been used on certain cartridge releases on the 7800 to further improve its sound. Forget GUMBY.

[kool kitty89]

Tramiel Atari Corp. blew it when they tried to compete with Nintendo on the cheap. The 2 year hold up was detrimental enough without Jack Tramiel blundering every step of the way after going ahead with the release.

I don't think Nintendo has much to do with the 7800s eventual release, though they were competition, of course. Atari Corp showed an interest in selling game systems prior to that, other than selling off remaining A.Inc hardware stock (and manufacturing some odds and ends to complete packaging -like 5200 controllers iirc), they completed the 2600 Jr. project and released it in mid 1985, before Nintendo even made the (unsuccessful) test market in New York. I believe Curt and Marty have pointed this out several times before.

 

However, the bigger issue, and one to only become clearer with some recent information Curt Vendel uncovered (and has yet to grace Atarimuseum), is that the main reason for the protracted release of the 7800 was not due to Tramie's dislike for games, but rather contention over who's property the 7800 was as the contract was between GCC and Warner, not Atari Inc. and it took a while for things to get straightened out. (there's a lot of conflicting anecdotal information on this, but at lot of that can be explained by selective memory recalled many years after the event, and partial stories -the latest information comes from official Atari Corp documents and correspondence)

 

The 7800 could've received a revision to include a POKEY and added memory.

One problem with that is, by summer of 1984 (before TTL's buyout), the 7800 already had the press release as well as a small test market, stockpiled consoles, and parts ready for more consoles to be manufactured, so it was a bit late for that by then.

 

Had Tramiel not sued the company that ended up improving on the AMY chip, that could've been used not only in the 8-bit computer line and the ST line, it could've been used on certain cartridge releases on the 7800 to further improve its sound.

I'm not aware of many specifics of the Amy chip other than the design team being among those who left after TTL acquired Atari Inc's consumer divisions (like the designers of the Sierra/Gaza/Rainboe etc chipsets) and that Tramiel attempted to have his own engineers complete Amy, and failed. I think AMY would have been most important with the ST. (but getting into that, there's the various 16-bit chipsets that Atari had prototyped already, but became lost in the formation of Atari Corp -which appear to be a good bit more capable than the ST -though sme may have been more expensive than Tramiel was aiming for)

[atariksi]

Who says they were going to dump it? There's every indication that Atari intended to continue support, release upgrades (including the 7800 adapter), etc.

 

There was actually some indication at the time that they were dumping this. Here's an article circa 1984:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/22/business/atari-video-game-unit-introduced.html

 

"Company officials disclosed for the first time yesterday that the 5200 is no longer in production, and Atari appears to be selling off its inventory.

Was Atari still producing the 2600 at that time? It was the midst of the crash, and I'd though it was a similar case with that as well, it could have made sense to halt production of all the game systems at the time to avoid overstock. Wasn't Atari Crop still selling off stockpiled 2600s and 5200 for a good while later. (the 2600 Jr's release in mid 1985 would probably give some indication that they still weren't overstocked by then though)

 

Even if they had indeed decided to discontinue manufacturing of the 5200, that still wouldn't change the planned Slam-PAM module to bridge the gap for 5200 owners. (especially those who hadn't bought the VCS adapter already)

 

...

That article can be interpreted in many ways. It certainly doesn't indicate dumping the A5200 technology; in fact it's clearly stating not as powerful as a computer and the only computer at that time was based on A800 chipset (same technology as A5200). And it's pointing out some keyboard which never came about for 7800 so just some speculative ideas nothing concrete to be taken over and above the reality that A5200 was there in millions of homes and wasn't just going to get tossed. And another point to be noted is that even when newer model machines are introduced if they are backward compatible, it's not really dumping of the previous technology. XEGS came out much later so the 5200 essence continued. Whether 7800 was supposed to carry the 5200 compatibility would have to be considered when reading that article.

 

 

Sound is a given (lacking POKEY on-cart)

 

One important element that is sometimes forgotten is what GCCs original sound strategy actually was for the 7800. The 7800 had TIA sound first because they wanted the system to have 2600 compatibility and second because of cost savings (the 7800 reused an existing case and there wasn't room).

 

GCC recognized that the sound was subpar but also that not all games required enhanced sound. That is why cartridges were deliberately designed to include sound chips if required. POKEY was in right out of the gate, as demonstrated by the fact that Ballblazer (originally intended to be a near launch title) had it. However, they had been working on a low-cost sound chip called GUMBY to make it more cost effective to do this.

Yes, but the whole thing about the sound expansion being used on cart is a bit sloppy, or at very least planning such to be used for most games. In the case of POKEY, if even 1 popular game used it on-cartridge, that's enough to merit it being onboard the console (for pure cost reasons), yet 2 big games used POKEY. Not only that, but having POKEY onboard the main unit would also have allowed for its use for polling pots and reading keys (for the keyboard expansion -if provisions had been made for such). Supporting audio expansion on the cart slot wasn't a bad idea in general (the Famicom used it well, though the NES removed that feature), but it really would make more sense with POKEY there from the start. (something like a YM2413 on-cart later on would be an interesting possibility though, or GUMBY/MINI from GCC for added channels)

 

Lack of PCB space (and using the 2800's case) is often cited as a reason for POKEY not being included, but at worst, POKEY could have been included on a riser board and later incorporated onto the main board. (in fact, I think early revisions already use a riser board for some components, and later rivisions seem to have a bit more board space open too)

 

On the issue of RAM, one thing I've always wondered was if memory prices at the time caused manufacturers to reduce the amount of RAM in consoles? The NES, 7800 and (I think) SMS all have less RAM than the 5200.

For one thing the 8-bit computers and 5200 used DRAM, while the 7800 (and NES) used SRAM, so the cost would be much higher for the 7800 to use that much RAM at the time. (or suffer lower bandwidth from slow DRAM -I don't think incorporating DRAM refresh circuitry would have been too much of an issue though)

The SMS (and SG-1000 and ColecoVision) do have more RAM than the 5200, albeit only when including video RAM, each have 16 kB of DRAM for the VDP (I think the VDP includes the refresh circuitry), I think all of these (SMS, SG-1000, and CV) use SRAM for main memory, though the SMS has 8 kB to the SG 1000's 2 and CV's 1 kB. (except I think the CV actually has 8kB of SRAM chips onboard, but has them mirrored to the same 1 kB address -I'm not entirely sure why that was done)

 

Still, a later release (or later planned release, as the 7800 wasn't properly launched until '86) would have facilitated using more RAM. (like 1 or 2 8kB chips instead of the 2 2kB ones)

 

POKEY is one thing lacking, but lack of RAM also makes graphics suffer on A7800 although A5200 never took full advantage of bigger scrolling areas and interlaced modes especially GTIA. And nor did they take advantage of A5200's SIO/expansion port. So I would say A5200 has superior technology than A7800 although it wasn't taken advantage of in existing games. It would have been better if they included ANTIC/GTIA along with Maria on 7800; i.e., make 7800 compatible with 5200 with audio being an option via cartridge-based POKEYs. It seems they were caught in between maintaining 5200 compatbility and introducing a new 7800 system that was incompatible so 7800 was pushed back.

[DracIsBack]

in fact it's clearly stating not as powerful as a computer and the only computer at that time was based on A800 chipset (same technology as A5200).

 

That's very much a marketing response ('positioning' relative to the other products in the line) and not an engineering one. Otherwise, the 7800 with a keyboard could have been confusing to consumers alongside the line of 8-bit computers, software, and peripherals in market and planned. This could have disrupted a range of business.

[GroovyBee]

So requiring the programmer to juggle lists of lists of lists for something as trivial as moving a sprite up and down the screen isn't "tricky" in your opinion?

Its not "tricky" at all. Considering the fact that MARIA can display over 300 sprites in 4 colours at 8 pixels wide and 16 high on a 192 scan line display without a sprite multiplexor its a small price to pay (its a maximum of 29 sprites per scan line though). However the software overhead to achieve that many moving sprites is another matter.