Colecovision adapter?

[atariksi]

The 5200 is bigger than anything ever made. It's even bigger than that skyscraper in Dubai. It's so big that light cannot escape its gravity well!

 

Okay, maybe it's not that big. But it's definitely way bigger than was needed. Take off the controller storage area, and drop the top down to maybe an inch above the board, and it'd be about the size of the 1200XL (just off the top of my head; I'd have to dig out the 1200XL from its box in the basement to be sure).

 

Is the 1200XL bigger than the 400 or 800? (in width/depth, not height)

 

It's around same width as Atari 800 but looks longer depthwise than Atari 800. Atari 400 however is the smallest of the three as it has only one memory slot. Also A400 has OS ROMs on motherboard whereas on Atari 800 they are on a separate card.

[kool kitty89]

Is the A400 any narrower than the 800 or 1200? (it looks like the 600/800XL are only slightly narrower than the 1200 too, if at all, though much less deep and perhaps a bit lower profile)

[atariksi]

Is the A400 any narrower than the 800 or 1200? (it looks like the 600/800XL are only slightly narrower than the 1200 too, if at all, though much less deep and perhaps a bit lower profile)

 

I just measured the length and widths (in inches):

 

A400: 13.5 X 11.5

A800: 15.5 X 12.5

A800XL: 14.7 X 8.7

 

Don't have a 1200XL to measure.

 

But you also need more room on XL/XE in the back and sides for the cables to plug into whereas on A400/A800 all the cables are on the side and front so that you can pretty much push the A400/A800 against the wall. There's the RF cable but that doesn't have any "dongle" sticking out.

[kool kitty89]

Huh, so the 400 is actually slightly narrower than the VCS and only about 2" longer. (VCS is about 14" W x 9.25" long/deep)

Now if someone could provide A5200 measurements...

[atariksi]

Huh, so the 400 is actually slightly narrower than the VCS and only about 2" longer. (VCS is about 14" W x 9.25" long/deep)

Now if someone could provide A5200 measurements...

 

13" x 15" x 4.25"

[kool kitty89]

Wait, the 5200 is longer than it is wide or was that last figure LxWxH? Weren't your previous figures all WxL?

[atariksi]

Wait, the 5200 is longer than it is wide or was that last figure LxWxH? Weren't your previous figures all WxL?

 

It's LXWXH unlike the others, but I guess you could put the A5200 on its side.

[Lynxpro]

Coleco, at least, was sued. But they'd used all off-the-shelf components instead of the proprietary chips in the 2600, and so a judge found for the defendant (Coleco).

Supposedly TIA was reverse engineered and produced by a chip vendor for Coleco, the same one GCC ended up using for the 7800 incidentally. (based on an interview from the GCC guys several years ago, they ended up using the same clone TIA for the 7800, or at least some early/preproduction models)

Unless the TIA clone was composed of discrete components mimicking TIA, I don't see how Coleco would have gotten out of that. And I'd think even a TTL/discrete component clone of TIA would be patent infringing.

 

 

I was viewing The Dot Eater's website and they claimed that Atari sued Coleco for $350 million for patent infringement [over the 2600 adapter and the Gemini] and Coleco counter-sued for $550 million claiming Atari was in violation of U.S. [ahem, Sherman] antitrust laws. They state both sides settled and Atari ended up earning royalties from each sale of the adapter and the Gemini.

 

I believe Warner played it way too safe. They should've gutted Coleco in the courts and aggressively defended against the antitrust allegations. Sure, Atari had 75% - 90% of the market, but it could be argued that they were a natural monopoly that didn't abuse its power. After all, Atari didn't seem to require Activision or other third-party companies to exclusively support the 2600 and 5200 nor delayed them from licensing their titles to other companies for 2 years like what Nintendo did thereafter, nor did Atari require those companies to purchase finished cartridges from Atari directly. Atari wasn't buying up all the memory chips they could to screw their competitors as they had previously done under Bushnell. Atari didn't even own their own fab plants.

 

The only areas that Atari could've got in trouble was with the exclusive title licensing they purchased from the other arcade companies but Coleco also did the same thing. Perhaps one of the reasons why Atari launched "AtariSoft" was to mitigate antitrust concerns, although I had always read before that it was due to market analysts putting pressure on Warner to transform Atari into a software company and get out of the hardware business.

 

If anyone should've been sued back then on antitrust grounds, it should've been Commodore over MOS. Then again, the 6502 was licensed to other companies to produce so perhaps Commodore could've escaped such legal actions...

[kool kitty89]

I was viewing The Dot Eater's website and they claimed that Atari sued Coleco for $350 million for patent infringement [over the 2600 adapter and the Gemini] and Coleco counter-sued for $550 million claiming Atari was in violation of U.S. [ahem, Sherman] antitrust laws. They state both sides settled and Atari ended up earning royalties from each sale of the adapter and the Gemini.

The industry has since seen a LOT of monopolistic conditions (NES, PSX, PS2, GB/GBC/GBA/DS etc), and when not monopolisitc, it's heavily oligopolistic.

 

I'm not sure the "natural monopoly" thing would really apply... Atari/Warner most likely would have abuse any power they had too. they didn't limit 3rd parites, but they Couldn't, so that's a bit moot. (they sued Activision, but that didn't stick) Who's to say Atari wouldn't have pulled a similar thing as Nintendo did if they had a good lockout system... Then again, fear of antitrust action could keep them in check, as they should have Nintendo...

 

 

If anyone should've been sued back then on antitrust grounds, it should've been Commodore over MOS. Then again, the 6502 was licensed to other companies to produce so perhaps Commodore could've escaped such legal actions...

Not just the 6502, but weren't most, if not all of MOS's support ICs (I/O and suck, like the PIA, CIA, VIA, RIOT, etc) also licensed?

[Lynxpro]

The industry has since seen a LOT of monopolistic conditions (NES, PSX, PS2, GB/GBC/GBA/DS etc), and when not monopolisitc, it's heavily oligopolistic.

I'm not sure the "natural monopoly" thing would really apply... Atari/Warner most likely would have abuse any power they had too. they didn't limit 3rd parites, but they Couldn't, so that's a bit moot. (they sued Activision, but that didn't stick) Who's to say Atari wouldn't have pulled a similar thing as Nintendo did if they had a good lockout system... Then again, fear of antitrust action could keep them in check, as they should have Nintendo...

 

 

From what I've read online of interviews with Manny Gerard, Warner avoided activities that could be construed as monopolistic. You are right about oligopolistic; that describes Hollywood [film and music industries] and that is what Warner was/is comfortable with.

 

In truth, Atari could've squashed Activision for patent infringement but they played it safe by going after Activision over asserting their first games were done when they had been employed at Atari. It seems to me they just went for an easy settlement to squeeze some royalties out of them without ever crossing the line that could invoke the Sherman laws.

 

 

 

Not just the 6502, but weren't most, if not all of MOS's support ICs (I/O and suck, like the PIA, CIA, VIA, RIOT, etc) also licensed?

 

 

I can't answer that. Were any of the chips that made it into Atari game systems and computers actually manufactured by MOS? I was under the impression that Atari had others build them yet bought cartridge ROMs from them. Warner Atari should've cut off MOS once the VIC-20 hit the market; same with Apple.

[Divya16]

Not just the 6502, but weren't most, if not all of MOS's support ICs (I/O and suck, like the PIA, CIA, VIA, RIOT, etc) also licensed?

 

What sucks? Or should I ask which chip is suck?

[ApolloBoy]

Take off the controller storage area, and drop the top down to maybe an inch above the board, and it'd be about the size of the 1200XL (just off the top of my head; I'd have to dig out the 1200XL from its box in the basement to be sure).

Actually, the 1200XL is almost the same length and width as a 5200.

[kool kitty89]

In truth, Atari could've squashed Activision for patent infringement but they played it safe by going after Activision over asserting their first games were done when they had been employed at Atari. It seems to me they just went for an easy settlement to squeeze some royalties out of them without ever crossing the line that could invoke the Sherman laws.

What patents did Activision infringe on though? The cartridge connectors were standard parts, not custom AFIK (otherwise they could have gone with a few added pins and some quite useful additional signals)

Activision didn't even use the automatic dust cover for the carts. (which probably was patented)

 

 

 

Not just the 6502, but weren't most, if not all of MOS's support ICs (I/O and suck, like the PIA, CIA, VIA, RIOT, etc) also licensed?

I can't answer that. Were any of the chips that made it into Atari game systems and computers actually manufactured by MOS? I was under the impression that Atari had others build them yet bought cartridge ROMs from them. Warner Atari should've cut off MOS once the VIC-20 hit the market; same with Apple.

Yes, Warner made sure to have a second sourse for the MOS chips before manufacturing the VCS. Howver, a good many of the designs I mentioned weren't used y Atari at all. (they used PIA and RIOT plus 3 variants of the 6502 -the 6502C being custom- but there were plenty of other 6502 variants and support chips available)

 

 

Not just the 6502, but weren't most, if not all of MOS's support ICs (I/O and suck, like the PIA, CIA, VIA, RIOT, etc) also licensed?

 

What sucks? Or should I ask which chip is suck?

That should be such, not suck.

Edited April 2, 2010 by kool kitty89

[Divya16]

 

 

Not just the 6502, but weren't most, if not all of MOS's support ICs (I/O and suck, like the PIA, CIA, VIA, RIOT, etc) also licensed?

 

What sucks? Or should I ask which chip is suck?

That should be such, not suck.

 

Perhaps the MOS's support for ICs did suck; at least it sucks now.

[kool kitty89]

I didn't say anything about MOS's support for ICs I was commenting on MOS's support ICs, ie support chips.

[bohoki]

you have to ask what is the reason colecovision used 2600 games ?

 

is that the same answer you would give to have a 5200 have a colecovision adapter?

[Divya16]

I didn't say anything about MOS's support for ICs I was commenting on MOS's support ICs, ie support chips.

 

Perhaps, that was an error or assumed to be by me given the other error.

[kool kitty89]

I didn't say anything about MOS's support for ICs I was commenting on MOS's support ICs, ie support chips.

 

Perhaps, that was an error or assumed to be by me given the other error.

Maybe I was being a tad facetious back.

[atariksi]

you have to ask what is the reason colecovision used 2600 games ?

 

is that the same answer you would give to have a 5200 have a colecovision adapter?

 

I would say there's no need for a CV adapter for 5200. Just rewrite the game if it doesn't exist on A5200 for the superior hardware.