Atari 5200, why do you like it?

[Divya16]

So having socketed chips and space for speakers drives the prices for these real high.

 

Prices are high for the heavy sixer because they're the earliest models and are rather rare. The normal "light" six-switch models are pretty common (I've seen more 6 switchers in person than 4-switch or Jrs) and seem to be priced similarly to the 4-switch models fairly often. (it varies -by condition as well)

 

You have picture of light sixer and heavy sixer? I want to make sure I get the heavy sixer version and don't want to overpay for light one.

[kool kitty89]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_2600_hardware#CX2600_.22Heavy_Sixer.22

 

also:

http://gamesmuseum.pixesthesia.com/history/gen2/2600/2600-6.gif (light)

http://www.retrogamingcollector.com/Vintage-Consoles/AtariHeavySix.jpg (heavy)

http://atariace.com/images/atariace.com/atari/systems/images/a363.jpg (heavy)

 

Also note there's an odd picture on the box of 4-switch models and some advertizements with a heavy sixer's bottom casing used with the 4-switch top. (a mock-up?) None were produced like that though.

The RF quality also seems a tad better on my light sixer and it's got a channel 3/4 switch. (or is it 2/3 -heavy is stuck at 3 regardless)

Edited April 29, 2010 by kool kitty89

[atariksi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_2600_hardware#CX2600_.22Heavy_Sixer.22

 

also:

http://gamesmuseum.pixesthesia.com/history/gen2/2600/2600-6.gif (light)

http://www.retrogamingcollector.com/Vintage-Consoles/AtariHeavySix.jpg (heavy)

http://atariace.com/images/atariace.com/atari/systems/images/a363.jpg (heavy)

 

Also note there's an odd picture on the box of 4-switch models and some advertizements with a heavy sixer's bottom casing used with the 4-switch top. (a mock-up?) None were produced like that though.

The RF quality also seems a tad better on my light sixer and it's got a channel 3/4 switch. (or is it 2/3 -heavy is stuck at 3 regardless)

 

In some cases being stuck on channel 3 is a good thing. I have a 600XL whose channel switch causes noise problems.

[kool kitty89]

In some cases being stuck on channel 3 is a good thing. I have a 600XL whose channel switch causes noise problems.

 

I've got a Genesis like that too, weird smearing of bright colors (and whites especially), you have to jiggle the switch to get a good picture. (I use composite now anyway -eventually s-video when I get around to modding).

[atariksi]

In some cases being stuck on channel 3 is a good thing. I have a 600XL whose channel switch causes noise problems.

 

I've got a Genesis like that too, weird smearing of bright colors (and whites especially), you have to jiggle the switch to get a good picture. (I use composite now anyway -eventually s-video when I get around to modding).

 

I haven't noticed much difference in s-video output vs. composite output on 160*200*x modes. For higher resolutions, it would make a noticeable difference.

 

I have a 600XL whose switch causes RF type noise unless it's in a specific spot and only works with channel 3.

[kool kitty89]

Dot crawl is the big difference for other platforms, though indeed, for 160 pixels wide it's not much of an issue most of the time. (the resolution also doesn't exceed the NTSC color clock either, in many cases, the dot clock matches the chroma clock too)

On some platforms higher res has nasty color artifacts too, including the A8's 320 wide mode, and of course CGA. (both 640 and 320 wide modes)

 

The NES has some nasty dot crawl but little issues with color, similar for the Genesis (though in some cases there's "rainbow banding" but that seems to relate to the external circuitry as well as the video encoder and almost exclusively in NTSC video, probably relating to PAL's higher colorburst signal)

 

But, for the genesis, yes, it's quite an improvement given that the lowest resolution uses a 256 pixel (h32) display (5.37 MHz dot clock, like NES, Master System, and TMS9928) with the higher 6.71 MHz dot clock for the common 320 pixel mode (h40). That's actually a lower dot density than the 320 wide modes used on the A8 and Amiga -with 7.16 MHz dot clock -the PC engine actually used that same dot clock with a 336 wide display -of course you can extend into overscan, and 320 pixels across will likely not even reach overscan on many sets. (same for 160 pixels of the VCS/A8/C64 -I'm not positive the C64 used the same 3.58/7.16 MHz clock though -if it was 3.07/6.14 MHz then 160/320 pixels would already be in overscan on most TVs)

The Genesis used a variety of video encoders, but one common one (and the only one I have) is Sony's CXA1145 (I think some models of Amiga, and possibly ST also used that encoder), it lacks onboard 75 ohm drivers or amp for chroma, luma, or composite video, so chroma and composite have to be buffered (capacitor) and luma has to be amplified (NPN transistor). The Fujitsu MB3514 and Sony CXA1645 (the latter only on very late models) had onboard 75 ohm drives, so only a couple resistors and coupling capacitors are needed, there's also the Samsung KA2195D which has no chroma or luma output, just composite. (and often poor at that)

 

 

Regardless, most later game systems had RGB out too, but that's not much use for average NTSC tvs. (there are uncommon sets with RGB or even SCART inputs, or there's old amiga monitors or RGB=>YUV transcoders -it would be easy had North America opted for RGB as the new standard for DVD and finally match what Europe and Japan had available for decades rather than Y'PbPr, but oh well)

That would include the Master System, MD/Genesis, SNES, PSX, Saturn, Dreamcast (also with VGA 480p support for almost all games), and later consoles also having component video support. (Gamecube only on early models with the digital out port -cable has a built in DAC ASIC)

Edited May 1, 2010 by kool kitty89

[atariksi]

Dot crawl is the big difference for other platforms, though indeed, for 160 pixels wide it's not much of an issue most of the time. (the resolution also doesn't exceed the NTSC color clock either, in many cases, the dot clock matches the chroma clock too)

On some platforms higher res has nasty color artifacts too, including the A8's 320 wide mode, and of course CGA. (both 640 and 320 wide modes)

 

The NES has some nasty dot crawl but little issues with color, similar for the Genesis (though in some cases there's "rainbow banding" but that seems to relate to the external circuitry as well as the video encoder and almost exclusively in NTSC video, probably relating to PAL's higher colorburst signal)

 

But, for the genesis, yes, it's quite an improvement given that the lowest resolution uses a 256 pixel (h32) display (5.37 MHz dot clock, like NES, Master System, and TMS9928) with the higher 6.71 MHz dot clock for the common 320 pixel mode (h40). That's actually a lower dot density than the 320 wide modes used on the A8 and Amiga -with 7.16 MHz dot clock -the PC engine actually used that same dot clock with a 336 wide display -of course you can extend into overscan, and 320 pixels across will likely not even reach overscan on many sets. (same for 160 pixels of the VCS/A8/C64 -I'm not positive the C64 used the same 3.58/7.16 MHz clock though -if it was 3.07/6.14 MHz then 160/320 pixels would already be in overscan on most TVs)

The Genesis used a variety of video encoders, but one common one (and the only one I have) is Sony's CXA1145 (I think some models of Amiga, and possibly ST also used that encoder), it lacks onboard 75 ohm drivers or amp for chroma, luma, or composite video, so chroma and composite have to be buffered (capacitor) and luma has to be amplified (NPN transistor). The Fujitsu MB3514 and Sony CXA1645 (the latter only on very late models) had onboard 75 ohm drives, so only a couple resistors and coupling capacitors are needed, there's also the Samsung KA2195D which has no chroma or luma output, just composite. (and often poor at that)

 

 

Regardless, most later game systems had RGB out too, but that's not much use for average NTSC tvs. (there are uncommon sets with RGB or even SCART inputs, or there's old amiga monitors or RGB=>YUV transcoders -it would be easy had North America opted for RGB as the new standard for DVD and finally match what Europe and Japan had available for decades rather than Y'PbPr, but oh well)

That would include the Master System, MD/Genesis, SNES, PSX, Saturn, Dreamcast (also with VGA 480p support for almost all games), and later consoles also having component video support. (Gamecube only on early models with the digital out port -cable has a built in DAC ASIC)

 

The problem is that even at higher than 160*200 resolutions, many systems' software assumes artifacting so Svideo screws things up there as well by altering the artifacting. Having separate audio and composite video is good enough; they essentially are same resolution as Svideo -- it's just noise of encoding/decoding is eliminated.

[kool kitty89]

For consoles featuring RGB output (and intending its use), S-video would be a preferable option. (short of RGB -as PAL users commonly have -I know a couple people who've used Amiga monitors to play Genesis games on too -among other things)

[atariksi]

For consoles featuring RGB output (and intending its use), S-video would be a preferable option. (short of RGB -as PAL users commonly have -I know a couple people who've used Amiga monitors to play Genesis games on too -among other things)

 

Even Amiga monitors with S-video are lower resolution than the RGB native output. But I like standards so I don't have carry around so many RGB monitors for each platform so I still use Amiga mostly with normal composite video output.

[kool kitty89]

Even Amiga monitors with S-video are lower resolution than the RGB native output. But I like standards so I don't have carry around so many RGB monitors for each platform so I still use Amiga mostly with normal composite video output.

 

Yeah, too bad RGB didn't become a standard like Japan and Europe (especially France, as it was mandated in the early 80s for all TVs -Sega even released a low-cost France only master system with only RGB out -the US and UK versions had RF only), of course there's VGA, but that's not compliant with the RGB+composite sync standard, or 15 kHz Vsync in most cases. (Atari ST did use separate H and V sync, but still 15 kHz -except the monochrome mode, which is VGA compatible) There's the odd high-end NTSC tvs with SCART input too, but that's uncommon, and had RGB been adopted with DVD rather than Y'PbPr (which would have made about as much sense as you have to do analog conversions either way and cater to RGB in Europe, though the video codec uses digital Y'CbCr colorspace), North America may have adopted SCART, or gone with another connection method for RGB. (technically they could have gone with the standard DE-15 SVGA connector and supported both composite and separate H/V sync for compatibility -and have it forward compatible for VGA/SVGA resolutions, just as Y'PbPr is and RGB+sync via SCART is -though more rarely taken advantage of on HDTVs)

Many EU users could simply buy SCART cables and have RGB from their Amiga, ST, CPC, Spectrum, etc. (well T for all models with composite video too, as it's needed for composite sync, also why early STs can't be used with amiga monitors directly)

 

S-video luma should have identical limitations as Y'PbPr luma and very similar to RGB, in fact, you can get incredibly clean B/W pictures via composite video with no color carrier to cock things up. S-video chroms has similar limitations to composite but lacks the degradation of combined signals (luma suffers in particular), in PAL it's better too (4.43 MHz color clock vs 3.58 MHz), but they have RGB too, so it's less important.

Technically speaking, you can transmit grayscale HDTV signals at good quality via a single RCA cable, and you indeed would do so, if only connecting the Y' (luminance) line of component video.

You also get much cleaner SDTV signal ranges (horizontal resolution technically has no hard limit for such analog video, so it could apply equally to 240p/480i 15 kHz vsync as VGA/HDTV resolutions)

Hence why CGA had modes disabling colorburst, thus providing clean, clear grayscale (or monochrome) images on composite monitors, as good as RGB if the monitor was up to snuff. (ie fine dot pitch and well focused, stable beam)

 

I think the same is true for Amiga 500s as apparently the chroma signal was disabled from composite video (odd given they were more home consumer oriented than the A1000 -and the A600 and 1200 added full composite again iirc), so you could get as crisp an image on a composite monitor as RGB, monitor dependent, of course.

Actually, that would have been a neat feature to have in general on such home computers, allowing clear video on cheaper composite (and even grayscale composite) monitors for certain applications. (with specific support, colors of similar intensity could be avoided too, granted the Amiga is limited to 16 luminance levels, and the ST only 8 ) Heh, and critics of Workbench's stock color scheme couldn't complain either.

 

I actually started a thread on this a while back. http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/158753-should-a-bw-mode-have-been-standard/page__p__1950662#entry1950662

Edited May 3, 2010 by kool kitty89

[atariksi]

Even Amiga monitors with S-video are lower resolution than the RGB native output. But I like standards so I don't have carry around so many RGB monitors for each platform so I still use Amiga mostly with normal composite video output.

 

Yeah, too bad RGB didn't become a standard like Japan and Europe (especially France, as it was mandated in the early 80s for all TVs -Sega even released a low-cost France only master system with only RGB out -the US and UK versions had RF only), of course there's VGA, but that's not compliant with the RGB+composite sync standard, or 15 kHz Vsync in most cases. (Atari ST did use separate H and V sync, but still 15 kHz -except the monochrome mode, which is VGA compatible) There's the odd high-end NTSC tvs with SCART input too, but that's uncommon, and had RGB been adopted with DVD rather than Y'PbPr (which would have made about as much sense as you have to do analog conversions either way and cater to RGB in Europe, though the video codec uses digital Y'CbCr colorspace), North America may have adopted SCART, or gone with another connection method for RGB. (technically they could have gone with the standard DE-15 SVGA connector and supported both composite and separate H/V sync for compatibility -and have it forward compatible for VGA/SVGA resolutions, just as Y'PbPr is and RGB+sync via SCART is -though more rarely taken advantage of on HDTVs)

Many EU users could simply buy SCART cables and have RGB from their Amiga, ST, CPC, Spectrum, etc. (well T for all models with composite video too, as it's needed for composite sync, also why early STs can't be used with amiga monitors directly)

 

S-video luma should have identical limitations as Y'PbPr luma and very similar to RGB, in fact, you can get incredibly clean B/W pictures via composite video with no color carrier to cock things up. S-video chroms has similar limitations to composite but lacks the degradation of combined signals (luma suffers in particular), in PAL it's better too (4.43 MHz color clock vs 3.58 MHz), but they have RGB too, so it's less important.

Technically speaking, you can transmit grayscale HDTV signals at good quality via a single RCA cable, and you indeed would do so, if only connecting the Y' (luminance) line of component video.

You also get much cleaner SDTV signal ranges (horizontal resolution technically has no hard limit for such analog video, so it could apply equally to 240p/480i 15 kHz vsync as VGA/HDTV resolutions)

Hence why CGA had modes disabling colorburst, thus providing clean, clear grayscale (or monochrome) images on composite monitors, as good as RGB if the monitor was up to snuff. (ie fine dot pitch and well focused, stable beam)

 

I think the same is true for Amiga 500s as apparently the chroma signal was disabled from composite video (odd given they were more home consumer oriented than the A1000 -and the A600 and 1200 added full composite again iirc), so you could get as crisp an image on a composite monitor as RGB, monitor dependent, of course.

Actually, that would have been a neat feature to have in general on such home computers, allowing clear video on cheaper composite (and even grayscale composite) monitors for certain applications. (with specific support, colors of similar intensity could be avoided too, granted the Amiga is limited to 16 luminance levels, and the ST only 8 ) Heh, and critics of Workbench's stock color scheme couldn't complain either.

 

I actually started a thread on this a while back. http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/158753-should-a-bw-mode-have-been-standard/page__p__1950662#entry1950662

 

Actually, they did write some software on Amiga where they used the monochrome video output to show 256+ gray levels rather than 16 gray levels.

 

Regardless, PAL does have an advantage in resolution even in composite video; however for A5200/a800 the interlaced modes would come out better on NTSC. With VGA standard, they lost the overscan programmable capability whereas Amiga RGB monitors allowed overscan modes.

[+darryl1970]

I like the 5200 for a lot of reasons. To understand, go back to whatever year it was released... I recall seeing Pac-Man displayed in a department store on an Atari 400. However, I recall that computer being about $400 or something? (Don't quote me, but it was a LOT!) My family was not going to spend that for me to play Pac-Man.

 

1) Price for what I got:

When the 5200 came out, it was at a more reasonable price point (yet still expensive -- maybe $249?). I was impressed that Atari added the intermission sequences. (Competition lowered that to the $120, more attainable price tag,and PacMan started to be included.) The pause button seemed killer. I also liked the idea of having more joystick buttons and a keypad. I was even impressed with the analog joysticks.

 

2) Attention to detail.

Okay... I know the system was not any more powerful than the computer lines. However, it seemed like Atari was trying to add a level of detail to do things right. They improved Pac-Man slightly. Dig Dug was a major improvement in gameplay. Mario Bros has a level of detail that even Nintendo missed out on on their NES version. Pengo seemed almost arcade perfect at the time. My friends and I spend HOURS playing RealSports Baseball. Thanks to the analog controls, I could determine exactly where my bat was positioned (like to bunt), and it was also key in choosing which outfielder was highlighted for control or which man on base would be stealing during the pitch.

 

Atari had Mario Bros that included all the cutesy animation. Colecovision false advertised by showing the animation they left out on their box. (Donkey Kong pounding his chest, fireballs on the bottom level). Atari did things with 16k of memory that Coleco couldn't squeeze out of 24-32k. I do not know if the Atari was more efficient to program for, or if there was more development time due to its 8-bit history, but the detail was there. We all know that Donkey Kong on the 8-bit isn't as pretty in some ways, but captures a LOT more detail and extras -- from showing the scores to intermissions.

 

3) The Joysticks -- YEP! I SAID IT!

I really felt that people were whiners for complaining about the analog sticks. It's called coordination and not being stubborn and afraid of change. I NEVER had a problem, nor did any of my friends. The problem is that some people are afraid of change and/or learning a new system. I can throw myself under the bus on this. I HATED the Intellivision for having a thumb pad. I thought it was the worst thing ever, but I loved it on my NES. Go figure?? So, part of Atari's problem was that people weren't advanced enough to handle the improvements. I can't believe the number of people that complained about the RF switch box. People no longer had to reach behind their television to switch to game mode, but people complained, because it wasn't the same as their 2600 switch box.

 

The joysticks did have a high failure rate... So, that unfortunately allowed people to be in denial of their inability to adapt to the joysticks. That DID suck, because they cost about $50 to replace. That right there is a major fault, which gave Atari no ground to stand behind their innovative product. I do agree that self-centering sticks (like on the PS2) may have been a better solution, the joysticks were not as difficult to use as many claimed. At least they didn't crackle and feel like they were going to fall apart like my friend's Colecovision nub controllers.

 

Speaking of which, the Colecovision did have a sharper, higher resolution display. They had fresh games that were not on other systems. That is where Coleco had an edge, and that was one more nail in the 5200 coffin. Does anybody bother to remember one major issue though -- that the 5200 was released at about $249, and it was packaged with SUPER BREAKOUT??? How was SUPER BREAKOUT going to show "SUPER SYSTEM" status compared to Coleco Donkey Kong? Atari blew that fist Christmas season! Christmas was "make it or break it!" The next would be Atari's ignorance to continue making games for the 2600 and 5200. Worse yet, they seemed to promote the 2600 versions more. People did not see a reason to take advantage of the 5200. By the time Atari started to make the exclusive games, it was too late.

 

Yes, I Liked my 5200. I remember the excitement AND disappointment when I read about the 7800. I thought it was cool, but really felt the 5200 hadn't reached its potential. And in hind site, the 7800 was a real disappointment. They gave a 2600 a better sprite chip. At least the 5200 may have been able to make the Galaga characters move at a smooth rate and have some color contrast. They didn't even seem to improve the resolution any. It was like a 5200 that displays more colors, but suffers in game play and sound. I don't want to bash the 7800 too hard, because I have a soft spot for it. Maybe it didn't have enough development time for programmers to get good at it. (Because the home brew stuff rocks!) And by the time Atari released it (waiting 2 years when it was already obsolete), Atari didn't have any good programmers left. That is obvious from the crappy rendition of Donkey Kong, Mario Bros, Kung Fu Master, Rampage, and about every other lame game they released.

 

I like my 5200, because it was the system that had TRUE potential, but got screwed by then era it was released, the mismanagement of Atari, and it did have unreliable joysticks. But check out the detail of Mario Bros for the day! All the 'cute' animations that brought the game to life were there -- turtles kicking their shells over, Mario squishing Luigi, catching fire when hit by a fireball; very few systems got it right. The graphics were a little different, due to the lower resolution, but they crammed a LOT into a small cartridge space. The game play had minor quirks, but it made for countless overnight battles with friends, playing together and trying to sabotage each other.

 

And.. What COULD have been.. The updated XL/XE version shows what the 8-bits were truly capable of. Too bad they waited until 1988. In all fairness, a 48k cart back then would have been priced like a NEO GEO cart in its day. We have to take the 'balance' into consideration.

[atariksi]

I like the 5200 for a lot of reasons. To understand, go back to whatever year it was released... I recall seeing Pac-Man displayed in a department store on an Atari 400. However, I recall that computer being about $400 or something? (Don't quote me, but it was a LOT!) My family was not going to spend that for me to play Pac-Man.

 

1) Price for what I got:

When the 5200 came out, it was at a more reasonable price point (yet still expensive -- maybe $249?). I was impressed that Atari added the intermission sequences. (Competition lowered that to the $120, more attainable price tag,and PacMan started to be included.) The pause button seemed killer. I also liked the idea of having more joystick buttons and a keypad. I was even impressed with the analog joysticks.

 

2) Attention to detail.

Okay... I know the system was not any more powerful than the computer lines. However, it seemed like Atari was trying to add a level of detail to do things right. They improved Pac-Man slightly. Dig Dug was a major improvement in gameplay. Mario Bros has a level of detail that even Nintendo missed out on on their NES version. Pengo seemed almost arcade perfect at the time. My friends and I spend HOURS playing RealSports Baseball. Thanks to the analog controls, I could determine exactly where my bat was positioned (like to bunt), and it was also key in choosing which outfielder was highlighted for control or which man on base would be stealing during the pitch.

 

Atari had Mario Bros that included all the cutesy animation. Colecovision false advertised by showing the animation they left out on their box. (Donkey Kong pounding his chest, fireballs on the bottom level). Atari did things with 16k of memory that Coleco couldn't squeeze out of 24-32k. I do not know if the Atari was more efficient to program for, or if there was more development time due to its 8-bit history, but the detail was there. We all know that Donkey Kong on the 8-bit isn't as pretty in some ways, but captures a LOT more detail and extras -- from showing the scores to intermissions.

 

3) The Joysticks -- YEP! I SAID IT!

I really felt that people were whiners for complaining about the analog sticks. It's called coordination and not being stubborn and afraid of change. I NEVER had a problem, nor did any of my friends. The problem is that some people are afraid of change and/or learning a new system...

Nothing to do with afraid of change on my part. Analog sticks are subject to jitter and are inexact and slower. Already discussed hundreds of times. I don't want change for the worse. They should have stuck with their digital joysticks and offered analog sticks as an option. Analog sticks are inferior and probably were done just to imitate Intellivision. Having played same games on both systems, I can clearly see the inferiority of the A5200 sticks. It was a degradement from the then Atari standard joystick.

 

...a major fault, which gave Atari no ground to stand behind their innovative product. I do agree that self-centering sticks (like on the PS2) may have been a better solution, the joysticks were not as difficult to use as many claimed. At least they didn't crackle and feel like they were going to fall apart like my friend's Colecovision nub controllers.

...

Why not stick with the best and not bother experimenting with repeatedly failures like A5200 sticks and all those modern complex sticks.

 

Speaking of which, the Colecovision did have a sharper, higher resolution display. They had fresh games that were not on other systems. That is where Coleco had an edge, and that was one more nail in the 5200 coffin...

That's rubbish-- just your speculation. It didn't have any edge except perhaps the backward compatibility offered via their A2600 adapter. Nor does having one aspect of the hardware give any system an edge given all the other advantages the A5200 had and has over Colecovision. I have both systems and never play the Colecovision-- and their so-called high-res is artifacted and appears much darker than A5200 picture using same RF demodulator. Perhaps, you have a screwed up set-up. And when did a 384*240 potential system have a lower resolution?

 

And.. What COULD have been.. The updated XL/XE version shows what the 8-bits were truly capable of. Too bad they waited until 1988. In all fairness, a 48k cart back then would have been priced like a NEO GEO cart in its day. We have to take the 'balance' into consideration.

 

I don't think you know what you're talking about. The 1200XL was 1982 and other XL models about year later. I had so much software for 800XL that used 48K+. I had some RAMDisk software that used 256K. The 256K RAM wasn't standardized so software mainly stuck to using 48K or less. A5200 lacked the PIA chip otherwise it was just like the A8 series.

[+darryl1970]

 

 

Atari had Mario Bros that included all the cutesy animation. Colecovision false advertised by showing the animation they left out on their box. (Donkey Kong pounding his chest, fireballs on the bottom level). Atari did things with 16k of memory that Coleco couldn't squeeze out of 24-32k. I do not know if the Atari was more efficient to program for, or if there was more development time due to its 8-bit history, but the detail was there. We all know that Donkey Kong on the 8-bit isn't as pretty in some ways, but captures a LOT more detail and extras -- from showing the scores to intermissions.

 

3) The Joysticks -- YEP! I SAID IT!

I really felt that people were whiners for complaining about the analog sticks. It's called coordination and not being stubborn and afraid of change. I NEVER had a problem, nor did any of my friends. The problem is that some people are afraid of change and/or learning a new system...

Nothing to do with afraid of change on my part. Analog sticks are subject to jitter and are inexact and slower. Already discussed hundreds of times. I don't want change for the worse. They should have stuck with their digital joysticks and offered analog sticks as an option. Analog sticks are inferior and probably were done just to imitate Intellivision. Having played same games on both systems, I can clearly see the inferiority of the A5200 sticks. It was a degradement from the then Atari standard joystick.

um.. okay? It sucks that all the modern systems have adopted these clumsy, inferior analog sticks -- PS2, X-Box, 360, PS3... Digital has it's place, which is why they also include d-pads. But Analog cannot be beat for SOME applications. Of course, that's just my opinion.... And Sony's.... And Microsoft's.... And Nintendo (N64 years)...

 

...a major fault, which gave Atari no ground to stand behind their innovative product. I do agree that self-centering sticks (like on the PS2) may have been a better solution, the joysticks were not as difficult to use as many claimed. At least they didn't crackle and feel like they were going to fall apart like my friend's Colecovision nub controllers.

...

Why not stick with the best and not bother experimenting with repeatedly failures like A5200 sticks and all those modern complex sticks.

Whatever... Play Realsports baseball with a 2600 stick. And if you don't like the game, so what? It's my opinion. You are entitled to yours. Why not just remove that stupid button two too, and we can use joystick number two's button when we need an extra trigger? Evolution is highly over rated!

 

Speaking of which, the Colecovision did have a sharper, higher resolution display. They had fresh games that were not on other systems. That is where Coleco had an edge, and that was one more nail in the 5200 coffin...

That's rubbish-- just your speculation. It didn't have any edge except perhaps the backward compatibility offered via their A2600 adapter. Nor does having one aspect of the hardware give any system an edge given all the other advantages the A5200 had and has over Colecovision. I have both systems and never play the Colecovision-- and their so-called high-res is artifacted and appears much darker than A5200 picture using same RF demodulator. Perhaps, you have a screwed up set-up. And when did a 384*240 potential system have a lower resolution?

No! Not my "speculation." Read some tech books.

 

You do know more than I do, because I never saw 384x240. I always read 320x192 as the high resolution (Note: This link does not list then 160x192, 4-color mode commonly used in 5200 games). And YES, you earn a star for realizing that 320+ is greater than 256. Did you ever write a game in 320 (or whatever) resolution? I would LOVE to play your mono-chrome game with red and brown artifacts. I bet that looks sharp. How's the player/missile to playfield collision work in that mode for you? The players were twice the size of the maximum resolution, AND if you want to CHOOSE the playfield colors, you are working with a USEABLE 160x192 resolution. That is less than 256 pixels wide. If you look at ANY game on the ColecoVision and compare it to then 5200, you will see that the Coleco displays a higher resolution; however, it sounds like we are on the same side, because we BOTH seem to prefer the 5200 in the end. So, why the animosity?

 

Oh yeah.. The "edge" was also that they were not releasing rehashes of 2600 games. (Even though Coleco had some pretty lame 'fresh' releases.)

 

And.. What COULD have been.. The updated XL/XE version shows what the 8-bits were truly capable of. Too bad they waited until 1988. In all fairness, a 48k cart back then would have been priced like a NEO GEO cart in its day. We have to take the 'balance' into consideration.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. The 1200XL was 1982 and other XL models about year later. I had so much software for 800XL that used 48K+. I had some RAMDisk software that used 256K. The 256K RAM wasn't standardized so software mainly stuck to using 48K or less. A5200 lacked the PIA chip otherwise it was just like the A8 series.

 

Read what I wrote and not what you want to see. I didn't say that the system was incapable... I said too bad they waited to use that much memory in a CARTRIDGE... FOR THEIR GAME SYSTEM... The 5200 Mario Bros cartridge was 32k in size. The XE version of Mario Bros is 64k and has much greater detail. (In fact, it includes the icicles -- not JUST the SlipIce -- which is not present in any other home version that I know of) If you read my post, you would notice that I mentioned a 48k+ size CARTRIDGE would have cost a lot. (jokingly compared it to NEO GEO... HAHA) Maybe I don't know what I am talking about, because I didn't know that the 5200 had a disk drive... and a RAM disk!

 

Thanks for ruining my attempt to share my childhood fondness. This was my second post to Atari Age. I thought this was place to share good memories, not try to put each other down and act like we are still whatever age we were when Atari was relevant. Thanks for trying ruining a good thing, and I hope you are reward for your deep knowledge of the Atari 8-bit system someday!

[atariksi]

um.. okay? It sucks that all the modern systems have adopted these clumsy, inferior analog sticks -- PS2, X-Box, 360, PS3... Digital has it's place, which is why they also include d-pads. But Analog cannot be beat for SOME applications. Of course, that's just my opinion.... And Sony's.... And Microsoft's.... And Nintendo (N64 years)...

Yeah, some that's why I said the analog could have been offered as an option. You have the PotX and PotY as pins 5 and 9 on the DB9 joystick so an analog stick would still work with the standard DB9 A800 joystick. You are entitled to your opinion but people are also entitled to show you why they disagree with you. If you understood the evolution of gameport on PC, you know why they kept going with analog sticks; A800 sticks were also superior and still are.

 

Whatever... Play Realsports baseball with a 2600 stick. And if you don't like the game, so what? It's my opinion. You are entitled to yours. Why not just remove that stupid button two too, and we can use joystick number two's button when we need an extra trigger? Evolution is highly over rated!

...

You haven't even read a few pages of this thread and wrote stuff contradictory to what I wrote so obviously you should expect some disagreement from me (with proof I might add). Proof is better than someone's opinion. Play StarLeague baseball and you see how pinpoint control works fine with normal A8 joystick. I prefer that over Realsports Baseball.

 

Speaking of which, the Colecovision did have a sharper, higher resolution display. They had fresh games that were not on other systems. That is where Coleco had an edge, and that was one more nail in the 5200 coffin...

No! Not my "speculation." Read some tech books.

I don't need to read tech books. I have written hundreds of programs on A800 and know what the chipset is capable of and also have played Colecovision and know its spec.

 

You do know more than I do, because I never saw 384x240. I always read 320x192 as the high resolution (Note: This link does not list then 160x192, 4-color mode commonly used in 5200 games). And YES, you earn a star for realizing that 320+ is greater than 256. Did you ever write a game in 320 (or whatever) resolution? I would LOVE to play your mono-chrome game with red and brown artifacts. I bet that looks sharp. How's the player/missile to playfield collision work in that mode for you? The players were twice the size of the maximum resolution, AND if you want to CHOOSE the playfield colors, you are working with a USEABLE 160x192 resolution. That is less than 256 pixels wide. If you look at ANY game on the ColecoVision and compare it to then 5200, you will see that the Coleco displays a higher resolution; however, it sounds like we are on the same side, because we BOTH seem to prefer the 5200 in the end. So, why the animosity?

I am not expressing animosity but disagreeing with you on couple of points-- namely your claim that Coleco has higher resolution and about joysticks. Yes, ANTIC mode F in overscan addresses 384*240 and that chip is both in A800 and A5200. You can produce multicolor sprites/overlays by overlapping and as well as by DLIs so it's not just 4-color. Both Coleco and A800 have artifacting in their high resolution modes.

 

And.. What COULD have been.. The updated XL/XE version shows what the 8-bits were truly capable of. Too bad they waited until 1988. In all fairness, a 48k cart back then would have been priced like a NEO GEO cart in its day. We have to take the 'balance' into consideration.

 

Read what I wrote and not what you want to see. I didn't say that the system was incapable... I said too bad they waited to use that much memory in a CARTRIDGE... FOR THEIR GAME SYSTEM...

Well, I requoted you above. I don't see where you said GAME SYSTEM. Anyway, it's a minor point. They could have done bigger memory cartridges but they preferred to use disks instead on XL/XE. If you meant A5200, yeah you're right they should have had more banked cartridges like Bounty Bob Strikes Back w/even more banks.

 

Thanks for ruining my attempt to share my childhood fondness. This was my second post to Atari Age. I thought this was place to share good memories, not try to put each other down and act like we are still whatever age we were when Atari was relevant. Thanks for trying ruining a good thing, and I hope you are reward for your deep knowledge of the Atari 8-bit system someday!

 

Well, if you read through this thread, you would have realized that you wrote things already refuted. So I am just reminding you. Normally, people read the thread before they reply. How is it ruining things if the aim is to establish the truth. Truth is better than some opinion that may be right or wrong.

[+darryl1970]

um.. okay? It sucks that all the modern systems have adopted these clumsy, inferior analog sticks -- PS2, X-Box, 360, PS3... Digital has it's place, which is why they also include d-pads. But Analog cannot be beat for SOME applications. Of course, that's just my opinion.... And Sony's.... And Microsoft's.... And Nintendo (N64 years)...

 

Yeah, some that's why I said the analog could have been offered as an option. You have the PotX and PotY as pins 5 and 9 on the DB9 joystick so an analog stick would still work with the standard DB9 A800 joystick. You are entitled to your opinion but people are also entitled to show you why they disagree with you. If you understood the evolution of gameport on PC, you know why they kept going with analog sticks; A800 sticks were also superior and still are.

 

That's why the 5200 had an extra flux capacitor? Are you serious?? REALLY??? I joke. I had to keep the sarcasm intact. I can see the option being reasonable. However, the players in the field were selected by how far one moved the stick in a particular direction. Tech crap aside, that game was FUN if you really dig into it. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but I had a LOT of fun with that game, because my friends and I could really juggle players around and mess each other up. AGAIN... This is WHY I LIKE THE 5200 (see forum topic). And the game talked too. I don't know how they got the little elf inside the cartridge!

 

Whatever... Play Realsports baseball with a 2600 stick. And if you don't like the game, so what? It's my opinion. You are entitled to yours. Why not just remove that stupid button two too, and we can use joystick number two's button when we need an extra trigger? Evolution is highly over rated!

...

 

You haven't even read a few pages of this thread and wrote stuff contradictory to what I wrote so obviously you should expect some disagreement from me (with proof I might add). Proof is better than someone's opinion. Play StarLeague baseball and you see how pinpoint control works fine with normal A8 joystick. I prefer that over Realsports Baseball.

 

I have played it, but this is SUPPOSED to be "ATARI 5200, WHY DO YOU LIKE IT?" It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 8-BIT COMPUTERS. I have that for my XL. Not available for the 5200. Too bad the programmers didn't know the basic formula for slope. Love the ball curving all over the field. How can one contradict what another likes about a system. This is not that kind of thread. It doesn't matter what YOU like about the 5200 in MY sharing. Are you sure you know what this thread is? And you are not all about proof, because I have provide 'proof' where I was not expressing opinions.

 

Speaking of which, the Colecovision did have a sharper, higher resolution display. They had fresh games that were not on other systems. That is where Coleco had an edge, and that was one more nail in the 5200 coffin...

No! Not my "speculation." Read some tech books.

 

I don't need to read tech books. I have written hundreds of programs on A800 and know what the chipset is capable of and also have played Colecovision and know its spec.

 

Then you KNOW that the 4 players and 4 missiles do NOT display in high resolution, but are two color-clocks wide. Yes, I know they can be overlaid, but that does not increase the resolution; it just adds the third color. Look at Mario on the Coleco -- high-res Sprite. Atari Sprites are 2x the width per pixel. That IS FACT, Skippy!!

 

You do know more than I do, because I never saw 384x240. I always read 320x192 as the high resolution (Note: This link does not list then 160x192, 4-color mode commonly used in 5200 games). And YES, you earn a star for realizing that 320+ is greater than 256. Did you ever write a game in 320 (or whatever) resolution? I would LOVE to play your mono-chrome game with red and brown artifacts. I bet that looks sharp. How's the player/missile to playfield collision work in that mode for you? The players were twice the size of the maximum resolution, AND if you want to CHOOSE the playfield colors, you are working with a USEABLE 160x192 resolution. That is less than 256 pixels wide. If you look at ANY game on the ColecoVision and compare it to then 5200, you will see that the Coleco displays a higher resolution; however, it sounds like we are on the same side, because we BOTH seem to prefer the 5200 in the end. So, why the animosity?

 

I am not expressing animosity but disagreeing with you on couple of points-- namely your claim that Coleco has higher resolution and about joysticks. Yes, ANTIC mode F in overscan addresses 384*240 and that chip is both in A800 and A5200. You can produce multicolor sprites/overlays by overlapping and as well as by DLIs so it's not just 4-color. Both Coleco and A800 have artifacting in their high resolution modes.

 

Well, Maybe I was not clear in THIS area... I mean PRACTICAL resolution. Show me one 5200 game that used a resolution --AND displayed color, which was over 160x192... Backgammon? 2-colors?

 

And.. What COULD have been.. The updated XL/XE version shows what the 8-bits were truly capable of. Too bad they waited until 1988. In all fairness, a 48k cart back then would have been priced like a NEO GEO cart in its day. We have to take the 'balance' into consideration.

 

Read what I wrote and not what you want to see. I didn't say that the system was incapable... I said too bad they waited to use that much memory in a CARTRIDGE... FOR THEIR GAME SYSTEM...

 

Well, I requoted you above. I don't see where you said GAME SYSTEM. Anyway, it's a minor point. They could have done bigger memory cartridges but they preferred to use disks instead on XL/XE. If you meant A5200, yeah you're right they should have had more banked cartridges like Bounty Bob Strikes Back w/even more banks.

 

I might be a newbie posting here, but at least I read the thread topic. THIS IS "ATARI 5200, WHY DO YOU LIKE IT?". If you weren't so hell bent on finding something to pick at, common sense would imply that I have been talking about the 5200! (As in waiting until 1988 to release a cartridge -- what I meant by 'cart' -- of decent capacity) Plus I was still talking about Mario Bros detail.

 

Thanks for ruining my attempt to share my childhood fondness. This was my second post to Atari Age. I thought this was place to share good memories, not try to put each other down and act like we are still whatever age we were when Atari was relevant. Thanks for trying ruining a good thing, and I hope you are reward for your deep knowledge of the Atari 8-bit system someday!

 

Well, if you read through this thread, you would have realized that you wrote things already refuted. So I am just reminding you. Normally, people read the thread before they reply. How is it ruining things if the aim is to establish the truth. Truth is better than some opinion that may be right or wrong.

 

I do not have to read through the thread to share WHY I liked my 5200! LOL! You told me that I don't know what I am talking about, because I shared my fond childhood memories. How is that truth or not?

 

And FINALLY, here's the XE version of Mario Bros, with the Icicles that I have not seen in ANY other home version. I was really pissed when I found my NES version didn't have as much detail as the 5200 (missing animations) AND that it as missing the icicles. But, like the conveyor belt version, only hardcore Mario Bros fans really knew of this stage.

 

In the end, do I understand that we both like the 5200 better than the Colecovision? Are we on the same team here?

Edited May 14, 2010 by darryl1970

[+darryl1970]

I replaced the link in my previous article with this one..

 

Facts:

Atari Display Modes

[atariksi]

I replaced the link in my previous article with this one..

 

Facts:

Atari Display Modes

 

And if you were a programmer, you would know that the standard display modes aren't everything an Atari is capable of. You can mix them, you can interlace them, overscan them, use DLIs to add more color, use sprite overlays/underlays, etc. etc. Don't just randomly pick links from the web. Any person can do that.

[atariksi]

Yeah, some that's why I said the analog could have been offered as an option. You have the PotX and PotY as pins 5 and 9 on the DB9 joystick so an analog stick would still work with the standard DB9 A800 joystick. You are entitled to your opinion but people are also entitled to show you why they disagree with you. If you understood the evolution of gameport on PC, you know why they kept going with analog sticks; A800 sticks were also superior and still are.

 

That's why the 5200 had an extra flux capacitor? Are you serious?? REALLY??? I joke. I had to keep the sarcasm intact. I can see the option being reasonable. However, the players in the field were selected by how far one moved the stick in a particular direction. Tech crap aside, that game was FUN if you really dig into it. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but I had a LOT of fun with that game, because my friends and I could really juggle players around and mess each other up. AGAIN... This is WHY I LIKE THE 5200 (see forum topic). And the game talked too. I don't know how they got the little elf inside the cartridge!

...

You need to learn some English before you go on your crap (perhaps that's the problem here). It makes no sense whatsoever. Atari 800 joystick ports supported both analog and digital whereas gameports were only analog. To keep compatibility, they kept that set-up as the standard. You write stuff that's self-contradictory and also contradicts the facts (reality).

 

You haven't even read a few pages of this thread and wrote stuff contradictory to what I wrote so obviously you should expect some disagreement from me (with proof I might add). Proof is better than someone's opinion. Play StarLeague baseball and you see how pinpoint control works fine with normal A8 joystick. I prefer that over Realsports Baseball.

 

I have played it, but this is SUPPOSED to be "ATARI 5200, WHY DO YOU LIKE IT?" It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 8-BIT COMPUTERS. I have that for my XL. Not available for the 5200. Too bad the programmers didn't know the basic formula for slope. Love the ball curving all over the field. How can one contradict what another likes about a system. This is not that kind of thread. It doesn't matter what YOU like about the 5200 in MY sharing. Are you sure you know what this thread is? And you are not all about proof, because I have provide 'proof' where I was not expressing opinions.

...

You don't understand simple logic. Your argument is that you need complex joysticks for a baseball game and I GAVE ONE EXAMPLE of a game where it works fine with a simple digital joystick. You are also employing CHEWBACCA DEFENSE to try to escape from your mistaken views. I KNOW PERFECTLY well what this thread is about, but you don't remember what you are arguing but just keep twisting things. If someone tells me that the sun rises in the West, it's fine that he likes to think that way but I have a right to disagree with him at least for preventing others from being mislead even if you don't care.

 

Speaking of which, the Colecovision did have a sharper, higher resolution display. They had fresh games that were not on other systems. That is where Coleco had an edge, and that was one more nail in the 5200 coffin...

 

Then you KNOW that the 4 players and 4 missiles do NOT display in high resolution, but are two color-clocks wide. Yes, I know they can be overlaid, but that does not increase the resolution; it just adds the third color. Look at Mario on the Coleco -- high-res Sprite. Atari Sprites are 2x the width per pixel. That IS FACT, Skippy!!

...

CHEWBACCA DEFENSE. Read your original statement: "Colecovision did have a sharper higher resolution display." This is the BULLCRAP that I'm disagreeing with. Now you twist it, well Colecovision had better sprites. Again, perhaps it's just your English. And then you also argue that artifacting is no good and yet now claim well the colecovision sprites are also in that bad artifacting mode. Make up your mind.

 

I am not expressing animosity but disagreeing with you on couple of points-- namely your claim that Coleco has higher resolution and about joysticks. Yes, ANTIC mode F in overscan addresses 384*240 and that chip is both in A800 and A5200. You can produce multicolor sprites/overlays by overlapping and as well as by DLIs so it's not just 4-color. Both Coleco and A800 have artifacting in their high resolution modes.

 

Well, Maybe I was not clear in THIS area... I mean PRACTICAL resolution. Show me one 5200 game that used a resolution --AND displayed color, which was over 160x192... Backgammon? 2-colors?

...

It doesn't matter which games use higher resolution, the point is the system was capable at the time. And it's not 160*192 either (even without artifacting), simple display list and overscan gives you 176*240*5 with hscroll/vscroll built into hardware.

 

And.. What COULD have been.. The updated XL/XE version shows what the 8-bits were truly capable of. Too bad they waited until 1988. In all fairness, a 48k cart back then would have been priced like a NEO GEO cart in its day. We have to take the 'balance' into consideration.

 

I might be a newbie posting here, but at least I read the thread topic. THIS IS "ATARI 5200, WHY DO YOU LIKE IT?". If you weren't so hell bent on finding something to pick at, common sense would imply that I have been talking about the 5200! (As in waiting until 1988 to release a cartridge -- what I meant by 'cart' -- of decent capacity) Plus I was still talking about Mario Bros detail.

...

Like duh. Read your own words: you are talking about XL/XE and then talk about "too bad they waited until 1988." That refers to XL/XE NOT 5200. Why in the world would the topic title come into play here in this context? It doesn't. You wrote something that is FALSE AND I wasn't HELL BENT on finding something to pick at since I stated that it's a minor point. They had banked carts for A5200 and they had disks for 800XL capable of 128K or more as some games had multiple disks.

 

I do not have to read through the thread to share WHY I liked my 5200! LOL! You told me that I don't know what I am talking about, because I shared my fond childhood memories. How is that truth or not?

Your childhood memories are that XL/XE came out in 1988 and you want people to accept that without any argument. Sorry, not me.

 

In the end, do I understand that we both like the 5200 better than the Colecovision? Are we on the same team here?

 

Not yet. I am better at liking things for what it ACTUALLY is.

[atariksi]

I replaced the link in my previous article with this one..

 

Facts:

Atari Display Modes

 

And if you were a programmer, you would know that the standard display modes aren't everything an Atari is capable of. You can mix them, you can interlace them, overscan them, use DLIs to add more color, use sprite overlays/underlays, etc. etc. Don't just randomly pick links from the web. Any person can do that.

 

Oh by the way, that article also makes no mention of GTIA modes which were standard in Atari 5200 and XL/XE series. It does mention the 176 pixel wide mode although 192*240 is actually addressed in that mode.

[doyman]

I like it for many reasons, one being I only saw one in a store when I was a kid and thought it was Gods gift to games.

1. I remember thinking that the pause button was great
   
2. The Graphics
   
3. Pac man looked 1000% better than the 2600 version
   
4. I hated Donkey Kong (back then coleco=DK and Atari=Pacman)
   
5. It was the first system I started collecting for.
   

[atariksi]

I like it for many reasons, one being I only saw one in a store when I was a kid and thought it was Gods gift to games.

1. I remember thinking that the pause button was great
   
2. The Graphics
   
3. Pac man looked 1000% better than the 2600 version
   
4. I hated Donkey Kong (back then coleco=DK and Atari=Pacman)
   
5. It was the first system I started collecting for.
   

 

I think Atari 800 Donkey Kong was out before Coleco's and that's definitely better.

[Chickybaby]

If you don't like 5200 and would like to start debates on what was better you can always post in another thread or not post at all. Thank you.

[82atari5200]

If you don't like 5200 and would like to start debates on what was better you can always post in another thread or not post at all. Thank you.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely...

 

Anyways, I like the 5200 because it's the first Christmas (can I say Christmas? Don't want to offend...) how about X-Mas present I remember getting at the age of 6. I thought it was the greatest thing in the world. The kid across the street only had a 2600 and was most impressed at my Pac-Man. Plus it's easy to just pop in a game play a few minutes and shut it off when your done. No saving or 1 hour setting up your characters or party. For 80's arcade goodness I can think of no better system. I always loved the controllers it's just they don't stand the test of time very well, But then again these guys probably never imagined that we'd still be playing them 30 something years later...Plus it's totally 80's American goodness. It's ungodly huge, it's controllers are over thought, it's sleek black and silver and still the biggest console of all time . Fits in nicely with a B&O sound system.

[jetset]

If you don't like 5200 and would like to start debates on what was better you can always post in another thread or not post at all. Thank you.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely...