The Tramiels

[Goochman]

 

Then what does that make the Macintosh or PC?

 

When I was in college I bought a Mac for $1000 or $1500 at the campus bookstore. IMHO it was a much better computer than the ST line. The 512 x 342 display was sharp and I preferred the Mac OS over the version of GEM on the ST. One of my friends had an ST at the time and I just didn't like it at all. The keyboard drove me absolutely nuts. The Mac ran the software that I needed (Excel etc.) and you could actually find a place to buy the computer and the software. As for PCs, I have really never liked PCs. I think one of the most stable OSes that MS ever made was Windows 2000 Pro.

 

The ST was a strange machine imho. Was it a home computer? Was it a business computer? Atari gave some mixed messages in their marketing if I recall correctly. If the Mac was the computer for the rest of us, then the St was the Mac for the rest of us. Slapping the Atari name on a computer that they tried to sell to fortune 1000 companies was a big mistake imho. Atari was branded as a games company and having a computer with such an horrendous keyboard did not help Atari at all. (Though that was probably the least of their problems.)

 

About seven years ago I bought an ST and it came with about 200 game discs. 90% of the games are horrible. It wasn't even a good game machine imho. (Not saying the Mac was either, but it had many other advantages over the ST.)

 

Anyways, going to school in Boston at the time, I am not even sure where I would have gotten an ST if I even wanted to.

 

By then for $1500 you could've had an ST w/color/mono and a Mac (Spectre) with a larger screen and faster processor.

[SpaceDice2010]

Why would I want to? I couldn't stand typing on the Atari keyboard and it didn't run software that I needed. And I had no idea where to even buy one. You could buy Macs at huge discounts at the Havard book store. I think they did that at all colleges. I am not sure what time we are talking about... I thought the 520ST was $1000 for the color version when it came out?

[+wood_jl]

Why would I want to? I couldn't stand typing on the Atari keyboard and it didn't run software that I needed. And I had no idea where to even buy one. You could buy Macs at huge discounts at the Havard book store. I think they did that at all colleges. I am not sure what time we are talking about... I thought the 520ST was $1000 for the color version when it came out?

 

The ST (and XE) keyboards were never my favorite. But I was (and am) able to use them quite well. The Mac (at the time of the ST launch) didn't even have cursor control keys, function keys, or even a numeric keypad. Yuck. But maybe it goes well with a one-button mouse.

 

[Goochman]

Why would I want to? I couldn't stand typing on the Atari keyboard and it didn't run software that I needed. And I had no idea where to even buy one. You could buy Macs at huge discounts at the Havard book store. I think they did that at all colleges. I am not sure what time we are talking about... I thought the 520ST was $1000 for the color version when it came out?

 

Since the majority of users couldnt take advantage of the College discount then you need to really think about the $2k is cost most users for a Mac.

 

The 1040ST w/color monitor was $999. First computer to deliver a meg of memory for under $1k. Mono monitor was $150 and Spectre GCR was $250. You can then run all the Mac software natively and when you wanted color do that also.

 

The Mac was a bit more portable though I will give you that.

[atarian63]

This issue could be settled quickly by:

 

1) Declaring Atari management (whichever company) complete, impotent imbeciles.

 

2) Declaring some know-it-alls in this thread to be complete, absolute genius.

 

3) Admitting that Atari management should have called you (even if you were 14 years old at the time) and placed you in charge, immediately.

 

What's left to argue about?

Even more fun is that the 17 year old might have made better choices

[atarian63]

Albeit, even with strong management/support of the ST or Amiga, PC clones would arrive in force sooner or later and dominate the US well before that (the fact that Amstrad dropped their lower-end PC line in '88 delayed that a good deal too), but establishing a licensed standard with either machine could have changed the game considerably for Atari or CBM. (better expandability and more timely evolution to both systems would also have been critical issues aside from marketing and business management)

 

I can't see licensing being of any assistance at all to Atari. They'd moved so few units and the platform was so closed I can't imagine anyone would have been interested. By comparison the PC was a free for all, with high margins and high demand, and open to pretty much anybody who wanted in.

 

It's possible somebody would have been interested in licensing the Amiga, since its custom chipset was pretty cool. On the other hand, it also would have been more difficult to expand than the ST or the PC, and Commodore's margins were already pretty low, so again, what would be the point?

 

Apple tried licensing the Macintosh many years later and it was a disaster that (among other brain-dead moves) nearly bankrupted the company.

 

 

A much more interesting premise is if Atari had moved on with its own advanced computer designs (several of which were more impressive than the Amiga) and sued Amiga for breech of contract on top of that.

 

According to an engineer who was there under Warner and remained to work on coding GEM/TOS, those "advanced designs" were extremely rough prototypes that in no way, shape or form were ready to be commercialized. It would have taken years and millions of dollars to pump those systems out the door, and they would have been very expensive. From what I can tell, Atari was fooling around with designing its own Lisa, not its own Macintosh, before Tramiel came onboard and pulled the plug.

 

You can read about the birth of the ST here: http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=995 and also here: http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=1000&cpage=1 and about how the ST almost had real UNIX in 1987 here: http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=1355 His blogs and the comments are fascinating, I think.

 

 

A proper transition to Atari Corp may have pushed Tramiel to favor a derivative of one of Atari Inc's existing (fully prototyped) 16-bit designs as well as the UNIX based OS and "Snowcap" GUI they'd been developing.

 

According to Landon Dyer in the comments on one of his blog posts up above, that wasn't the case. Those other systems were nowhere near ready for prime time, and they would have been expensive. I know one of them featured dual 68000's, which alone would have placed it in the $1,500 and up category right out of the box. Those Apollo boxes used a similar setup and they were EXPENSIVE.

 

 

Is Tramiel's Atari still around? What about Nintendo? Somebody made a pretty huge mistake, and clearly it wasn't Nintendo.

 

No, that's a totally different context. It's all been explained above though: there were mistakes, but mainly made by Warner or again after Jack left. (the Sam Tramiel years)

 

I disagree. I think the Tramiels made a big mistake trying to launch a 68000 based Macintosh clone on a shoestring budget without a definite hardware advantage over the Mac. They came to market about two years later with an inferior product at razor thin margins, one they couldn't really afford to promote well and one they weren't making enough money off of to effectively improve.

 

And they were up against Apple, which enjoyed incredible margins and about 4 times their sales, and IBM and the clones, which were a colossus. They got squashed.

 

Once they lost access to the Amiga chipset it was game over in the computer space, at least using the Mac clone strategy. They should have shifted gears and concentrated on the consoles, perhaps using hardware developed for their next-generation console to launch a comeback in the computer market.

 

 

The Tramiels would obviously agree with this statement, since they eventually dumped the computers entirely to concentrate all of their efforts on the console business (about 5 years too late to make any impact).

 

 

That was a mistake too and probably due mostly to Sam Tramiel's weak management.

 

There's absolutely no reason Atari should have pushed computered: Warner hadn't pushed them hard enough, but Atari Corp managed exceptional success with the ST in the late 80s (especially in Europe) which brought the company out of debt and made it onto the fortune 500 list. (with help from the millions of 2600s and 7800s sold in the late 80s under Michael Katz' tactful management under a tight budget)

 

That ship sailed long before JT stepped down. The pullback began in '87 or so, with the Abaq, Portfolio, XE GS, PC compatibles and other side projects. Atari was clearly looking outside of the ST for a profitable product that would make them a real player in the computer market, because the STs weren't cutting it. Yeah, they were big sellers in Europe for awhile, but the margins were bad and the sales weren't enough to make Atari a major player. By 1990 or so the Amiga overtook them and never looked back (and even that wasn't enough to save Commodore from going bankrupt - both had been long surpassed by the Mac and, especially, the clones).

 

 

Europe had real potential for them in the mainstream for years to come -and consoles had great potential in both markets with the right marketing -remember Atari had maintained a significant lead over Sega in US market share up to '89 at least, and they had a lot more funding to work with by that point -and Europe lacked the Nontendo blockade)

 

Europe had no potential. PCs were plummeting in price and sported capabilities that made the STs - and soon the Amigas - look obsolete. And they had the advantage of being compatible with an enormous software library and scads of expansion hardware. Yeah, you might be able to pick up an ST for $700 or whatever with monitor, but by the time you added a hard drive and an external modem to bring it up to the capabilities of a basic PC you were already looking at $1,200+, and you still didn't have the high-res color graphics a PC could produce by '90-'91.

 

And then Windows 3.0 and 3.1 rolled along, pretty much rendering the ST and Amigas totally obsolete.

 

 

The ST never had more than a couple percent market share. It was insignificant. Financially it was even more insignificant, because most of the units Atari did sell, they sold cheap and at low margins. By the end of the '80s Apple was moving more units of their Macintosh, and at far higher prices (and higher margins). And Apple's market share was puny compared to that of the clones.

 

It was the dominant 16-bit computer of the 80s in Europe, with the Amiga only coming into its own at the very end of the decade. (had Atari managed things better, they could have stayed on top too -then again, CBM could have been managed far better as well)

 

The PC was the dominant 16-bit computer of the '80s in Europe. Atari only pushed 4-5 million units of the ST worldwide during its entire history. PCs were selling more units than that a quarter by the end of the decade. The ST barely merits a footnote in the annals of computing. Atari's best year in the '80s saw them with around $500 million in revenue and $50 million in profits I believe, much of it from games and the 8-bits. In contrast, Apple hit $5 billion of revenue by 1989, and $450 million in profit. Apple's profits exceeded Atari's revenues.

 

PC clone makers like Compaq were experiencing similar or even greater growth by that point. Compaq made $112 million in its first year, 1984, and by 1986 was hauling in $503 million a year. They hit $1.2 billion by 1988, the fastest company ever to reach that mark.

 

 

Where are you getting your figures from?

 

Wikipedia. Copies of various financial statements out on the Internet. Articles dredged up by Google. An archived history of Compaq written in 2002. The numbers are all out there, if you do a little digging.

 

 

Yes, and that also shows that Apple missed a lot of major opportunities:

The Apple II had potential for being a dominant mass market standard but they:

-didn't push for a cost reduced model for the low/mid-range market with a tighter profit margin (in spite of the simplistic design having incredible potential for such -it could have been more like the Spectrum in Europe except with a huge head start and much greater respect in the higher-end market)

-didn't have timely evolution of the system (2 MHz models and the higher-res graphics should have come sooner, let alone a more comprehensive update to the audio and video systems like a proper 16 color bitmap mode of reasonable resolutions and at least some form of hardware sound generation or a bare DAC along with programmable interval timer(s) to aid with CPU driven audio -perhaps upgrade that to DMA sound later on like the Mac)

 

Totally agree with you here. Apple got distracted by the ///, then by the Lisa, then the Mac. They were idiots for not concentrating on the // and focusing their upgrades on their existing platform. But then, Commodore and Atari made the exact same mistake. The difference was, Apple's margins were high enough to see them through their stupidity - Commodore and Atari didn't have that luxury.

 

But yeah, ideally Apple should have commissioned (or designed for itself) a 16-bit variant of the 6502, something with roughly the performance of a 68000 that could run 6502 code, and built something like the Mac's OS on top of that. Then they'd have had this killer new GUI-based platform that was also backward compatible with all of their old software. Given how well the GS did when it came out - it outsold the Mac for 2-3 years, IIRC - I think such a beast would have been an enormous hit. A bunch of folks who migrated to the PC around that time would almost have certainly stuck with Apple and the Mac instead.

 

As for sound though, their agreements with Apple Records prohibited them from having anything to do with music. Apart from the GS - which they got in trouble for - no Apple ever shipped with hardware music synthesis capabilities (just D/A converters).

 

 

Yes, and that could have been their definitive niche in the US market as well: music. (something to cling to even after PCs have flooded the market)

 

That would have been a very tiny niche.

I think you mean that the ST was a SUPERIOR product to the mac or pc of the day in 1985, far and away. ST sales were easy, we needed advertising from Atari, that would have done it. It was always easy to take away a sale from a mac or a pc especially after magic sac etc and pc boards came out.

[kool kitty89]

I have been reading over this thread and keep hearing about Atari's advanced designs for 16-bit computers, is there any solid information, prototypes, development stories out there? I can say I am interested in hearing about it and what if any of the things they were working on made it into actual products Atari or otherwise.

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/152112-sneak-peak-amiga-atari-design/ (a lot more scattered in other topics too, sierra, gaza, rainbow chipset with silver & gold, etc)

Unfortunately it's been a LOT longer than 2 weeks and there's still not update on Atarimuseum AFIK.

 

There's also the 3200 from '80/81 that was canceled in favor of the 5200:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/156916-atari-ss1000-sylvia/ (unlike once thought, it was NOT an odd unconventional system with a "10-bit" CPU, but apparently a fairly evolutionary derivative of the VCS merging in some of the A8 hardware -namely ANTIC while presumably adding GTIA like functionality to STIA if not boosting things beyond what GTIA can do)

[kool kitty89]

The ST was a strange machine imho. Was it a home computer? Was it a business computer?

It was both; what's so hard to figure about that. It's like with PCs once lower-end clones appeared, a full range of uses. (the Tandy 1000 would be one of th first to rally offer that in an attractive manner and with some good marketing too; a shame that they didn't push for distribution outside of Radio Shack outlets)

 

 

Atari gave some mixed messages in their marketing if I recall correctly. If the Mac was the computer for the rest of us, then the St was the Mac for the rest of us. Slapping the Atari name on a computer that they tried to sell to fortune 1000 companies was a big mistake imho. Atari was branded as a games company and having a computer with such an horrendous keyboard did not help Atari at all. (Though that was probably the least of their problems.)

No, the mistake was not offering it in a definitively wider array of loadouts and form factors from the start. There was no reason it shouldn't have been both a business and home/casual computer (as PCs became/still are), and if it wasn't marketed as a business machine, there's no way it would have sold as well as it did early on. (too expensive, especially in Europe; 8-bits were still the definitive casual/home computers of the time, and that didn't change in Europe until the late 80s transitioning into the early 90s)

 

The Amiga was the same way, though they also screwed up the marketing as well as offering it in an array of form factors from the start:

The ST needed to have desktop models and higher-end models in general from launch or soon after. (faster CPUs, expansion ports, perhaps FPU options, RAM expansion, internal disk drives, provisions/options for an internal HDD, etc, etc)

The console form factor and closed box design hurt the ST in the upper end of the market early on. (albeit they did things like making 2 disk drives look like a desktop form factor machine and such, but that's a bit sloppy compared to a real desktop -big box or pizza box- form factor)

 

The Amiga started off only with the pizzabox form factor with some decent expansion support (albeit some things resorting to CPU piggybacking), but not marketed well for the business market alongside niche graphics/workstation markets and didn't have a low-end console format model available until '87 as Atari didn't have a destop until the '87 MEGA either. (and both the MEGA and 1986 A2000 failed to offer faster CPUs out of the box or FPUs)

CBM made the bigger mistakes by far with the Amiga and mess of things like the Plus/4 and other crap muddying the waters: Atari had much less funding to work with and a weaker market position and Commodore had both in spades in 1985, yet they managed to screw it up big time.

 

 

 

When I was in college I bought a Mac for $1000 or $1500 at the campus bookstore.

 

When I was a student, the Atari 520 ST was $500, the Amiga 500 was $800 and the Mac 512 was $2000. The ST was in color. The Amiga was even more colors. The Mac was black and white. I didn't find the interfaces to lean better in one direction over the other. But I thought Macs were laughably over-priced relative to what you got.

 

There were stores where I could buy software for all three easily so that wasn't an issue.

 

Also the ST also had a very good for the time Monochrome monitor option.

Not only that, but higher-res mono than the mac at 640x400 70 Hz refresh. (and the cheaper option for a bundled system -at least for early models, though not good for games or graphic design stuff obviously)

 

 

 

Why would I want to? I couldn't stand typing on the Atari keyboard and it didn't run software that I needed. And I had no idea where to even buy one. You could buy Macs at huge discounts at the Havard book store. I think they did that at all colleges. I am not sure what time we are talking about... I thought the 520ST was $1000 for the color version when it came out?

 

The ST (and XE) keyboards were never my favorite. But I was (and am) able to use them quite well. The Mac (at the time of the ST launch) didn't even have cursor control keys, function keys, or even a numeric keypad. Yuck. But maybe it goes well with a one-button mouse.

Not to mention Apple's stupid step backward with the current gen iMac keyboards (don't get me started on their mice . . . ). They went from some pretty nice full-throw full-sized keyboards in the late 90s/early-mid 2000s on the iMac/eMac ranges, but then went with cheap-o worse-than-average laptop keyboards (or about the same as macbook keyboards) with the slimline aluminum mounted crap in the last few years. (NOT fun taking my video editing and programming classes on those) :daze:

I'll take a VIC-20 keyboard over that, OK not a 400 membrane board, but that at least looks cool.

 

Heh, even the average XE/ST keyboards are nicer than those, though I'll give the current gen iMac boards the benefit for having moderatley better tactile responce. (springs rather than mushy Atari Corp boards, but the throw and feel of the keys is better on the Atari stuff, at least to a fair extent -which is a joke for the iMac ) At least they didn't go back to the ridiculously small 80s Mac 64/128k type keyboards though . . .

 

I haven't gotten a chance to try an XL keyboard, but the absolute best computer keyboards I've used are some early 90s higher-end/business class PC-AT extended layout keyboards without the "sproing" tactile/audible response of some IBM boards, but still the very smooth and nice feel to it. (only DIN-5 connector too, though I thin we were using it with a PS/2 adapter later on, or maybe just that old AT era case with the built in DIN-5 port we've had in use on and off since the early 90s -right now it's an auxiliary machine in the garage with a K6-2 running win2000 . . . actually with a PS/2 to DIN5 adapter for a PS/2 keyboard )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would I want to? I couldn't stand typing on the Atari keyboard and it didn't run software that I needed. And I had no idea where to even buy one. You could buy Macs at huge discounts at the Havard book store. I think they did that at all colleges. I am not sure what time we are talking about... I thought the 520ST was $1000 for the color version when it came out?

 

Since the majority of users couldnt take advantage of the College discount then you need to really think about the $2k is cost most users for a Mac.

 

The 1040ST w/color monitor was $999. First computer to deliver a meg of memory for under $1k. Mono monitor was $150 and Spectre GCR was $250. You can then run all the Mac software natively and when you wanted color do that also.

 

The Mac was a bit more portable though I will give you that.

Weren't the dedicated mono monitor bundles cheaper than the color monitor ones? (I don't think there were ever grayscale 15 kHz sync monitor options, but that would have been a good cheap option for lower end users wanting a display compatible with the lower res modes that much software required, like some old VGA compatible mono monitors -let alone a multi-sync monitor, but that would be getting more costly again -or for that matter, a composite monitor and a switch on the ST to disable colorburst for RGB quality grayscale like CGA/TGA could do -also important for RF users for that matter -otoh, a cheap RGB monitor should have been less expensive to produce than a similarly cheap composite monitor since composite requires the added decoder/filtering circuitry to convert that to analog RGB vs just buffering circuitry for RGB+sync input)

 

Or you could buy a standalone ST (or some bundle sans the monitor) and look for a used RGB monitor to use instead. (especially if you had a decent local used computer warehouse -my dad got a ton of our stuff from those sorts of places when building our home PCs in the early 90s -and up through to about 4 years ago for that matter; probably would be currently if we were updating our computers like we were then)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you mean that the ST was a SUPERIOR product to the mac or pc of the day in 1985, far and away. ST sales were easy, we needed advertising from Atari, that would have done it. It was always easy to take away a sale from a mac or a pc especially after magic sac etc and pc boards came out.

Undoubtedly, at least from a technical aspect and cost/performance. The only thing close to it in the PC world in those regards was the Tandy 1000 line, but aside from having decent PC compatibility at an affordable price (and some models offering GEM pack-in -some others offering the simple deskmate DOS shell-like GUI) it wasn't that amazing: for games that supported the specific features, it was the best PC for games up to the end of the 80s with Adlib+EGA games (and only because of Adlib, though you could argue the Tandy DAC would one up that as well), but game support was hit and miss. (and otherwise, you'd drop down to CGA)

You brought it up before, but one of the biggest limitations (also shared with other Tandy machines) was being tied only to Radio Shack distribution. (though that may have been a benefit to the TRS-80 in the late 70s, it didn't stay that way for very long)

 

Of course, the Tandy 1000 was also tied down (hardware/software wise) by the PC standard (aside from the tweaks following the PC Jr graphics and sound), so it was limited in pure cost/performance as such with the advantage of DOS and semi-IBM hardware/BIOS compatibility. (unlike the ST which was tied down to nothing but the short development cycle and cost restrictions)

 

Atari offered some pretty nice PC clones in the late 80s too, a shame those didn't get pushed more. (especially as the ST fell out of favor in the US -Europe wouldn't really favor the PC until well into the 90s though) Commodore probably was in an even better position to push PC clones, but they missed that opportunity. (they probably could have pulled off a custom motherboard PC-1 like design with their vertical integration -vs Atari who couldn't compare with cheap off the shelf parts and thus switched to the PC-3/4/5 and ABC designs -albeit the PC-3/4/5 also meant full big-box desktop machines with normal modular drive bays and multiple internal ISA slots and VGA out of the box for the 4/5 -SVGA for ABC -the PC4 actually would have made a pretty decent game machine into the early 90s with an added sound card)

 

Actually, aside from the out of the box sound, the Atari PC-1 (and others) were better values than much of what Tansy was offering in 1987/88.

Hmm, actually, what might have been interesting is if they'd started offering models with onboard sound as well. (perhaps clone Adlib's YM3812 interface and add a bare 8-bit DAC mapped to be compatible with Covox/etc -maybe upgraded to DMA later on)

Edited February 10, 2011 by kool kitty89

[Goochman]

KoolKitty - yes the 1040ST Mono bundle was cheaper than $999. The ST was a steal when it came out - parts or not, you really couldnt touch the performance for the price.

[Pilsner73]

I have been reading over this thread and keep hearing about Atari's advanced designs for 16-bit computers, is there any solid information, prototypes, development stories out there? I can say I am interested in hearing about it and what if any of the things they were working on made it into actual products Atari or otherwise.

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/152112-sneak-peak-amiga-atari-design/ (a lot more scattered in other topics too, sierra, gaza, rainbow chipset with silver & gold, etc)

Unfortunately it's been a LOT longer than 2 weeks and there's still not update on Atarimuseum AFIK.

 

There's also the 3200 from '80/81 that was canceled in favor of the 5200:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/156916-atari-ss1000-sylvia/ (unlike once thought, it was NOT an odd unconventional system with a "10-bit" CPU, but apparently a fairly evolutionary derivative of the VCS merging in some of the A8 hardware -namely ANTIC while presumably adding GTIA like functionality to STIA if not boosting things beyond what GTIA can do)

 

Thanks for the links, read over the threads and sounds like the 3200 was canceled by Atari years before the Tramiels took over so when they bought Atari they already had the 7800 sitting in warehouses so why bother with the 3200 from a business standpoint? I think the 3200 made sense if it was developed and released by 1980-81 but as others said the 7800 probably replaced that project.

 

As to the 16bit and beyond computers by Atari R&D under Warner my opinion is - The thread was started in 2009 and we are still waiting for the documents/pictures/story of these items so far all I see is a lot of speculation going on. What I did gather is that if the designs were real and going to be built by Atari (before the Tramiels), Atari was probably going to position the Amiga as a low end computer/game console and these new 16bit powerhouse machines for the high end, probably comparable to Mac/Lisa performance and pricing.

 

Jack goes to buy Atari and the Amiga deal doesn't happen so he's left without that. Then of course Amiga is going to Commodore to be their new computer. So not only does Jack lose his new everyman game console/computer design but his old company is going to be releasing it. So he is left with some proven game machines (2600/7800), the 8-bit line of computers designed in the late 70s, and maybe some R&D designs of powerful 16bit computers. Now was Atari R&D 16bit computer designs ready to become production hardware? I have no idea but even if they were, if the price was on par or more than the Mac, Lisa, Amiga, and PC - you know Jack would never want that for his companies new every person product. So I see Jack saying he needs a 16bit computer to compete against the world and he wants it to not only be as powerful as the competition products (if not more so) but also be less expensive and still make Atari a profit. Hence we get the Atari ST which was rushed to get Atari back on the scene with a viable product and beat the Amiga to the punch.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Pilsner73

[high voltage]

SpaceDice2010, on Tue Feb 8, 2011 10:55 AM, said:

 

The ST was a strange machine imho. Was it a home computer? Was it a business computer?

 

 

 

Did Tramiel already did that with C64? The business computer?

[+wood_jl]

I haven't gotten a chance to try an XL keyboard, but the absolute best computer keyboards I've used are some early 90s higher-end/business class PC-AT extended layout keyboards without the "sproing" tactile/audible response of some IBM boards, but still the very smooth and nice feel to it. (only DIN-5 connector too, though I thin we were using it with a PS/2 adapter later on, or maybe just that old AT era case with the built in DIN-5 port we've had in use on and off since the early 90s -right now it's an auxiliary machine in the garage with a K6-2 running win2000 . . . actually with a PS/2 to DIN5 adapter for a PS/2 keyboard )

 

I want to apologize beforehand, for getting a little off-topic here. But since the discussion is keyboards.....

 

I agree completely with the PC-AT style keyboards being the best! I used to like the collapsing-spring tactile click; in the early 1990s it seemed it was a trend to copy this feature. But it was the feel that was the most important. I used to have an original IBM PS/2 that had this keyboard. Noisy. Heavy. Comfortable. Huge AT-class connector.

 

When building my recent PC, I longed for a one of those keyboards. I found you can still get them on Ebay sometimes. But they're missing the "Windows Keys" (although that's not a huge deal) and they're expensive, old, dirty, and of course noisy.

 

I looked on Wikipedia and found that they're referred to as the Model M keyboard. You can still get a version of it, as the design went from IBM to Lexmark and can now be bought new from Unicomp on the web. You can get the "clicky" or quieter, USB or PS2 connector. Trouble is, they're $80 plus shipping. If you want the noise, not a lot of options. However, I started looking for a cheaper ripoff. Since I moved back to a desktop that had vacant PS/2 ports, I decided to use them and free up 2 USB slots.

 

I found this on Ebay, cheap!

 

eBay Auction -- Item Number: 180573404086

 

It's $10, plus $8.18 shipping. I upped the qty to 2 and the shipping only went to $10.94 so I did. It's AWESOME! It's not the collapsing spring click, but those are just too damn noisy. It looks (and more importantly feels) like the IBM keyboard! It's heavy and strong - not a bit flimsy, and tends to stay put on the desk! I'm hoping I can use it with a USB adapter, should the need arise.

 

I combined it with one of these (yes, these are expensive)

 

eBay Auction -- Item Number: 400157841074

 

And I swear to you, this is the most comfortable, most ergonomic setup I have ever used, in my entire life. I mean that. EVERYTHING else is a disappointment. And yes, the computer labs at school have new(er) iMacs (Nice looking system!) with the el-cheapo, flimsy chicklet keyboards that are so light they scoot around the desk while you're using them.

 

Sorry for the diversion, but since we were talking keyboards here, I felt the need to share in the bargain keyboard that nobody's buying from Ebay......

 

....and now back to bitch-slapping the Tramiels.

[kool kitty89]

I want to apologize beforehand, for getting a little off-topic here. But since the discussion is keyboards.....

 

I agree completely with the PC-AT style keyboards being the best! I used to like the collapsing-spring tactile click; in the early 1990s it seemed it was a trend to copy this feature. But it was the feel that was the most important. I used to have an original IBM PS/2 that had this keyboard. Noisy. Heavy. Comfortable. Huge AT-class connector.

 

When building my recent PC, I longed for a one of those keyboards. I found you can still get them on Ebay sometimes. But they're missing the "Windows Keys" (although that's not a huge deal) and they're expensive, old, dirty, and of course noisy.

 

I looked on Wikipedia and found that they're referred to as the Model M keyboard. You can still get a version of it, as the design went from IBM to Lexmark and can now be bought new from Unicomp on the web. You can get the "clicky" or quieter, USB or PS2 connector. Trouble is, they're $80 plus shipping. If you want the noise, not a lot of options. However, I started looking for a cheaper ripoff. Since I moved back to a desktop that had vacant PS/2 ports, I decided to use them and free up 2 USB slots.

I think we've got enough good older keyboards in storage to not have to resort to buying any more. (pretty much kept all but those that were truly broken -even kept some of those for a while- or just poor quality) Both the noisy/springy ones as well as smooth ones. (though one of the noisy ones has iffy cursor keys, might be fixable though, but it got to the point of being unusable for keyboard based games )

 

Crossing back to the topic at hand: it would have been a great idea for Atari Corp to offer higher-end PC class keyboard for the higher end ST models (not sure what the MEGA keyboards were like, but they don't look much different from the plain ST ones -doesn't mean they're not much better internally though), and it looks like they may have actually pushed for that with their Atari PC line. (they PC-1 looks like it had an Atari branded version of the classic extended layout AT keyboard design, but again, that doesn't mean it's as good inside -the PS3/4/5 and ABC keyboards look to be pretty good quality too)

 

That, and Atari Corp should have been pushing such desktop models from the start, especially if they wanted to cover the higher-end business market along with the home market. (offering both compact MST/PC-1 pizzabox form factors with limited internal expansion along with big-box desktop and possibly tower form factor systems would have been awesome -and standardizing even low-end models with a low-cost, but flexible general purpose expansion port would have been extremely helpful as well -both for simple plug-in modules and 1090XL like expansion boxes, or possibly a different form factor for the pizzabox systems)

 

 

Actually, the PC-1 seems to have a modular floppy drive as well, not integral to the case and possibly easier to replace. (having room for 2 internal drives would be nice, but at least the ability to more easily upgrade to HD floppies internally on the MST would have been nice -and leave multiple internal drives to the big box models)

Edited February 11, 2011 by kool kitty89

[SpaceDice2010]

SpaceDice2010, on Tue Feb 8, 2011 10:55 AM, said:

 

The ST was a strange machine imho. Was it a home computer? Was it a business computer?

 

 

 

Did Tramiel already did that with C64? The business computer?

 

When IBM entered the market with the $700 PCjr, it was Tramiel that said more people will spend $200 on a home computer than $700. He was right then and he was also right when he introduced his own $700+ home computer.

[SpaceDice2010]

Seriously. If I were ever to release a computer that cost $700+ I don't think I would have slapped the Atari name on it. Atari was known as a video game company. How much did the "Atari" brand cost the ST when they tried to move in the business market? And that horrible keyboard. And the version of Gem that they used. But, why develop a computer that they tried to market to the business market with the Atari name? Doesn't make sense to me.

[SpaceDice2010]

 

Not to mention Apple's stupid step backward with the current gen iMac keyboards (don't get me started on their mice . . . ). They went from some pretty nice full-throw full-sized keyboards in the late 90s/early-mid 2000s on the iMac/eMac ranges, but then went with cheap-o worse-than-average laptop keyboards (or about the same as macbook keyboards) with the slimline aluminum mounted crap in the last few years. (NOT fun taking my video editing and programming classes on those) :daze:

I'll take a VIC-20 keyboard over that, OK not a 400 membrane board, but that at least looks cool.

 

Heh, even the average XE/ST keyboards are nicer than those, though I'll give the current gen iMac boards the benefit for having moderatley better tactile responce. (springs rather than mushy Atari Corp boards, but the throw and feel of the keys is better on the Atari stuff, at least to a fair extent -which is a joke for the iMac ) At least they didn't go back to the ridiculously small 80s Mac 64/128k type keyboards though . . .

 

I haven't gotten a chance to try an XL keyboard, but the absolute best computer keyboards I've used are some early 90s higher-end/business class PC-AT extended layout keyboards without the "sproing" tactile/audible response of some IBM boards, but still the very smooth and nice feel to it. (only DIN-5 connector too, though I thin we were using it with a PS/2 adapter later on, or maybe just that old AT era case with the built in DIN-5 port we've had in use on and off since the early 90s -right now it's an auxiliary machine in the garage with a K6-2 running win2000 . . . actually with a PS/2 to DIN5 adapter for a PS/2 keyboard )

 

It took me a while to get use to the last gen keyboards on the Imac. And I am not crazy about their mice. But, the XE/ST keyboards really suck imho. Not only do they suck but you are forced to type on top of the machine. IBM nailed it with their early keyboards. I just can't picture a secretary typing letters all day on an ST keyboard.

 

I am actually pretty use the new Mac keyboards...

[svenski]

Seriously. If I were ever to release a computer that cost $700+ I don't think I would have slapped the Atari name on it. Atari was known as a video game company. How much did the "Atari" brand cost the ST when they tried to move in the business market? And that horrible keyboard. And the version of Gem that they used. But, why develop a computer that they tried to market to the business market with the Atari name? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Atari was also known as a computer company. People's perceptions of Atari were/are always different. Depends on where in the world you were/are, if you had a passport, etc etc.

 

You only have to read through some old magazines or trawl the internet to see that the Atari ST was taken seriously as a business computer. Go do it, find out about the software, the 3rd party hardware designed for it.

[SpaceDice2010]

In the US I think it is fair to say from a marketing point of view Atari's brand was way more known with games than computers. Atari was games. Commodore was low cost computers. How many households in the US either didn't have an Atari video game system at one time or knew someone that did? Or had played one of their arcade games? Sure as heck can't say that about their computers. (At least in the US.) And the US is a damn big market.

 

I guess you would have to define what "taken seriously" actually means. Sure, companies released software/products. Some companies actually released software/products for the NEXT. I am not sure if that computer was taken seriously as anything except an extension of Job's ego.

Microsoft made Multiplan for the Commodore 64; but I wouldn't say that means the C64 was taken seriously as a business computer.

 

Rather than have me troll through the Internet looking for stuff, why not just show me somewhere what percentage of businesses used the ST. What percentage of Fortune 1000 companies? (Atari did eventually hire a sales team to target them.)

 

Once again, I am speaking from a US point of view. When I tell friends that I collect Atari, I get responses like, "Pitfall rocked" or "I loved Pac Man in the arcades." I never get "OMG! I loved their computers...." Weird.

 

Apple really tried hard to make the MAC a business machine, even Microsoft was heavily invested with Excel and other products. Being a college student at Harvard at the time it made sense to get a Mac. It was cheap and it had the software that I needed. (I am not even sure where the ST's were sold; distribution was that bad in the US.)

 

The Mac survived on Apple II's profits and the fact that it made a mark in the design field and the higher education field as well. Something that hasn't been mentioned about the Mac display is that the pixels were square on the screen which was a blessing for designers.

 

I believe I have read about 10 books on the history of Apple and I can't remember one time where the ST was mentioned at all. For all the marketing that Atari did to compare it to the Mac at a lower price, it seemed not to affect Mac sales.

[kool kitty89]

Thanks for the links, read over the threads and sounds like the 3200 was canceled by Atari years before the Tramiels took over so when they bought Atari they already had the 7800 sitting in warehouses so why bother with the 3200 from a business standpoint? I think the 3200 made sense if it was developed and released by 1980-81 but as others said the 7800 probably replaced that project.

Yes, once they missed their chance with the 3200, it would have been pointless to push on with it. (I'm not sure it even reached full hardware prototyping -maybe a wirewrap, almost certainly not any LSI stuff)

 

I think the 3200 (or similar) would have made sense anywhere up to '83 if it meant having no 5200 (maybe even later), though by that point it had better have STIA merged with ANTIC and some additional consolidation. (perhaps 16k of DRAM like the 5200/600XL and with embedded interface logic to give a further advantage over SRAM)

 

Though, again, from that stand point, they could have gone with a quick-fix hack back in '80/81 to cut out some R&D time by dropping STIA in favor of slapping GTIA on board along with TIA, ANTIC, RIOT, and Sally (6502C) plus added SRAM a la 3200/7800 or DRAM a la A8/5200 (the latter would be better in the long run -especially for A8 ports). Have provisions for some decent on-cart expansion (sound, RAM, maybe IRQ) and rely on TIA for onboard sound alogn with the software driven GTIA click channel, especially if you enabled RIOT interrupts in 5200 mode. (interrupt driven CPU modulation of TIA or GTIA channels -the former could include PCM samples and some other flexibility vs fixed volume pulse/square waves via GTIA) probably a simple halt mechanism to allow a 7800/SMS like pause button on the console. (especially facilitated by SALLY having built-in halt/refresh circuitry rather than just RDY)

Plenty of options for I/O with the 8 GTIA trigger/select lines, 2 TIA triggers, and 16 RIOT lines. (technically you might have enough I/O lines to push 3 or 4 controller ports, or as an option via a low-cost expansion port -maybe use that same prt for a keyboard add-on, or have other options for remapping I/O lines in different modes -possibly selectable in software- to allow more buttons without analog hacks -map GTIA or RIOT lines to what's normally the analog inputs- or use the analog ports with pull-up resistors and keep the other I/O for expansion -keyboard, added joyports, other peripherals, etc)

 

And once CGIA came around in late '83, you's have ANTIC+GTIA in a single 68-pin surface mounted LCC package for a configuration even closer to the 7800. (but more RAM -if DRAM was used, potentially better onboard sound -via interrupts, and a video ASIC that's 68 pins to MARIA's 48 but also in a compact LLC vs the DIP MARIA uses) And possibly having a parallel version of the JAN ASIC (single chip VCS) that has full 6502 functionality (vs 6507) and support to allow 1.79 MHz for the CPU (keeping TIA and possibly RIOT at 1.19 MHz -RIOT could have ben bumped to 1.79 MHz in 5200 mode from the start if the 2 MHz rated version was used), so just 2 ASICs (CGIA plus the JAN derivative) allowing some pretty substantial consolidation and a motherboard smaller than the 7800. (it's also assumed that the DRAM interface logic is in a dedicated IC by that point, so the entire system would be CGIA, JAN-ish, a small DRAM interface chip, 2 8k DRAM chips, and various capacitors, resistors, voltage regulator, and external connectors -maybe a few added discrete logic chips that would eventually be added to custom logic as well)

 

On the flip side with the Computers, it would have been smart to have a JAN-like chip that omitted TIA and implemented PIA's I/O logic in place of RIOT's, and maybe pushed for integrating POKEY as well. (so you'd have CGIA, the JAN-like chip, and POKEY or nothing else at all but DRAM interface logic and a bunch of simple discrete components -plus FREDDIE once that came around, perhaps merge that MMU logic with the DRAM interface logic as well)

That very well may have allowed Atari to undercut CBM's prices or at least compete directly in spite of the lack of vertical integration. (though they really should have pushed to buy/merge with a smaller vendor like Synertek back in '79/80, though '81-82 still had plenty of potential for that -Synertek was bout by Honewell by that point, but other options should have still existed -or maybe even buying Synertek from Honeywell)

 

 

 

But yes, after the 5200 and then the correction with the 7800, that 3200 option was long past, let alone by the time the Tramiels came in with the 7800 design frozen for production. (though the potential to consolidate the A8 as well as the 7800 -via a modified JAN- would still apply)

 

 

As to the 16bit and beyond computers by Atari R&D under Warner my opinion is - The thread was started in 2009 and we are still waiting for the documents/pictures/story of these items so far all I see is a lot of speculation going on. What I did gather is that if the designs were real and going to be built by Atari (before the Tramiels), Atari was probably going to position the Amiga as a low end computer/game console and these new 16bit powerhouse machines for the high end, probably comparable to Mac/Lisa performance and pricing.

Yes, Curt still needs to update Atari Museum, but both he and Marty (Wgungfu) have a good amount of documentation and related notes on the subject from Atari Inc at the time.

 

The MICKY project (Lorraine/Amiga chipset) was to be launched in late 1984 close to the time of the 7800 as their new super-high-end video game console with computer expansion support emphasized. (the 2600 Jr would appear at the same time as the budget console with the 7800 positioned as the "normal" new/current mainstay machine) The MICKY console would then add computer expansion with up to 128kB of RAM in 1985 (per the contract), and in '86 they could launch a full standalone computer and unlimited expansion for the console. (again, per the contract)

 

Amiga shafted them in June of 1984 just days before Warner pushed for the split and sale to Tramiel (having previously attempted a complete sale with various buyers -including Tramiel- but without success). IIRC Amiga had been delaying the promised LSI chips for a while already and then finally threw in the "failed prototype" excuse claiming they couldn't get Lorraine to work and returinging Atari's investment with interest. (which an Atari employee apparently accepted without knowing that was not an acceptable option per the contract)

 

Had Morgan continued things as they were, he probably would have sued Amiga/Commodore and possibly switched emphasis back to the Rainbow chipset and other in-house projects. (abandoning MICKY)

 

 

Jack goes to buy Atari and the Amiga deal doesn't happen so he's left without that. Then of course Amiga is going to Commodore to be their new computer. So not only does Jack lose his new everyman game console/computer design but his old company is going to be releasing it. So he is left with some proven game machines (2600/7800), the 8-bit line of computers designed in the late 70s, and maybe some R&D designs of powerful 16bit computers. Now was Atari R&D 16bit computer designs ready to become production hardware? I have no idea but even if they were, if the price was on par or more than the Mac, Lisa, Amiga, and PC - you know Jack would never want that for his companies new every person product. So I see Jack saying he needs a 16bit computer to compete against the world and he wants it to not only be as powerful as the competition products (if not more so) but also be less expensive and still make Atari a profit. Hence we get the Atari ST which was rushed to get Atari back on the scene with a viable product and beat the Amiga to the punch.

No, Amiga cheated Atari Inc and jumped ship to join Commodore before Warner contacted Tramiel for the split offer. The Amiga contract was dead as soon as Atari Inc cached the check (a mistake by management somewhere in Atari), but it was still a substantial breech of contract and outright lie on Amiga's part to weasel out of the contract. (Lorraine WAS working at that time) Hence Morgan would push a law suit as Tramiel later did, if not with quicker and more favorable results for Atari. (the suit would launch sooner, Atari would be much better organized, CBM would have no grounds for a counter suit, etc)

 

 

Again, a smooth transition to Atari Corp with Morgan's plans continuing and careful reorganization should have meant very close to the same thing as sticking with Atari Inc alone, and may have even been better in some respects. (finally cutting out Warner's bureaucracy, but with trade-offs in balancing Morgan and Tramiel's management -at least keep Morgan in the Short run to smooth things out- and you'd lose some advantage with a separate Atari Games -but could have maintained a very positive relationship nonetheless -plus, they almost certainly would have pushed for Atari Inc's advanced computer designs and software developments over the still embryonic RGB/ST design as it was in mid '84 -given the hardware was from mid/late '83, they probably could have pushed for a good bit more consolidation from '84 to the time of the '85 launch -and keep another console for later, that and there was GCC's offer to push and updated MARIA into a 68000 based machine as well)

 

Warner ruined that with the horrible management of the split. They no only shot Atari Corp in the foot with that, but they hurt themselves as well due to their retained stake in the company.

[kool kitty89]

SpaceDice2010, on Tue Feb 8, 2011 10:55 AM, said:

 

The ST was a strange machine imho. Was it a home computer? Was it a business computer?

 

 

 

Did Tramiel already did that with C64? The business computer?

 

When IBM entered the market with the $700 PCjr, it was Tramiel that said more people will spend $200 on a home computer than $700. He was right then and he was also right when he introduced his own $700+ home computer.

Yes, but the ST was a $700 computer at an incredible value for what you got . . . (and a total package with floppy drive and 640x400 monitor). Also remember the C64 WAS A $600 machine at launch, even in the bare-bones package. (let alone with a floppy drive and monitor) It wasn't until late 1983 that it dropped close to $200 for the standalone computer.

 

And yes, IBM totally f*cked up with the PCJr, not so much the price, but the feature set for that price: cheap-ish, too small and odd IR keyboard, no internal expansion and proprietary external expansion vs ISA, and proprietary peripheral ports on top of that. (the 64k was pretty weak for a baseline as well, though the Mac was the same way)

 

Tandy got it right though: if IBM had made a range of PCJr based machines on par with the Tandy 1000 at similar (or lower -via vertical integration and higher volumes) price point, it could have been an awesome competitor in the mid-range home/business computer market. They should have had a 7.16 MHz 8088, a 5.25" DD floppy drive, and 128k as the baseline standard though, more like Tandy. The composite monitor was OK since it was near RGB clarity in grayscale modes. (colorburst disabled for luminance only)

They probably should have pushed for at least a rudimentary DOS GUI out of the box as Tandy did with Deskmate 1.0 running on top of DOS 2.1. (pushing for 8-bit DMA sound as Tandy did in the late 80s would also have been very significant -Tandy added a 48 kHz mono DMA PCM channel on top of the simple PSG and PC speaker channel)

They could have pushed for even more heavily integrated lower-end console form factors as well. (more integtated and compact than Tandy's EX and HX line even)

 

If IBM had done that, they probably would have rolled the PCJr video and sound standards into later full PC models as well.

 

It probably would have been more expensive than the PCJr with the bar raised for the base standard, but the value would be better, and IBM's size and internal advantages should have allowed them to undercut the 1,199 price Tandy had as well. (I believe that was the price for a total system too and may have been for the 256 k model -though I think the bar was raised to 256k minimum pretty soon after the '84 launch) And again, a range of machines, not just one machine: from low-end console models to full big-box desktops. (maybe push an all-in-one {PET/Mac/PS/2 model 25 like machine as well to directly position against the Mac -larger color display, better keyboard, decent onboard sound, rudimentary GUI running over DOS, PC compatibility, and a highly competitive price though a weaker CPU and OS -both of the latter would vary with higher end models and depending hoe IBM evolved the OS/GUI -OS/2 would come later of course)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously. If I were ever to release a computer that cost $700+ I don't think I would have slapped the Atari name on it. Atari was known as a video game company. How much did the "Atari" brand cost the ST when they tried to move in the business market? And that horrible keyboard. And the version of Gem that they used. But, why develop a computer that they tried to market to the business market with the Atari name? Doesn't make sense to me.

No, Atari needed to boost their image in the computer market: that was a huge mistake on Warner's part. The very fact that Atari wasn't known as a computer company almost as much as a game company by 1984 is a testament of their faults in managing the excellent 8-bit computer line. They should have been known for having a powerful, versatile range of 8-bit home computers good for games up to some professional/business applications. (hardware wise it really was the best 8-bit computer on the market all around in the late 70s to early 80s -even with advantages and trade-offs with the much newer C64 from the faster CPU to the broader palette to the MUCH faster disk drive, etc) The TRS-80 model II was superior as a high-end science/business machine with 64 kB standard, built-in high capacity (for the time) 8" floppy drive, 80 column text, 4 MHz Z80 and CP/M support, but had a price tag to match very much like the later PC. (albeit it wasn't marketed as broadly as the PC either)

 

Not to mention they'd have lot the huge market they had in Europe on top of that. (the dominant 16-bit computer on the market up to the Amiga getting an edge at the end of the 80s -for a number of reasons, though Sam's management seems to have made things a lot worse)

 

They could have had a very strong market with the 8-bits in Europe for that matter, and probably much longer than in the US (given what happened with the C64), so that was a massive blunder as well.

 

 

 

And the ST istelf probably wouldn't have existed if there was a proper transition from Atari Inc vs Warner's craptacular management of the split. (you'd probably have derivatives of Atari's powerful 16-bit custom chipsets and a multi-tasking UNIX based OS with GUI)

 

 

 

 

But as it was, if you ask anyone who grew up in UK/Europe in the late 80s, they'd almost certainly address Atari in the context of the ST. (massively popular for business, music, games, etc, etc -initially mainly professional stuff, but more and more games as it came down in price up to the point where the Amiga got more attractive following the price jump of the ST from 299 to 399 due to DRAM prices and CBM's match of the A500 dropping from 499 to 399 all in 1988 -made worse with Jack stepping down at that point and Sam's weaker management therafter)

Edited February 11, 2011 by kool kitty89

[svenski]

In the US I think it is fair to say from a marketing point of view Atari's brand was way more known with games than computers. Atari was games. Commodore was low cost computers. How many households in the US either didn't have an Atari video game system at one time or knew someone that did? Or had played one of their arcade games? Sure as heck can't say that about their computers. (At least in the US.) And the US is a damn big market.

 

I guess you would have to define what "taken seriously" actually means. (snip)

 

Rather than have me troll through the Internet looking for stuff, why not just show me somewhere what percentage of businesses used the ST. What percentage of Fortune 1000 companies? (Atari did eventually hire a sales team to target them.)

 

Once again, I am speaking from a US point of view. When I tell friends that I collect Atari, I get responses like, "Pitfall rocked" or "I loved Pac Man in the arcades." I never get "OMG! I loved their computers...." Weird.

 

As I've said before people's perceptions are all different but because a person wasn't party to something happening it doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is nothing wrong with someone associating the Atari brand only with the 2600, or with Pac-Man, but if that person was the say that all Atari did was develop the 2600 then that would be inaccurate.

 

I'm not going to trawl through the internet for you. All you have to do is look through some old (US) magazines to see what was designed, written and developed for the Atari ST - in many cases by US companies.

 

Even in the early 1980's people were using Atari computers for business - going "online" and retrieving stock information from the Dow Jones, running databases, doing mailing lists, accounting etc - there was even a US newspaper that relied heavily on Atari 8-bit computers.

[Pilsner73]

One thing I have heard many times over is for a lot of companies an established name and brand is easier and cheaper to market for than a new one.

 

Yes in some ways Atari might of benefited making another brand name and marketing computers under that but it would of required a considerable investment to not only market this new brand but also set up supply chains, dealers, and various other things that go with a new brand/label. Actually me memory is a bit hazy but didn't Atari Corp try that with their line of PC clones? Would it of worked, maybe but Atari had enough trouble marketing under an established brand name.

 

You ever wonder why car companies keep bringing back car names/model lines from the past? They already have those names trademarked and a lot of times have name recongition with consumers.

[+wood_jl]

When IBM entered the market with the $700 PCjr, it was Tramiel that said more people will spend $200 on a home computer than $700. He was right then and he was also right when he introduced his own $700+ home computer.

 

This is non sequitur. The PCjr was a castrated PC, and the C64 could kick the crap out of it for $200. The ST could kick the crap out of a full-blown PC, at a fraction of the price. It also bested the Mac of the time, in almost every quantifiable measure, at a fraction of the price. It was referred to as "Color Mac for 1/3 the price." As has well-been revealed, it was also capable of running both PC and MAC software with add-ons.

 

 

In the US I think it is fair to say from a marketing point of view Atari's brand was way more known with games than computers. Atari was games. Commodore was low cost computers. How many households in the US either didn't have an Atari video game system at one time or knew someone that did? Or had played one of their arcade games? Sure as heck can't say that about their computers. (At least in the US.) And the US is a damn big market.

 

Everybody knows this. This has been rehashed for decades. Focus your argument and stick to it. Whether or not the ST was a "horrible" computer IN ESSENCE and on its merits, and consumer perceptions of the Atari brand - are 2 separate arguments and those distinct issues should not be befuddled.

 

It took me a while to get use to the last gen keyboards on the Imac. And I am not crazy about their mice. But, the XE/ST keyboards really suck imho. Not only do they suck but you are forced to type on top of the machine. IBM nailed it with their early keyboards. I just can't picture a secretary typing letters all day on an ST keyboard.

 

I am actually pretty use the new Mac keyboards...

 

....and I am actually pretty used to the XE/ST keyboards. So what? What's your point? You think XE/ST keyboards totally suck, and I think your new Mac keyboard totally sucks. You've made it plain you don't like the ST keyboard, and not everybody is going to agree with you, to that magnitude. Who cares?

 

 

Rather than have me troll through the Internet looking for stuff, why not just show me somewhere what percentage of businesses used the ST. What percentage of Fortune 1000 companies? (Atari did eventually hire a sales team to target them.)

 

Who cares what percentage of Fortune 1000 companies used them? In the U.S., probably nearly non-existent. What's your point? This is a separate issue from what makes a horrible computer.

 

In your opinion, something **YOU** don't like is horrible, and you're really digging for ways to qualify your opinion to others. Why? I think it's an ignorant opinion to call something "horrible" simply because it was not YOUR CHOICE. A REASONABLE opinon of a "horrible" computer would be one that is/was overpriced, under-performing, and unreliable. The ST was NONE of those things. Another reasonable opinion would be, "I don't like the ST." Fine. But just because you don't like something, and more importantly, because it wasn't YOUR choice - doesn't make it horrible. That's extremely juvenile, 4th-grade thinking: "Everything I have is the best!!!!"

 

Apple really tried hard to make the MAC a business machine, even Microsoft was heavily invested with Excel and other products. Being a college student at Harvard at the time it made sense to get a Mac. It was cheap and it had the software that I needed. (I am not even sure where the ST's were sold; distribution was that bad in the US.)

 

Cheap is a relative term. Relative to the ST, the Mac was NOT cheap. Relative to the Amiga, the Mac was NOT cheap. It was probably wise for you to get a Mac, since it met your needs so well, and since you could easily afford it. However, this is a far cry from (for a reasonable person) relegating competing machines as "horrible."

 

The Mac survived on Apple II's profits and the fact that it made a mark in the design field and the higher education field as well. Something that hasn't been mentioned about the Mac display is that the pixels were square on the screen which was a blessing for designers.

 

I used a Mac Plus (I think it was) on the school newspaper, in high school. Yeah, it was really good for that, along with the Laserwriter I. I distinctly remember standing next to a pallet of Laserwriters at the computer store in 1985 with a price tag of $9995, and I don't remember what the Mac was, but it was not cheap, either.

 

I believe I have read about 10 books on the history of Apple and I can't remember one time where the ST was mentioned at all. For all the marketing that Atari did to compare it to the Mac at a lower price, it seemed not to affect Mac sales.

 

Undoubtedly it affected Mac sales in a fairly small way. Doesn't mean it was horrible.

 

 

Seriously. If I were ever to release a computer that cost $700+ I don't think I would have slapped the Atari name on it. Atari was known as a video game company. How much did the "Atari" brand cost the ST when they tried to move in the business market? And that horrible keyboard. And the version of Gem that they used. But, why develop a computer that they tried to market to the business market with the Atari name? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Already rehashed the Atari name business enough. Already discussed the keyboards. In your estimation, an early horrible (no function keys, no cursor control keys, no numeric keypad) keyboard or a late horrible (flimsy-ass chicklet-keyed disposable fly-away) keyboard both get a pass, if they're from the brand that YOU have chosen. Understood, fully. I thought the version of GEM they used was pretty good. I thought the MAC OS licked balls up until Mac OSX. But that's just my opinion, and it's no more or less valid than yours.

[SpaceDice2010]

In the US I think it is fair to say from a marketing point of view Atari's brand was way more known with games than computers. Atari was games. Commodore was low cost computers. How many households in the US either didn't have an Atari video game system at one time or knew someone that did? Or had played one of their arcade games? Sure as heck can't say that about their computers. (At least in the US.) And the US is a damn big market.

 

I guess you would have to define what "taken seriously" actually means. (snip)

 

Rather than have me troll through the Internet looking for stuff, why not just show me somewhere what percentage of businesses used the ST. What percentage of Fortune 1000 companies? (Atari did eventually hire a sales team to target them.)

 

Once again, I am speaking from a US point of view. When I tell friends that I collect Atari, I get responses like, "Pitfall rocked" or "I loved Pac Man in the arcades." I never get "OMG! I loved their computers...." Weird.

 

As I've said before people's perceptions are all different but because a person wasn't party to something happening it doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is nothing wrong with someone associating the Atari brand only with the 2600, or with Pac-Man, but if that person was the say that all Atari did was develop the 2600 then that would be inaccurate.

 

I'm not going to trawl through the internet for you. All you have to do is look through some old (US) magazines to see what was designed, written and developed for the Atari ST - in many cases by US companies.

 

Even in the early 1980's people were using Atari computers for business - going "online" and retrieving stock information from the Dow Jones, running databases, doing mailing lists, accounting etc - there was even a US newspaper that relied heavily on Atari 8-bit computers.

 

As I said, maybe my definition of "taken seriously" and yours are two different things. Taken seriously to me does not mean that software/hardware existed for a machine or that some used it for that purpose. The Mac was taken seriously in the graphic design and higher education sectors not just because software was written for it; but because the best design companies and schools used them.

 

As far as branding, it is really easy to measure. Marketing companies do it all the time. It would be interesting to see data on the Atari brand in the US during that period.

 

"As an American, the word "Atari" resonates with me, and has a cultural meaning synonymous with videogames (it's also my cat's name). "

http://www.destructoid.com/infogrames-may-ditch-name-in-favor-of-atari-brand-81475.phtml

 

"Includes 12 Genuine Atari Arcade Hits! Product Information Atari, the name synonymous with the video game revolution, presents the ultimate arcade collection. Each Atari title is faithfully reproduced down to the last detail, and each oneis just as easy and fun to play. Includes 12 of the best Atari games with all the fast action, sights and sounds you remember!"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JD6L?ie=UTF8&tag=atariage&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00005JD6L

 

"The Atari name is synonymous with only the best in video games," said Bruno Bonnell, Chairman and CEO of Infogrames."

http://www.beststuff.com/fromthewire/infogrames-reinvents-atari-with-mxrider-splashdown.html

 

I don't know, maybe in the UK Atari was known as a computer company. But, I would place a hefty bet that if you asked a random sample of 1000 people what they associated Atari with it would be video games, at least in the US.

[SpaceDice2010]

When IBM entered the market with the $700 PCjr, it was Tramiel that said more people will spend $200 on a home computer than $700. He was right then and he was also right when he introduced his own $700+ home computer.

 

This is non sequitur. The PCjr was a castrated PC, and the C64 could kick the crap out of it for $200. The ST could kick the crap out of a full-blown PC, at a fraction of the price. It also bested the Mac of the time, in almost every quantifiable measure, at a fraction of the price. It was referred to as "Color Mac for 1/3 the price." As has well-been revealed, it was also capable of running both PC and MAC software with add-ons.

 

 

In the US I think it is fair to say from a marketing point of view Atari's brand was way more known with games than computers. Atari was games. Commodore was low cost computers. How many households in the US either didn't have an Atari video game system at one time or knew someone that did? Or had played one of their arcade games? Sure as heck can't say that about their computers. (At least in the US.) And the US is a damn big market.

 

Everybody knows this. This has been rehashed for decades. Focus your argument and stick to it. Whether or not the ST was a "horrible" computer IN ESSENCE and on its merits, and consumer perceptions of the Atari brand - are 2 separate arguments and those distinct issues should not be befuddled.

 

It took me a while to get use to the last gen keyboards on the Imac. And I am not crazy about their mice. But, the XE/ST keyboards really suck imho. Not only do they suck but you are forced to type on top of the machine. IBM nailed it with their early keyboards. I just can't picture a secretary typing letters all day on an ST keyboard.

 

I am actually pretty use the new Mac keyboards...

 

....and I am actually pretty used to the XE/ST keyboards. So what? What's your point? You think XE/ST keyboards totally suck, and I think your new Mac keyboard totally sucks. You've made it plain you don't like the ST keyboard, and not everybody is going to agree with you, to that magnitude. Who cares?

 

 

Rather than have me troll through the Internet looking for stuff, why not just show me somewhere what percentage of businesses used the ST. What percentage of Fortune 1000 companies? (Atari did eventually hire a sales team to target them.)

 

Who cares what percentage of Fortune 1000 companies used them? In the U.S., probably nearly non-existent. What's your point? This is a separate issue from what makes a horrible computer.

 

In your opinion, something **YOU** don't like is horrible, and you're really digging for ways to qualify your opinion to others. Why? I think it's an ignorant opinion to call something "horrible" simply because it was not YOUR CHOICE. A REASONABLE opinon of a "horrible" computer would be one that is/was overpriced, under-performing, and unreliable. The ST was NONE of those things. Another reasonable opinion would be, "I don't like the ST." Fine. But just because you don't like something, and more importantly, because it wasn't YOUR choice - doesn't make it horrible. That's extremely juvenile, 4th-grade thinking: "Everything I have is the best!!!!"

 

Apple really tried hard to make the MAC a business machine, even Microsoft was heavily invested with Excel and other products. Being a college student at Harvard at the time it made sense to get a Mac. It was cheap and it had the software that I needed. (I am not even sure where the ST's were sold; distribution was that bad in the US.)

 

Cheap is a relative term. Relative to the ST, the Mac was NOT cheap. Relative to the Amiga, the Mac was NOT cheap. It was probably wise for you to get a Mac, since it met your needs so well, and since you could easily afford it. However, this is a far cry from (for a reasonable person) relegating competing machines as "horrible."

 

The Mac survived on Apple II's profits and the fact that it made a mark in the design field and the higher education field as well. Something that hasn't been mentioned about the Mac display is that the pixels were square on the screen which was a blessing for designers.

 

I used a Mac Plus (I think it was) on the school newspaper, in high school. Yeah, it was really good for that, along with the Laserwriter I. I distinctly remember standing next to a pallet of Laserwriters at the computer store in 1985 with a price tag of $9995, and I don't remember what the Mac was, but it was not cheap, either.

 

I believe I have read about 10 books on the history of Apple and I can't remember one time where the ST was mentioned at all. For all the marketing that Atari did to compare it to the Mac at a lower price, it seemed not to affect Mac sales.

 

Undoubtedly it affected Mac sales in a fairly small way. Doesn't mean it was horrible.

 

 

Seriously. If I were ever to release a computer that cost $700+ I don't think I would have slapped the Atari name on it. Atari was known as a video game company. How much did the "Atari" brand cost the ST when they tried to move in the business market? And that horrible keyboard. And the version of Gem that they used. But, why develop a computer that they tried to market to the business market with the Atari name? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Already rehashed the Atari name business enough. Already discussed the keyboards. In your estimation, an early horrible (no function keys, no cursor control keys, no numeric keypad) keyboard or a late horrible (flimsy-ass chicklet-keyed disposable fly-away) keyboard both get a pass, if they're from the brand that YOU have chosen. Understood, fully. I thought the version of GEM they used was pretty good. I thought the MAC OS licked balls up until Mac OSX. But that's just my opinion, and it's no more or less valid than yours.

 

Dude. Take a chill pill...