The Tramiels

[svenski]

Go to a print shop with an ST disk in the 80's and see what they said at the time. I could go on and on...

 

Well, funny this, as it goes back to what I replied to you much earlier on in this thread with along the lines of "just because you didn't see it happen, doesn't mean it didn't.

 

I happened to work for a small printing company in the late 80's and we used.... wait for it....... an Atari ST with hard drive , laser printer and Calamus DTP to do most of our design work, and the local Atari dealership focused solely on selling Atari ST's as business computers and made a killing.

 

Sorry.

[SpaceDice2010]

The issue here is a regional issue. It was different in the UK than the US. I am not saying that it didn't exist. I am just stating facts about the US market, which happened to be a very large market and one that Atari tried to compete in. The Mac at the time was way more successful than the ST and it showed in both the quantity and quality of software and support for the Mac vs. the ST.

 

In the US it was damn hard to even find a store that carried the ST line. And after the first few years the Atari ST was on the market it was even harder.

[SpaceDice2010]

At least the Amiga OS has been updated since Commodore's demise. Damn good OS to. Was the first OS to have pre-emptive multitasking as well as other features. If I am not mistaken Hyperion had partnered with another company to make a PPC computer running Amiga OS about a year ago. Not sure what the status of that is. Guess it's been a while since I have been on the Amiga boards. The main point is that the Amiga OS has evolved into a modern OS that is actually feasible for a company to manufacture a computer around.

 

 

There's no reason AmigaOS couldn't emulate the route Apple went with MacOS [X]. They need to cut the cord and transition it to being a layer sitting atop BSD. But the diehards would say "that's not Amiga like!"

 

 

Now that I think about this, there is a reason. I believe that Hyperion only has a license for the AmigaOS on the PPC platform. Hyperion and Amiga were involved in a lawsuit a few years back that did not help the AmigaOS platform at all. So creating a version for anything else would not be feasible.

[svenski]

The issue here is a regional issue. It was different in the UK than the US. I am not saying that it didn't exist. I am just stating facts about the US market, which happened to be a very large market and one that Atari tried to compete in. The Mac at the time was way more successful than the ST and it showed in both the quantity and quality of software and support for the Mac vs. the ST.

 

In the US it was damn hard to even find a store that carried the ST line. And after the first few years the Atari ST was on the market it was even harder.

 

The issue here (really) is when someone wades in making very generalized statements saying something is horrible, crap, rubbish - no good for this or that, without seeing the bigger picture and just because you didn't experience the ST being used as a serious business computer there were plenty of people who did.

 

That is the point here really, and doing it on an Atari forum (when you're talking about the Atari ST) is only going to attract some criticism. I wouldn't have touched the ST when I was in a position to buy one but I can't deny how much of a success it was at the time. Now I appreciate it for what it is as we've all moved on quite a bit since the late eighties and early 90s.

 

I could say get out an atlas and look at the World and you'll see there is a whole lot of land mass out there, away from the continental United States, with millions and millions of people just like you and me living their lives and quite a lot have electricity, running water and even drive cars You can't judge a global product on its success in one market.

[atarian63]

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.

Worked very well in germany. Also apple was really considered a kids or school computer,they overcame that. ST even got Microsoft Word a nice one for legitimacy,though not my favorite. Name recognition is where it's at,you can always change the meaning.I think Apple for this generation really means music and phones,not computers.

[atarian63]

 

So you have one, or you're getting one, or you're just arguing without warrant? How feasible is it for a company to manufacture a computer around? Is that the latest thing, then, we're all going to abandon our PCs and Macs and get PPC Amigas? Or is it just a fringe/novelty computer, kind of like the similarly novel Atari Coldfire Project? Yeah, novelty computers. The effect of either will be so negligible to the market, it's ridiculous to cite them in any meaningful argument. What is your point in bringing up the Amiga OS/PPC computer, unless you plan on ditching your Mac for one?

 

You're just grasping for straws in all directions, rather than address the well-placed criticism of your highly-opinionated charge that the ST was "horrible" simply because it wasn't what YOU had, rather than any quantifiable criticism, which you've amply demonstrated complete impotence in manufacturing. Chill pill taken. Now answer the questions.

 

Once again, sorry for calling the ST a horrible computer. It is my opinion. I just didn't like GEM at all. Sorry it hurt your feelings.

 

As for the Amiga. Amiga OS4 is actually a pretty capable modern OS. So a box developed around it would not be for just novelty. Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaOne_X1000

 

And a shot of Amiga OS 4.1

The new one looks quite nice. Though I HATED the Amiga o/s back in the day,just awful. GEM was

easy,people loved it. Gui was still pretty new and it was just plain easier for the public to use. Much more Mac like which was all they had really seen up to that point.

[atarian63]

Yet their "inferior product at razor thin margins" (which started shipping a year a half after the Mac was introduced in January '84), managed to help bring Atari Corp. out of very serious debt they had inherited and in to the black within another year.

 

Atari was back in the black largely due to cost cutting, not skyrocketing revenues. Atari did make a little money off of the STs for a little while, but they were ultimately stomped by Apple, Nintendo and the clones. They'd have been better off concentrating their efforts on maintaining their 70% of the videogame market, which turned out to be vastly more lucrative than the cheap Mac knockoff market.

 

 

WTF? The 1200XL was the opposite direction of the cost-cut XE models.

 

I said use the 1200XL's case, or a similar design, in conjunction with further cost-reduced hardware. The 1200XL looked a heck of a lot more professional than the XEs ever did (or the early STs, for that matter), and coordinated with the existing line of peripherals. Integrate a drive - which would have likely been far cheaper than the 800XL / 1050 drive combo Atari was pushing - and you'd have a slick machine to rival the far more expensive Apple //c for hundreds of dollars less.

 

 

What??? 1987/88 was more or less the peak of the ST, and any apparent decline in the US was probably more due to the surge in European demand taking precedence.

 

Yes, and even at their peak they were a niche player moving less than a million units a year. Compare and contrast with the C64, which by that point in its lifetime was moving millions a year.

 

There's a reason why the Tramiels spent very little money expanding the STs post-1987 or thereabouts - because it was clear they wouldn't see much return on their investment. At the time as an ST user I found this very frustrating, but in hindsight it makes sense. The STs were a closed box, rushed to market, sporting hardware and an OS that were both extremely difficult to expand upon without shattering software compatibility (a real problem since the STs didn't have a lot of software to begin with). Expanding that platform was an extremely costly proposition, especially when it was clear other platforms - especially the PC - were declining into the price range any new ST models would be forced to occupy.

 

 

And they were selling millions of STs a year

 

Atari never sold "millions" of STs a year. I doubt they ever sold much more than 500,000 units a year, and I believe only one model - the original 520ST - moved more than a million units in its entire history.

 

 

No advantages over the Mac? The Mac was (1) EXPENSIVE, (2) had a tiny screen, (3) had a black and white screen, (4) had an RS-422 serial port for hard drives - laughably slow.

 

The Mac might have been EXPENSIVE, but as the old article noted, cheap didn't sell. What the Mac had that the ST never got was a strong library of business and other productivity software, a vastly superior OS, much higher-quality hardware, better retail support and infinitely better manufacturer support. Yeah, it had a tiny screen, but so did monochrome STs, which in spite of their 12" size shipped with enormous black borders making them not terribly larger than the Mac's display (though of higher resolution). STs did offer color, but at much lower resolutions, which required a separate monitor. Not really comparable. As for hard drives, less than 6 months after the 520ST became available Apple shipped the Mac Plus, which sported an almost-standard SCSI port (the standard itself hadn't been quite finalized yet) - making it far easier to add a hard drive to than Atari's oddball DMA port - plus a full meg of SIMM-based memory and an 800KB floppy drive. The Plus was expensive as all heck, but then it felt like it too, with extremely high build quality and a fantastic keyboard.

 

The Macs practically marketed themselves. The STs looked and felt cheap in comparison, and given the Atari badge folks didn't take them seriously. They weren't seen by consumers as an inexpensive Macintosh - they were seen as a ridiculously costly Commodore 64. That might not have been a fair assessment, but quality counts and the first few models of the ST never really felt like a quality product. By the time they shipped a system in '87 that didn't feel substandard - the Megas - they were already trailing far behind the Macintosh in terms of capabilities and - especially - software. The SE with its optional built-in hard drives was out, as was the impressive (but expensive) Macintosh II. PCs had advanced tremendously, and Atari also had to contend with the Amiga 2000, which represented a real upgrade from the A1000 (especially in terms of expandability) and the A500 (which began to eat the 1040ST's lunch).

 

What Atari unfortunately discovered was that many of the people who were willing to spend $1,000 on a computer were willing to spend $2,500 on a computer perceived as better, with access to more software. What they also discovered was that there wasn't much of a market for a $700 computer that looked and felt a bit like an overgrown C64, no matter how hard it tried to pass itself off as a Macintosh. People on a budget continued to opt for the far-cheaper C64 and C128 (or for Atari's own XEs), educators continued to buy Apple //'s, businesses bought PC's and students, universities and creative professionals opted for Macs. Atari successfully produced a machine for which there was no market.

 

 

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)

 

The dominant 16-bit computer in Europe was the PC, same as it was here. Atari's STs - especially the 520 and 1040 - were substantially more successful in Europe (especially Germany) than they were in America, but Atari's heyday in terms of ST units sold lasted about 2 years ('86 - '88) and ended when the Amiga 500 ate their low-end lunch. They never successfully expanded beyond their cheap 68000 based platform, their computer sales never recovered and indeed I don't think they ever could have, because the STs were never successful enough with paying customers to induce a lot of third party software development, and Atari never made enough money off of them to engage in the kind of hardware development you got from Apple (or even Commodore, for that matter).

 

 

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

 

Have you ever used an ST before? Windows didn't eclipse TOS 1.0 in functionality and ease until Windows 95, 10 years after the ST debuted.

 

Windows 3.0 had an enormous and inescapable functionality advantage over GEM/TOS - it was compatible with the vast majority of MS-DOS software! It may or may not have been as easy to use as GEM, but it certainly looked a lot better on 640*480 256 color displays - something which all of the STs lacked at that point - and was far more usable on PCs which by that point were pretty much all shipping with internal hard drives. Atari was way, way behind the curve in making hard drives available as standard equipment, and that's likely part of what killed them.

You must really be kidding, at time of launch in 1985 Atari could look down thier nose at the INFERIOR,yes Inferior Mac. Hardly a cheap clone but a head and shoulders better PC as a MUCH better price.

Also as for the Windows 3.0comment.. Windows 3.0 did not come out till 3 YEARS LATER... give me a break. PC we were selling had DOS,period, they were a bought by folks wanting a work oriented pC and nothing else. 4 colors, no sound but pc speaker.. it was awful

Macs of 1985b looked like a fishbowl,were cheap, had incomplete keyboards, overpriced. they had the university market and education name, cant help it if people were just plain dumb.

[SpaceDice2010]

The issue here is a regional issue. It was different in the UK than the US. I am not saying that it didn't exist. I am just stating facts about the US market, which happened to be a very large market and one that Atari tried to compete in. The Mac at the time was way more successful than the ST and it showed in both the quantity and quality of software and support for the Mac vs. the ST.

 

In the US it was damn hard to even find a store that carried the ST line. And after the first few years the Atari ST was on the market it was even harder.

 

The issue here (really) is when someone wades in making very generalized statements saying something is horrible, crap, rubbish - no good for this or that, without seeing the bigger picture and just because you didn't experience the ST being used as a serious business computer there were plenty of people who did.

 

That is the point here really, and doing it on an Atari forum (when you're talking about the Atari ST) is only going to attract some criticism. I wouldn't have touched the ST when I was in a position to buy one but I can't deny how much of a success it was at the time. Now I appreciate it for what it is as we've all moved on quite a bit since the late eighties and early 90s.

 

I could say get out an atlas and look at the World and you'll see there is a whole lot of land mass out there, away from the continental United States, with millions and millions of people just like you and me living their lives and quite a lot have electricity, running water and even drive cars You can't judge a global product on its success in one market.

 

Look. I didn't go into the ST forum and say that I thought the ST was a horrible computer. Go check if you don't believe me. Sure, it's an Atari forum but it is a thread about the Tramiels and the history of Atari. Does someone that is on a forum about Atari have to like EVERY system the company created? There are many that despise the 5200 and are very vocal about it. I liked the 5200 but am not going to get emotional when someone says it sucks, even if they do it in the 5200 forum itself.

 

I know in some countries the Atari St was very popular. But, one doesn't need a "passport" to know that. In fact I believe I had a passsport before I had a driver's license. But you thought you were beeing all that by making that remark. Fair enough. Childish, but fair enough.

 

For those that are offended by my remark that I thought the ST (mainly GEM) was a horrible computer, I am sorry that I offended you. Get over it...

[atarian63]

Go to a print shop with an ST disk in the 80's and see what they said at the time. I could go on and on...

 

Well, funny this, as it goes back to what I replied to you much earlier on in this thread with along the lines of "just because you didn't see it happen, doesn't mean it didn't.

 

I happened to work for a small printing company in the late 80's and we used.... wait for it....... an Atari ST with hard drive , laser printer and Calamus DTP to do most of our design work, and the local Atari dealership focused solely on selling Atari ST's as business computers and made a killing.

 

Sorry.

We did too! Atari was very good to me! It was always fun to pop the bubble on Mac Users. We sold lots of ST's for Mac and Ex MAc users

[SpaceDice2010]

Yet their "inferior product at razor thin margins" (which started shipping a year a half after the Mac was introduced in January '84), managed to help bring Atari Corp. out of very serious debt they had inherited and in to the black within another year.

 

Atari was back in the black largely due to cost cutting, not skyrocketing revenues. Atari did make a little money off of the STs for a little while, but they were ultimately stomped by Apple, Nintendo and the clones. They'd have been better off concentrating their efforts on maintaining their 70% of the videogame market, which turned out to be vastly more lucrative than the cheap Mac knockoff market.

 

 

WTF? The 1200XL was the opposite direction of the cost-cut XE models.

 

I said use the 1200XL's case, or a similar design, in conjunction with further cost-reduced hardware. The 1200XL looked a heck of a lot more professional than the XEs ever did (or the early STs, for that matter), and coordinated with the existing line of peripherals. Integrate a drive - which would have likely been far cheaper than the 800XL / 1050 drive combo Atari was pushing - and you'd have a slick machine to rival the far more expensive Apple //c for hundreds of dollars less.

 

 

What??? 1987/88 was more or less the peak of the ST, and any apparent decline in the US was probably more due to the surge in European demand taking precedence.

 

Yes, and even at their peak they were a niche player moving less than a million units a year. Compare and contrast with the C64, which by that point in its lifetime was moving millions a year.

 

There's a reason why the Tramiels spent very little money expanding the STs post-1987 or thereabouts - because it was clear they wouldn't see much return on their investment. At the time as an ST user I found this very frustrating, but in hindsight it makes sense. The STs were a closed box, rushed to market, sporting hardware and an OS that were both extremely difficult to expand upon without shattering software compatibility (a real problem since the STs didn't have a lot of software to begin with). Expanding that platform was an extremely costly proposition, especially when it was clear other platforms - especially the PC - were declining into the price range any new ST models would be forced to occupy.

 

 

And they were selling millions of STs a year

 

Atari never sold "millions" of STs a year. I doubt they ever sold much more than 500,000 units a year, and I believe only one model - the original 520ST - moved more than a million units in its entire history.

 

 

No advantages over the Mac? The Mac was (1) EXPENSIVE, (2) had a tiny screen, (3) had a black and white screen, (4) had an RS-422 serial port for hard drives - laughably slow.

 

The Mac might have been EXPENSIVE, but as the old article noted, cheap didn't sell. What the Mac had that the ST never got was a strong library of business and other productivity software, a vastly superior OS, much higher-quality hardware, better retail support and infinitely better manufacturer support. Yeah, it had a tiny screen, but so did monochrome STs, which in spite of their 12" size shipped with enormous black borders making them not terribly larger than the Mac's display (though of higher resolution). STs did offer color, but at much lower resolutions, which required a separate monitor. Not really comparable. As for hard drives, less than 6 months after the 520ST became available Apple shipped the Mac Plus, which sported an almost-standard SCSI port (the standard itself hadn't been quite finalized yet) - making it far easier to add a hard drive to than Atari's oddball DMA port - plus a full meg of SIMM-based memory and an 800KB floppy drive. The Plus was expensive as all heck, but then it felt like it too, with extremely high build quality and a fantastic keyboard.

 

The Macs practically marketed themselves. The STs looked and felt cheap in comparison, and given the Atari badge folks didn't take them seriously. They weren't seen by consumers as an inexpensive Macintosh - they were seen as a ridiculously costly Commodore 64. That might not have been a fair assessment, but quality counts and the first few models of the ST never really felt like a quality product. By the time they shipped a system in '87 that didn't feel substandard - the Megas - they were already trailing far behind the Macintosh in terms of capabilities and - especially - software. The SE with its optional built-in hard drives was out, as was the impressive (but expensive) Macintosh II. PCs had advanced tremendously, and Atari also had to contend with the Amiga 2000, which represented a real upgrade from the A1000 (especially in terms of expandability) and the A500 (which began to eat the 1040ST's lunch).

 

What Atari unfortunately discovered was that many of the people who were willing to spend $1,000 on a computer were willing to spend $2,500 on a computer perceived as better, with access to more software. What they also discovered was that there wasn't much of a market for a $700 computer that looked and felt a bit like an overgrown C64, no matter how hard it tried to pass itself off as a Macintosh. People on a budget continued to opt for the far-cheaper C64 and C128 (or for Atari's own XEs), educators continued to buy Apple //'s, businesses bought PC's and students, universities and creative professionals opted for Macs. Atari successfully produced a machine for which there was no market.

 

 

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)

 

The dominant 16-bit computer in Europe was the PC, same as it was here. Atari's STs - especially the 520 and 1040 - were substantially more successful in Europe (especially Germany) than they were in America, but Atari's heyday in terms of ST units sold lasted about 2 years ('86 - '88) and ended when the Amiga 500 ate their low-end lunch. They never successfully expanded beyond their cheap 68000 based platform, their computer sales never recovered and indeed I don't think they ever could have, because the STs were never successful enough with paying customers to induce a lot of third party software development, and Atari never made enough money off of them to engage in the kind of hardware development you got from Apple (or even Commodore, for that matter).

 

 

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

 

Have you ever used an ST before? Windows didn't eclipse TOS 1.0 in functionality and ease until Windows 95, 10 years after the ST debuted.

 

Windows 3.0 had an enormous and inescapable functionality advantage over GEM/TOS - it was compatible with the vast majority of MS-DOS software! It may or may not have been as easy to use as GEM, but it certainly looked a lot better on 640*480 256 color displays - something which all of the STs lacked at that point - and was far more usable on PCs which by that point were pretty much all shipping with internal hard drives. Atari was way, way behind the curve in making hard drives available as standard equipment, and that's likely part of what killed them.

You must really be kidding, at time of launch in 1985 Atari could look down thier nose at the INFERIOR,yes Inferior Mac. Hardly a cheap clone but a head and shoulders better PC as a MUCH better price.

Also as for the Windows 3.0comment.. Windows 3.0 did not come out till 3 YEARS LATER... give me a break. PC we were selling had DOS,period, they were a bought by folks wanting a work oriented pC and nothing else. 4 colors, no sound but pc speaker.. it was awful

Macs of 1985b looked like a fishbowl,were cheap, had incomplete keyboards, overpriced. they had the university market and education name, cant help it if people were just plain dumb.

 

Many thought the Mac was inferior to the ST. Many thought the ST was inferior to the Mac as well. There is one thing that can't be denied and that is one of the two companies survived and went on to become the second largest company in market cap in the United States (only behind Exxon/Mobil) and it wasn't Atari.

 

The Tramiels, you can either love them or hate them, but their reign in the computer/videogame industry ended in the mid 90's. Many would argue that their reign as a major player ended long before that. In fact some would say on Jan. 13, 1984.

[JamesD]

I think trying to paint them one way or the other doesn't show the entire picture.

They were late enough in Atari's life that they couldn't undo a lot of damage that had already been done.

On the other hand, they focused too much on the C64 sales approach. For that matter, Commodore's management made the same mistake.

[svenski]

Look. I didn't go into the ST forum and say that I thought the ST was a horrible computer. (snip)

 

I know in some countries the Atari St was very popular. But, one doesn't need a "passport" to know that. In fact I believe I had a passsport before I had a driver's license. But you thought you were beeing all that by making that remark. Fair enough. Childish, but fair enough.

 

For those that are offended by my remark that I thought the ST (mainly GEM) was a horrible computer, I am sorry that I offended you. Get over it...

 

Ok, you said the ST was a horrible computer and argued that the ST wasn't taken seriously as a business computer. I suggested you look on the internet (the aim to get a better perspective. or read some old US Atari magazines - easily available to read and download. I suggested US magazines so you would get an accurate idea of what exactly was produced and developed for the Atari ST from a US perspective.

 

You declined and continued your position that the Atari ST wasn't taken seriously as a business computer. My point was , and always has been, that just because you hadn't experienced it or seen it it didn't make your point a correct one.

 

If you'd had been bothered you could have seen that quite a lot of people did take the ST seriously as a business computer. I'm not offended by the fact you called the ST a "horrible computer" at all. It doesn't bother me in the slightest - it is your opinion but to say the ST wasn't taken seriously as a business computer is factually incorrect and a statement based on your opinion only.

 

As for "being all that" well it was lighthearted and not intended to cause offense but I can see that you did

 

I'm sure that if I was to say that the Spectrum wasn't taken seriously as a business computer on a Spectrum forum there would be dozens of people there to pick me up on it and say that they used it for their mailing lists, database and spreadsheet applications.

[SpaceDice2010]

As I said I believe we have a different meaning of what "taken seriously" means. Taken seriously as it relates to a business computer to me means that major companies use it in business and that the major publishers of business software produce products for it. You wanted me to go look at what business "stuff" was available for it. Anyone can create business software for an OS, but that doesn't mean it was taken seriously. Heck. There are business programs available for AmigaOS, that doesn't mean that it's taken seriously as a business computer does it? Under that definition in the US the Atari ST was not taken seriously as a business computer. The ST captured an extremely small percentage of the business market in the US. Businesses just did not take the ST seriously as a viable computer for the business market. That is a fact.

 

The reason I even brought that up is because when you are selling a $1000 it is important that you capture a certain percentage of the business market. (At least in the US.) And Atari did setup a sales force to sell to fortune 1000 companies. It was a dismal failure.

[atarian63]

Yet their "inferior product at razor thin margins" (which started shipping a year a half after the Mac was introduced in January '84), managed to help bring Atari Corp. out of very serious debt they had inherited and in to the black within another year.

 

Atari was back in the black largely due to cost cutting, not skyrocketing revenues. Atari did make a little money off of the STs for a little while, but they were ultimately stomped by Apple, Nintendo and the clones. They'd have been better off concentrating their efforts on maintaining their 70% of the videogame market, which turned out to be vastly more lucrative than the cheap Mac knockoff market.

 

 

WTF? The 1200XL was the opposite direction of the cost-cut XE models.

 

I said use the 1200XL's case, or a similar design, in conjunction with further cost-reduced hardware. The 1200XL looked a heck of a lot more professional than the XEs ever did (or the early STs, for that matter), and coordinated with the existing line of peripherals. Integrate a drive - which would have likely been far cheaper than the 800XL / 1050 drive combo Atari was pushing - and you'd have a slick machine to rival the far more expensive Apple //c for hundreds of dollars less.

 

 

What??? 1987/88 was more or less the peak of the ST, and any apparent decline in the US was probably more due to the surge in European demand taking precedence.

 

Yes, and even at their peak they were a niche player moving less than a million units a year. Compare and contrast with the C64, which by that point in its lifetime was moving millions a year.

 

There's a reason why the Tramiels spent very little money expanding the STs post-1987 or thereabouts - because it was clear they wouldn't see much return on their investment. At the time as an ST user I found this very frustrating, but in hindsight it makes sense. The STs were a closed box, rushed to market, sporting hardware and an OS that were both extremely difficult to expand upon without shattering software compatibility (a real problem since the STs didn't have a lot of software to begin with). Expanding that platform was an extremely costly proposition, especially when it was clear other platforms - especially the PC - were declining into the price range any new ST models would be forced to occupy.

 

 

And they were selling millions of STs a year

 

Atari never sold "millions" of STs a year. I doubt they ever sold much more than 500,000 units a year, and I believe only one model - the original 520ST - moved more than a million units in its entire history.

 

 

No advantages over the Mac? The Mac was (1) EXPENSIVE, (2) had a tiny screen, (3) had a black and white screen, (4) had an RS-422 serial port for hard drives - laughably slow.

 

The Mac might have been EXPENSIVE, but as the old article noted, cheap didn't sell. What the Mac had that the ST never got was a strong library of business and other productivity software, a vastly superior OS, much higher-quality hardware, better retail support and infinitely better manufacturer support. Yeah, it had a tiny screen, but so did monochrome STs, which in spite of their 12" size shipped with enormous black borders making them not terribly larger than the Mac's display (though of higher resolution). STs did offer color, but at much lower resolutions, which required a separate monitor. Not really comparable. As for hard drives, less than 6 months after the 520ST became available Apple shipped the Mac Plus, which sported an almost-standard SCSI port (the standard itself hadn't been quite finalized yet) - making it far easier to add a hard drive to than Atari's oddball DMA port - plus a full meg of SIMM-based memory and an 800KB floppy drive. The Plus was expensive as all heck, but then it felt like it too, with extremely high build quality and a fantastic keyboard.

 

The Macs practically marketed themselves. The STs looked and felt cheap in comparison, and given the Atari badge folks didn't take them seriously. They weren't seen by consumers as an inexpensive Macintosh - they were seen as a ridiculously costly Commodore 64. That might not have been a fair assessment, but quality counts and the first few models of the ST never really felt like a quality product. By the time they shipped a system in '87 that didn't feel substandard - the Megas - they were already trailing far behind the Macintosh in terms of capabilities and - especially - software. The SE with its optional built-in hard drives was out, as was the impressive (but expensive) Macintosh II. PCs had advanced tremendously, and Atari also had to contend with the Amiga 2000, which represented a real upgrade from the A1000 (especially in terms of expandability) and the A500 (which began to eat the 1040ST's lunch).

 

What Atari unfortunately discovered was that many of the people who were willing to spend $1,000 on a computer were willing to spend $2,500 on a computer perceived as better, with access to more software. What they also discovered was that there wasn't much of a market for a $700 computer that looked and felt a bit like an overgrown C64, no matter how hard it tried to pass itself off as a Macintosh. People on a budget continued to opt for the far-cheaper C64 and C128 (or for Atari's own XEs), educators continued to buy Apple //'s, businesses bought PC's and students, universities and creative professionals opted for Macs. Atari successfully produced a machine for which there was no market.

 

 

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)

 

The dominant 16-bit computer in Europe was the PC, same as it was here. Atari's STs - especially the 520 and 1040 - were substantially more successful in Europe (especially Germany) than they were in America, but Atari's heyday in terms of ST units sold lasted about 2 years ('86 - '88) and ended when the Amiga 500 ate their low-end lunch. They never successfully expanded beyond their cheap 68000 based platform, their computer sales never recovered and indeed I don't think they ever could have, because the STs were never successful enough with paying customers to induce a lot of third party software development, and Atari never made enough money off of them to engage in the kind of hardware development you got from Apple (or even Commodore, for that matter).

 

 

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

 

Have you ever used an ST before? Windows didn't eclipse TOS 1.0 in functionality and ease until Windows 95, 10 years after the ST debuted.

 

Windows 3.0 had an enormous and inescapable functionality advantage over GEM/TOS - it was compatible with the vast majority of MS-DOS software! It may or may not have been as easy to use as GEM, but it certainly looked a lot better on 640*480 256 color displays - something which all of the STs lacked at that point - and was far more usable on PCs which by that point were pretty much all shipping with internal hard drives. Atari was way, way behind the curve in making hard drives available as standard equipment, and that's likely part of what killed them.

You must really be kidding, at time of launch in 1985 Atari could look down thier nose at the INFERIOR,yes Inferior Mac. Hardly a cheap clone but a head and shoulders better PC as a MUCH better price.

Also as for the Windows 3.0comment.. Windows 3.0 did not come out till 3 YEARS LATER... give me a break. PC we were selling had DOS,period, they were a bought by folks wanting a work oriented pC and nothing else. 4 colors, no sound but pc speaker.. it was awful

Macs of 1985b looked like a fishbowl,were cheap, had incomplete keyboards, overpriced. they had the university market and education name, cant help it if people were just plain dumb.

 

Many thought the Mac was inferior to the ST. Many thought the ST was inferior to the Mac as well. There is one thing that can't be denied and that is one of the two companies survived and went on to become the second largest company in market cap in the United States (only behind Exxon/Mobil) and it wasn't Atari.

 

The Tramiels, you can either love them or hate them, but their reign in the computer/videogame industry ended in the mid 90's. Many would argue that their reign as a major player ended long before that. In fact some would say on Jan. 13, 1984.

Though often history makes the wrong decision, this is just one of many examples.. Cars, other consumer electronics, the general public is not to great, they often and usually pick what is good enough,or an image (apple being more image than substance) ask a kid why they want an Ipod, they really have no valid reason other than other kids have one too. (Kept my kids away from all apple products).

Atari's story is a sad comedy of events and unlikely circumstances.

[SpaceDice2010]

 

Atari's story is a sad comedy of events and unlikely circumstances.

 

 

Pretty much.

[+wood_jl]

Suggestion to Space Ghost and his buddy: This ain't the ST forum, no doubt, but ain't there a Mac Forum somewhere, where you can take your high opinions and revisionist history, to better proselytize? Frankly, you're not worth arguing with. HA HA. It's all just entertainment, but it's kind of pathetic that you're here to do this. I made a concerted effort, but Space Ghost couldn't stand the heat in the kitchen from the fire he started. Doest not ye of [alleged] Ivy League alma mater have better things to do? Don't waste your time feeding the troll; they'll claim to put you on "ignore" in a most pusillanimous maneuver, should you take issue. They're new here, and they're here to vent and proselytize. Maybe if they're left to, they'll leave.

 

Edited February 13, 2011 by wood_jl

[Pilsner73]

I decided not to quote a bunch of messages so I'll just respond to some of the topics that have come up recently. I'll try to keep this about the Tramiels and their run of Atari Corp best I can.

 

Apple MAC vs Atari ST - MAC was more mainstream than the ST in the USA, theirs no arguement from me on this point. The Tramiels made mistakes in marketing and distrbution with the ST line of computers but one thing they didn't do was make an inferior machine to the Mac hardware wise. The ST when it came had enoug horsepower under the hood to compete with the Mac and most of it's competition. As for GEM I never had a problem using it and always have preferred two or more buttons on my mice. Software wise the MAC had more software from major US software publishers but the nice thing is an ST owner could by Magic SAC or Spectre GCR and not only emulate the MAC but run software faster than some MACs could.

 

As for the suggestion Atari all in one design was wrong, you do know Atari did release the Mega, Mega STE, and TT030 line of computers which featured a desktop case, detachable keyboard, and could support a monitor on top. These computers also had add on hard drive modules (atari file and others) or could come with built in hard drives. The add-on external hard drives worked on other all in one models. As to the monitor being built in? Seriously why would anyone want that for any computer that is not a true portable? With my Atari's if the monitor goes bad I just need to go grab a new monitor (borrow, buy, or grab a spare) and I'm working again. Same if the computer goes down, I still have a working monitor I can hook to another computer. Now with a built in monitor if the either the computer or monitor goes and I have to give it to a repair shop the whole thing is gone until fixed.

 

The Tramiels missed the boat though on releasing an ST in a true desktop case. The MEGA ST when released should of had options for an internal hard drive, blitter, 16mhz processor, and the optional FPU from the start. Add these options and you have one awesome business machine back in 1987. Too bad they didn't do all that until 1991 or so with the Mega STE.

 

GEM vs other OS - I like GEM, never cared for the old style MAC OS, and haven't played with Amiga OS enough to make an opnion but have read that on release we got a rushed job and what they originally intended would of been one awesome OS. The Tramiels could of done better but they did some smart things with the GEM and it was simple to use. They waited too long for pre emptive multitasking support though.

 

Atari failing as a computer company - Yes they didn't survive, just like Commodore and many other companies that either are gone or just exist as a marketing name. The Tramiels tried to have Atari be a company that did many things. They had a computer line for both home/business, Went after the portable electronics market with other products and be a player in the video game market. The bottom line is they never were succesful enough or followed up success they did have well enough to make it. The Tramiels made mistakes, timing was either too early or late for some products, and of course Atari under them never seemed to have the resources to market things well enough.

 

Apple the biggest computer company? Don't you mean the biggest gadget company? - Now Apple is still around and a hit of a computer company but how much of that is because of the MAC? The MAC has always had a niche in the marketplace and from quick research seems to have 5% of the computer Market for use. Now new Macs use Intel processors, run Windows if you so choose but still can run iOS. So Apple is a profitable, large company because of their Mac line of computers? Oh wait I think it's more because of products called iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, etc. I give Apple all the credt for moving in to these markets so well and either become the leader or a major player. I also admire them for taking different products and giving them a common look and feel across the whole lineup.

 

Sales figures for a computer model - Hey the king of this is the Commodore 64 according to many sources. This is for a same model computer not a line of computers. Jack Tramiel and the designers at Commdoroe did with the Commodore 64 to computers what Henry Ford did to the automobile world with his Model T. I personally prefer a vehicle with airbags, ample power, key start, air conditioning just like for everyday computing I want a computer with high resolution, memory and storage space to spare, fast processing, run multiple programs at once, and more. Does the Model T or Commdore 64 fit the bill, hardly. But both the Model T and C64 brought affordable products in their product realm to the masses and so far we haven't turned back.

 

Now let's get this discussion back on track of the Tramiels and Atari Corp.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Pilsner73

[SpaceDice2010]

Since this thread is about the Tramiels and Jack seems to be the most famous of them all, I will repeat what i said -

 

The Tramiels, you can either love them or hate them, but their reign in the computer/videogame industry ended in the mid 90's. Many would argue that their reign as a major player ended long before that. In fact some would say on Jan. 13, 1984.

 

While at Commodore Jack was a major force in the computer industry. He never really re-gained the power he had to define a generation of computers since that time and I would argue that Atari was never really a major player in either the games market or the computer market under Tramiel.

 

Usually when you throw enough stuff against a wall something will eventually stick. That never seemed to happen under the Atari that Jack created.

[sunspot42]

Where do you get that from? The PC didn't really take off in Europe until the early nineties

 

Huh? PCs were flying off the shelves by the late '80s. Yes Virginia, even in Europe. While home computing was still dominated by the C64, Amiga and Atari ST (in that order in terms of units sold, plus homegrown European computers like the BBC Micro, Sinclair QL and Acorn Archimedes), businesses and institutions were purchasing IBM compatibles and, to a lesser degree, Macs. The ST had about two years of reasonably strong sales - roughly '86 thru '88 - before the wheels fell off Atari's bus.

 

Ars Technica had a great article detailing PC market share from the '70s thru 2005. You can see the full graph at the bottom of this page, with details on the prior pages: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/10

 

There's a great page detailing Atari's financial history here: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/39/Atari-Corporation.html They get a few details wrong, but the numbers track with my memory (my uncle was an Atari shareholder - I read the annual reports).

 

and how can you say there wasn't plenty of third party support? There was a shed load more stuff available for the ST and the Amiga than the Mac.

 

On what planet did this sequence of events occur? Because it sure wasn't on THIS planet. The Mac had an enormous software library, including the first and for several years the dominant DTP application, PageMaker (succeeded by Quark XPress which made its debut on the Mac the following year), Microsoft Excel (which launched on the Mac and went on to become by far the world's dominant spreadsheet software), Microsoft Word (which had been a dud on DOS and Xenix, and only took off in its WYSIWYG form on the Macintosh - the ST finally got a cruddy and outdated version called Microsoft Write, which was never updated), Word Perfect (which the ST also got, at Mac-like prices), and, in 1990, the revolutionary Photoshop 1.0, which pretty much cemented the Mac's role as the world's dominant media creation and editing platform.

 

The closest the ST got to having that kind of killer app was Dungeon Master. Which is not quite the same thing.

[sunspot42]

How can you say the ST never had a strong library? That is just ridiculous.

 

I think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that the STs ever had a strong software library. The platform never got a spreadsheet as strong as Excel was on the Mac (and later, on Windows). It didn't get WordPerfect until late '87, and subsequent versions were never made available. Microsoft Write on the ST was a lame old version of Word. PageMaker and Quark never made it to the STs. Photoshop? Don't think so.

 

Kinda hard to position yourself as either a serious business or serious media computer when the only major productivity application available on your platform is WordPerfect... Atari got away with that for a couple of years, but by 1988 even home users were demanding access to the big mainstream apps of the day, let alone businesses, schools and institutions. Nobody was putting "1st Word" on their resumes...

 

The STs did alright for games. But again, by '88 the Amiga was doing a lot better in that regard. And soon the Genesis and the clones would displace them both.

[sunspot42]

The issue here (really) is when someone wades in making very generalized statements saying something is horrible, crap, rubbish - no good for this or that, without seeing the bigger picture and just because you didn't experience the ST being used as a serious business computer there were plenty of people who did.

 

I think that's a pretty odd statement coming from somebody who's just stated that the Mac had a smaller software library than the ST, something which is just obviously ludicrous and, frankly, a bit loopy.

 

I mean, ST magazines at the time complained about how far the STs were falling behind the Mac in terms of productivity software, and it was a common slam against the ST in the general computer media. Until 1987 the STs didn't even have a decent word processor. That's pretty basic. The ST's version of Word Perfect wasn't exactly stellar, either - I definitely recall it being reviewed as a serious mixed bag by a couple of the big ST magazines.

 

A few people in Europe made do with the ST as a "business" machine for a couple of years - it was certainly more capable than a Commodore 64 - but it wasn't a mainstream choice even there as the market share figures prove.

 

I think the STs could have been more successful as business machines, if Atari had continued seriously development on GEM/TOS and on the hardware, but clearly that never happened and Atari never moved enough units into that community to spark serious developer interest.

[sunspot42]

You must really be kidding, at time of launch in 1985 Atari could look down thier nose at the INFERIOR,yes Inferior Mac.

 

A machine which already had powerful spreadsheet and word processing applications was hardly "inferior" in the eyes of most potential customers. A machine that featured a quality build, pleasant form factor and graphically and functionally superior UI didn't come across as "inferior" either to most users. Which is why the Mac ultimately stomped the STs, even though it was much more expensive.

 

A bucket of parts, no matter how impressive, does not a successful platform make (well, unless your initials were I.B.M.!). Atari was never able to figure that out. Apple did.

 

I do think it's funny that people are still emotional and defensive about the ST 20 years after the platform died. The thing flopped, and clearly there were reasons why. You can either acknowledge those reasons, or you can end up looking a bit delusional.

[sunspot42]

one thing they didn't do was make an inferior machine to the Mac hardware wise

 

Depends on how you define "hardware-wise". The ST's junky form factor was a huge hardware mistake - it looked like an overgrown Commodore 64, not like a serious computer worth blowing $1,000 on. So for the most part, people didn't. You had a large awkward base unit featuring a rats nest of cables streaming out in all directions. Ugly and confusing to most consumers. Apple got it right with the Macintosh - a simple design with three slender cables (mouse, keyboard and power), one of them (power) usually completely out of sight. Compare that to the ST, with its profusion of thick bulky cables running right to your fingertips (floppy, monitor, power), plus the mouse cable and any peripheral cables (modem, printer). Nasty. Cheap. Clunky. Tolerable in a $300 home computer like the C64. Unacceptable at the $1000 price point.

 

Then you had the way the STs handled the color monitor. Atari had their system default to booting up in low resolution, 320*200, which immediately made it look a lot like the 8-bit computers of the era, most of which sported similar resolutions. The icons and text were large and blocky and looked cheap and ridiculous compared to the Macintosh. Worse, they sat atop a hideous lime green background. Were the folks at Atari colorblind? And why not have the system boot to 640*200 when connected to an RGB monitor? At least that would look a little more advanced than a Commodore 64.

 

So here consumers were presented with a machine with a form factor that made it look like a giant C64, and a desktop that made it look like an overpriced C64. This did not come across as a credible low-cost alternative to the Macintosh. It looked instead like a glorified C64 at twice the price and with none of the software. Sure, gearheads and techies might be interested, if they were already aware of the machine's specifications. But specifications were gibberish to most consumers. They went by what they saw, and what they saw wasn't worth $1000. Atari sold a bunch of machines to enthusiasts the first couple of years (I was one of them), and then demand dried up. Game over. Specs don't sell - the experience does.

 

 

As for the suggestion Atari all in one design was wrong, you do know Atari did release the Mega, Mega STE, and TT030 line of computers which featured a desktop case, detachable keyboard, and could support a monitor on top.

 

Gosh, not only do I know that, I owned a Mega ST. Unfortunately, it came out in 1987, cost a lot, offered little in the way of improvement over the 520 and 1040STs apart from RAM and the form factor, wasn't widely distributed and didn't replace its ugly C64-esque predecessors. Fail.

 

 

These computers also had add on hard drive modules

 

Which were expensive, even relative to Mac hard drives, thanks to Atari's oddball DMA interface. Few ST users ever got a hard drive as a result (I never did, and I kept using my Mega thru 1995!)

 

 

As to the monitor being built in? Seriously why would anyone want that for any computer that is not a true portable?

 

Well, apparently actual customers don't agree with your assessment, since classic-style Macs outsold all models of ST by a considerable margin, in spite of being sold for much higher prices. I can think of lots of reasons why customers would prefer them - they tend to look better, occupy less space, are easier to setup, easier to move and tend to be more reliable (no cables or connectors to break). I've only ever had one monitor fail in my life (a Dell), so I'm not particularly worried about the monitor in an all-in-one PC breaking. I've had more motherboards die (2) than monitors (1).

 

 

The MEGA ST when released should of had options for an internal hard drive, blitter, 16mhz processor, and the optional FPU from the start.

 

This I agree with completely. In hindsight I always felt I should have picked up a 1040ST instead of the Mega 2 and saved my pennies for a hard drive. Horrible form factor, but overall a better deal than the Megas, which offered virtually no hardware improvement over their predecessors.

[carmel_andrews]

Svenski was right, pc's didn't take off seriously in UK/EU till after commodore went into administration and atari stopped making hardware (mid 90's), I think a little thing called windows 95 made sure of it

 

Yes, pc did sell before the mid 90's but they didn't get that 'critical mass' till about windows 95

 

Just to point out spacedice, their were "bureau's" or print shops as you call them that handled the ST as well as amiga (at least in UK/Europe anyway), i suggest you get some copies of ST format, say about a year after atari did a tie up with the publishers of Calamus (to bundle the then leading publishing suite of programs with the then released atari laser printer), you will notice a number of ad's in st format from bureaus and print shops (in fact i remember some bureaus/print shops still using fleet street publisher and 1stword)

Edited February 13, 2011 by carmel_andrews

[Pilsner73]

Depends on how you define "hardware-wise". The ST's junky form factor was a huge hardware mistake - it looked like an overgrown Commodore 64, not like a serious computer worth blowing $1,000 on. So for the most part, people didn't. You had a large awkward base unit featuring a rats nest of cables streaming out in all directions. Ugly and confusing to most consumers. Apple got it right with the Macintosh - a simple design with three slender cables (mouse, keyboard and power), one of them (power) usually completely out of sight. Compare that to the ST, with its profusion of thick bulky cables running right to your fingertips (floppy, monitor, power), plus the mouse cable and any peripheral cables (modem, printer). Nasty. Cheap. Clunky. Tolerable in a $300 home computer like the C64. Unacceptable at the $1000 price point.

 

Then you had the way the STs handled the color monitor. Atari had their system default to booting up in low resolution, 320*200, which immediately made it look a lot like the 8-bit computers of the era, most of which sported similar resolutions. The icons and text were large and blocky and looked cheap and ridiculous compared to the Macintosh. Worse, they sat atop a hideous lime green background. Were the folks at Atari colorblind? And why not have the system boot to 640*200 when connected to an RGB monitor? At least that would look a little more advanced than a Commodore 64.

 

So here consumers were presented with a machine with a form factor that made it look like a giant C64, and a desktop that made it look like an overpriced C64. This did not come across as a credible low-cost alternative to the Macintosh. It looked instead like a glorified C64 at twice the price and with none of the software. Sure, gearheads and techies might be interested, if they were already aware of the machine's specifications. But specifications were gibberish to most consumers. They went by what they saw, and what they saw wasn't worth $1000. Atari sold a bunch of machines to enthusiasts the first couple of years (I was one of them), and then demand dried up. Game over. Specs don't sell - the experience does.

 

We get it you hated the ST form factor. Yet the ST had more hardware performance out of the box over the Mac. Oh no Atari picked low res as default and Lime green (which is still far superior to what colors Mac could use), really they were quickly and easily changed. Apple had one button mouse buttons, how lame. Actually I thought the first Macs were toys with their little screen, no color, small monitor, one button mouse, small keyboard, beige Vectrex style case. The Apple II line outsold the Mac for awhile after it came out and was what kept Apple going while they waited for the Mac to be profitable, then it was the ipod, iTunes that had save Apple later.

 

Gosh, not only do I know that, I owned a Mega ST. Unfortunately, it came out in 1987, cost a lot, offered little in the way of improvement over the 520 and 1040STs apart from RAM and the form factor, wasn't widely distributed and didn't replace its ugly C64-esque predecessors. Fail.

 

I don't call it a failure but at the price it came out as, they should offered more. Since you keep saying the Mac had more software that you wanted to use, why didn't you buy a Spectre GCR and run said software on your Atari Mega ST? For a small investment more you could of had your Atari being a Mac.

 

Which were expensive, even relative to Mac hard drives, thanks to Atari's oddball DMA interface. Few ST users ever got a hard drive as a result (I never did, and I kept using my Mega thru 1995!)

 

Really the Megafile actually at the time was a good deal and I know a lot of ST users who had Hard Drives with their ST computer.

 

Well, apparently actual customers don't agree with your assessment, since classic-style Macs outsold all models of ST by a considerable margin, in spite of being sold for much higher prices. I can think of lots of reasons why customers would prefer them - they tend to look better, occupy less space, are easier to setup, easier to move and tend to be more reliable (no cables or connectors to break). I've only ever had one monitor fail in my life (a Dell), so I'm not particularly worried about the monitor in an all-in-one PC breaking. I've had more motherboards die (2) than monitors (1).

 

IMO the buying public have made the PC and it's form factor the number one design which is a separate monitor, detachable keyboard, and case that is either on the desktop or tower. Most articles I read state that the Apple II line was what kept Apple profitable for a long time after the Mac was released so the Mac design wasn't the be all end all. Dell, Lenovo, HP and even Apple seem to have more computer models without the monitor built in. I thought the first Mac design was horrible, looked like a beige Vectrex with it's dinky monitor.

 

The MEGA ST when released should of had options for an internal hard drive, blitter, 16mhz processor, and the optional FPU from the start.

 

This I agree with completely. In hindsight I always felt I should have picked up a 1040ST instead of the Mega 2 and saved my pennies for a hard drive. Horrible form factor, but overall a better deal than the Megas, which offered virtually no hardware improvement over their predecessors.

 

The Mega should of been more, I think Atari over priced the Mega compared to the general ST line for what you got but it did offer detachable keyboards, built in drive, and desktop stand for most monitors at the time.