Too much consumer choice?

[Bill Loguidice]

In retrospect, I think having a 400 and 800 to meet different price points was a great idea at a time when the 800 was relatively expensive. Not to oversimplify things, but what was not a great idea was to continue that idea with the 600XL. Once the Commodore 64 was out and having success, it was probably critical for Atari to make 64K or greater the standard on all new computers, if only to ensure that 48K or greater software was prioritized. Unfortunately, with the release of the 600XL, you continued to have Atari 8-bit computers in the wild with 16K, 48K, and 64K base RAM specs. As a developer/publisher, it was probably not in your best interest to always support the higher specs, which was a given on the C-64 and becoming increasingly more common on the Apple II side (which was successful in moving its customer base to 64K and beyond). That, among other factors, probably hurt Atari's third party support.

[fultonbot]

The 400 was a great idea! My buddy got one in 1982, and we spent hours at his house typing-in games from Antic and Analog on the chiclet keyboard. However, the 1200xl sh*t the bed, the 600xl was unnecessary, and the 800xl arrived too late to fight off Commodore.

[Gunstar]

In retrospect, I think having a 400 and 800 to meet different price points was a great idea at a time when the 800 was relatively expensive. Not to oversimplify things, but what was not a great idea was to continue that idea with the 600XL. Once the Commodore 64 was out and having success, it was probably critical for Atari to make 64K or greater the standard on all new computers, if only to ensure that 48K or greater software was prioritized. Unfortunately, with the release of the 600XL, you continued to have Atari 8-bit computers in the wild with 16K, 48K, and 64K base RAM specs. As a developer/publisher, it was probably not in your best interest to always support the higher specs, which was a given on the C-64 and becoming increasingly more common on the Apple II side (which was successful in moving its customer base to 64K and beyond). That, among other factors, probably hurt Atari's third party support.

Even with the success of the C64, Commodore still felt the need to introduce, much later, the Commodore 16 with a mere 16K.

[Bill Loguidice]

Even with the success of the C64, Commodore still felt the need to introduce, much later, the Commodore 16 with a mere 16K.

 

They never introduced a 16K Commodore 64.

[Gunstar]

 

They never introduced a 16K Commodore 64.

I never said they did, at the same time, or about the same time that Commodore released the Commodore Plus 4, they released and unrelated to the C64, Commodore 16 computer, unless I am misremembering the actual name...let me check...nope, I am not wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_16

 

My point being, Commodore still felt a need for a low-end replacement to the Vic-20, even with a low-cost C64. Just like Atari felt the need for the 600XL, a replacement for the 400.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Gunstar

[Bill Loguidice]

I never said they did, at the same time, or about the same time that Commodore released the Commodore Plus 4, they released and unrelated to the C64, Commodore 16 computer, unless I am misremembering the actual name...let me check...nope, I am not wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_16

 

My point being, Commodore still felt a need for a low-end replacement to the Vic-20, even with a low-cost C64. Just like Atari felt the need for the 600XL, a replacement for the 400.

 

That wasn't exactly the reasoning for the release of the C16 and Plus/4, and my comment was referring to them never splitting the Commodore 64 user base, other than with the C-128, which went up, not down. Lots of companies mistakenly released low end machines or were targeting a low end market that no longer existed after 1982. The point was, Atari probably didn't have a need to maintain a 16K low end spec by the time of the 600XL's release.

[Gunstar]

 

That wasn't exactly the reasoning for the release of the C16 and Plus/4, and my comment was referring to them never splitting the Commodore 64 user base, other than with the C-128, which went up, not down. Lots of companies mistakenly released low end machines or were targeting a low end market that no longer existed after 1982. The point was, Atari probably didn't have a need to maintain a 16K low end spec by the time of the 600XL's release.

Sorry, I wasn't exactly on the same page as you. I was thinking low-end hardware in any form, and not about your argument of developers and dangers of 16 or 48K Atari's and dividing the user base. But I can still see the 600XL since it was easily upgrade-able to 64K. The 48K 800 was always going to be the reason to hold back developers, not the 600XL. We were stuck with a vast majority of software having a 48K glass ceiling no matter if the 600XL was released or not. This is not an issue with PAL software nearly as much, since Atari didn't sell a lot in England and Europe until the XL and XE lines. The 600XL didn't effect production of 64K games over there, and the 800 had less effect on limiting games to 48K there as well.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Gunstar

[Bill Loguidice]

Sorry, I wasn't exactly on the same page as you. I was thinking low-end hardware in any form, and not about your argument of developers and dangers of 16 or 48K Atari's. But I can still see the 600XL since it was easily upgrade-able to 64K. The 48K 800 was always going to be the reason to hold back developers, not the 600XL. We were stuck with a vast majority of software being 48K no matter if the 600XL was released or not.

 

I think if the 16K options were sunsetted after the 400, there might have been more support for 48K or greater. Even if the 600XL was "easily" upgradeable, it was still not an assumption a developer or publisher could make, and certainly would limit what a 600XL owner could actually buy in terms of software, which exasperated the situation (a catch-22 if you were).

 

Regardless, I think there's something to be said for having fewer models in a computer line in that era than more models. The Atari 8-bit series had way too many models versus what was needed. That had to have some type of impact on sales versus the competition like the C-64, which was just the one base model for its decade-long commercial lifetime (acknowledging the C-128 and SX-64, which otherwise ran the same base software), and the Apple II series, which did have lots of models, but again, Apple did a good job of making the latest models available and its generally more affluent customers did a good job of keeping on top of upgrades.

 

Anyway, this is just a speculation thread and it doesn't mean any of it is right. The history is the history and nothing will change that, obviously.

[Dmitry]

It worked on me. I wanted the Atari 800. This was at the time they were on display at Sears, and the Atari 800 had graphics and sound and a price point that was better than an Apple II - and the C64 wouldn't be released for a couple years.

 

But, I couldn't get the Atari 800 so I settled on an Atari 400.

[Gunstar]

 

The Atari 8-bit series had way too many models versus what was needed.

I do agree with this to an extent. I sometimes feel Atari Corp should have just stuck with the XL line instead of revamping it into the XE, but at the same time, I feel they should have started including 128K in the 800XL's to compete with the C128 and Apple IIc, etc. But I understand that Atari Corp wanted all their computers to look alike, but maybe that was a bad decision and the ST line being totally distinct from the old Atari 8-bit might have even helped sales.

 

But as far as Atari Inc., I could see just an 800XL as a low-end and a 1400XL line as a higher end to try and compete in education and business and go up against Apple and not just the Commodore 64. But I still don't feel the 600XL was detrimental to the software side and low memory programs as you do. But no matter what, I agree with the low-end high-end philosophy. If the ST line was all Atari Corp ever offered and dropped the 8-bits as a low-end alternative, I never would have owned an Atari. The 130XE was my affordable choice instead of an Apple IIc or C128. The C64 was never in the picture for me, it was 128K or bust at the time.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Gunstar

[fultonbot]

Was the 1400xl or the 1450 xld designed to have expansion slots?

[Gunstar]

IIRC, they would have still had the PBI buss, which could have connected to expansion slot systems like the proto-type 1090 expansion box ( http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8BITS/XL/xlperipherals/1090xl.html). But they had other things built-in as well:

http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8BITS/XL/1450xld/1450xld.html

 

You can check out all the released and prototype hardware and peripherals out here: http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8BITS/XL/XL-Pages/xl-range-main.htm

Edited April 19, 2016 by Gunstar

[fultonbot]

Thanks! I wanted a 1450xld as a kid, but I never really understood all the differences when is came the the Freddie and the MMU.