TI's folly

[digdugnate]

​the TI-99/4A was an odd computer, i'll admit that much, the BASIC was slow and it's original intent was for math, not games. that's not why I wrote this.

 

​I need to understand 3 things:

 

​1. why the hell did TI try to enter the computer market without realizing most computers were for games, not math or writing?

​ 2. (and I am going to receive flak from someone out there) why in the unholy name of god did they release such a slow version of BASIC? now granted, Commodore's BASIC isn't any better, but still.

​ 3. this connects to number 1, how were they expecting to market the 99/4A when people wanted Good games, good graphics and a fair price?

surely, it fills 1 of those requirements, but still, the sound is below average and the BASIC is also below par. it makes Commodore's basic look godly.

 

thoughts

 

(also someone fix the backwards text bug, it's driving me nuts)

Now that I've taken a deep breath, and read some of the posts I think I might understand where you are coming from- (my apologies for jumping the gun)

 

I think that with TI being the market leader in the chip industry they saw an opening that they could exploit and make a ton of money at. As an armchair quarterback, their business acumen in this market plus pressure from Jack Tramiel/Commodore made this a fantastic blunder on TI's part. I think they had all the right pieces in place and it could've been a competitor with the 99/2 and 99/8 in the emergent home computer market if it were not for that.

 

I can't comment on the Basic stuff specifically because I have not worked with it in a long time- but there are some reallllly good threads here about Basic. There are some very passionate and knowledgeable hobbyists here that could answer any question about GPL, Basic, or Assembly.

 

This is my personal opinion, but I felt a lot of the TI carts were very well made and hold up even now in regards to graphics/sound compared to other systems (the ones I have experience with are C64 and Atari 2600). Now while granted they had their share of games that didn't seem to hold up that well, when i compare to C64 games like Radar Rat Race or Omega Race I think the offerings were similar if not superior.

 

This is going off topic a little, but disk software for the TI just totally blows me away- later of course the C64 would give the ability for more complex diskette games, but you also had to wait 20 minutes for it to load, too. Tunnels of Doom, specifically, loads insanely fast on disk versus its cassette brother. I'm captivated by that game even now with its simplicity yet complexity of game play.

 

As mentioned before, I think the focus on education and home productivity were the selling points simply because of TI's stance in the market- they were industry innovators/leaders in calculators/etc, and had TONS of educational toys. While I am unsure of what the home consumer market was desiring in the late 70s/early 80s, my thought is that just the idea of *owning* an entry-level computer that not only played games but did 'grown up stuff' would have been sufficient versus positioning the computer against a dedicate console like the Intellivision or the 2600.

 

Rambly, a bit, but I hope this adds to the discussion.

[Retrospect]

This is what they were going to make but for some reason it came out with no infra-red socket for wireless devices (joystick and keyboard were going to be wireless)

 

This is a prototype from 1978.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Retrospect

[Keatah]

I tend to feel that computers with memory maps which were simpler and less restrictive did better than computers with all sorts of options and stipulations.

 

In some designs (like the Apple II) the 6502 was free to roam everywhere. Getting to this memory location or that memory location took the same amount of clock cycles across the board. And aside from a bit of refresh and multiplexing/select circuitry there was nothing to get in the way of the 6502 reaching the data or talking directly to peripherals. There was no "systems interface chip". In fact the stuff was so simple it could be drawn on a schematic as discrete gates and not be overwhelming!

 

And with firmware, there again, there was nothing in the way. A programmer could turn it all off. And the VCS was similar, heck, it was even simpler.

 

This blank slate philosophy made for a less attractive consumer product, but it became an instant hit with the people writing software. Which in turn made the machine more attractive since it had more stuff. But best of all it was totally open. No secrets. No protection.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Keatah

[bpatte02]

Who the frell is "Senfield"?

oops apparently my I went a wandering

[2600problems]

damn good prototype for 1978. Doc would be proud

[2600problems]

that still doesn't answer one question: why is my text being input backwards. the parser skips behind my words and they come out jumbled

[+Ksarul]

I actually have the guts of one of those Dimension 4 prototypes. Unfortunately, the person who had it before me was a recycler. He removed the case (along with the infrared receiver) and the keyboard and tossed them. I got the rest. I've been slowly acquiring the necessary 99/4 parts to put it back into a case to see if it will still work.

[+adamantyr]

To answer your points:

 

#1 - TI entered the market at a time where computers were, to put it simply, a fad. Everyone wanted one, and in order to stand out in the market, they marketed their home computer line as "THE" home computer, capable of doing everything including entertainment, education, and productivity. A big issue, I think, is that many of us tend to smudge together 1978-1984 into a single time period, when in fact there was a LOT of changes going on year by year. Games weren't a priority in the late 70's, but they became the big draw by the early 80's and everyone scrambled to catch up.

 

#2 - As others have said, TI shot themselves in the foot in several technical ways here. Their goal was to make a simple and easy-to-learn BASIC that didn't expose the user to machine language concepts too early. In THAT, they did succeed. TI BASIC may not be fast, but it's much easier to learn than any other BASIC; I was doing so at age 9-11. TI's idea was when you were done with BASIC you'd move on to Pascal, Assembly, or Forth, much faster and superior languages.

 

#3 - They actually DID market this way. Starting in late 1981, they started to really focus on making the TI-99/4a accessible to people and really pushing the games and educational aspects. In fact, 1982 saw TI's share of the home computer market grow considerably. (Around 30% I think) Unfortunately, they achieved this by cutting the cost of the computer down in competition with Commodore's VIC-20, who, because their unit was even cheaper, could always win that battle. TI also proved to be rather hide-bound in their thinking; they shut down 3rd party developers and blocked independent cartridges (rather like Nintendo would do a few years later), while trying to make distribution deals with companies to produce games for the console with only 8K of cartridge ROM available. (Apparently they got laughed at when they asked if Zaxxon could be ported to it.)

 

One critical aspect of why the TI failed to catch on with developers? The chip architecture is like NOTHING else on the market. The Apple, Atari, and Commodore computers all used the 6502 8-bit processor, which meant it was relatively easy to write games for multiple platforms, and they were by and large implemented in the same fashion. TI's assembly, by contrast, is very different. It's very fast and actually a lot more convenient for programming, but the lack of manuals and the fact you needed a complete system to really write in it effectively was a major pain. Most of the developers who wrote TI games for the company used the TI-990 mini computer, which offered debugger support and other tools.

[majestyx]

To your final, un-numbered point of why the TI didn't catch on with the developers - I think you've inadvertently explained why some of the TI versions of arcade games were so much better than most of the computers/consoles of the era. It's because the programmers who did program for it were pretty much starting from scratch, with the graphics chip being the one thing the TI had in common with the ColecoVision, which was pretty much the top of the line machine back in 1982. While I still prefer the CV version of Q*bert over any other edition (not including the arcade original of course), that's mostly due to it's control method which was a 90 degree shift from how the TI's joystick operates. I still can't play the TI version for any length of time due to how used to the CV edition I am. But compare games like Popeye, Frogger, most of the Atarisoft titles, as well as the Imagic titles (Microsurgeon being a real standout, as well as the more-like-Phoenix-than-Demon Attack) to their console editions, and I think most people would admit that they look and play much better thanks to some high-quality programming for a somewhat alien machine when compared to the 6502 and Z80 powered ones. Also, even the numerous versions of the popular arcade games of the day made by independent companies are quite impressive too, to say nothing of more recent homebrews which show what can still be done on this old piece of hardware.

[PeBo]

way too much troll feeding going on here, but let me just say that anyone who questions the designs/decisions of a computer manufacturer in the late 70's and early 80's never lived through the late 70's/early 80's.

 

Those of us who DO remember will recall that it was all uncharted territory...saying things like "most computers were for games" indicates you weren't around for the vocal and pompous arrogance of early adopters (which all computer users were in the 70's/80's) that their machines were NOT game machines (while pointing out that their computers DID play games better than the gaming consoles of the time, they were quick to add that their computer could do so much more)

 

Being a gamer did not have the cache that it does today, being a computer owner did - regardless of the fact that gaming was still the most popular use for computers, people would rarely admit that gaming was the reason they bought a computer. (Why do you think magazines like "Compute!" and "Home Computer" included apps as well as games in their type-in listings, while every issue was replete with articles explaining how to use your computer for a plethora of various activities.) We were still figuring out what our home computers could do...users and manufacturers.

 

And how about telecommunication??? (something the troll, while using the internet to try to get under our skins, never mentions in his what-computers-were-for tirade), After buying my first modem, and discovering the world of BBSes, I spent far less time using my computer for games. I think it's safe to say most of us did,

 

I could go on about memory prices in the 70's/80's or early electronics marketing or software licensing models (which both killed the 4A more than any design problems) but why should any of us defend a machine that has kept us loyal - in disproportionate numbers - for 4 decades,

 

Finally I really wish the thread starter, being so game-centric, would go over to youtube and go through a few of the "let's compare" retro-computer game videos, He'd then see why the TI forums are the busiest non-atari sigs on AtariAge...even if we concede to all of your points (which I don't), our little flawed quirky computer still played games with the best of them - consistently having the best ports available...

 

...just saying.

 

 

[Keatah]

There's gonna be loud mouthers, trolls, and pompous asses wherever you go. And if you're a time traveller, whenever you go.

 

I wish modems and printers would get some discussion. No one cares about those peripherals, but once they're all recycled and trashed, I bet they'll be worth a fortune!

[Arnuphis]

I need to get a nice dot matrix printer for my TI. Any recommendations? There needs to be a modern source of ribbons for it of course otherwise it's pointless. Like the Imagewriter II I have on my IIgs for example. Can still get new ribbons for that and as dot matrix printers go it's a beaut.

 

Cable/DSL modems pretty much killed off the old dial-up ones and that is why no one talks about them. I miss that old dialing sound though. But then there's this! https://www.dialupsound.com/

[Keatah]

And things like this:

https://www.vconsole.com/product/13

http://www.vikingproductstore.com/viking/security-equipment-21398-Viking_DLE200B_Two_Way_Phone_Line_Simulator_DLE200B.html

[ZylonBane]

......even if we concede to all of your points (which I don't), our little flawed quirky computer still played games with the best of them - consistently having the best ports available...

 

What? The vast majority of TI ports I've seen have been clunky, inferior things with weird colors, monochrome sprites, limited animation, and primitive sound effects.

[unhuman]

Datasoft actually published an advertisement for Zaxxon and specifically mentioned they were looking for programmers for the TI-99. It was indeed possible, as the video hardware was the same as CV, which had it. Additionally, we got Arcturus, which essentially was Zaxxon.

 

#3 - They actually DID market this way. Starting in late 1981, they started to really focus on making the TI-99/4a accessible to people and really pushing the games and educational aspects. In fact, 1982 saw TI's share of the home computer market grow considerably. (Around 30% I think) Unfortunately, they achieved this by cutting the cost of the computer down in competition with Commodore's VIC-20, who, because their unit was even cheaper, could always win that battle. TI also proved to be rather hide-bound in their thinking; they shut down 3rd party developers and blocked independent cartridges (rather like Nintendo would do a few years later), while trying to make distribution deals with companies to produce games for the console with only 8K of cartridge ROM available. (Apparently they got laughed at when they asked if Zaxxon could be ported to it.)

[x24b]

My personal memory regarding the TI:

 

Back in the early 1980's I had exactly one conversation with my smart neighbor Mr N. It turned out he worked at JPL, the Jet Propulsion Lab, in Pasadena CA (Rocket Scientist?). He bought and used a TI 99/4A daily at home. He said it was quicker and easier to type in his program, after work, than submit his program to a mainframe. He said something about having to wait his turn. Speaking of his work, he gave his TI the data to crunch, went to bed, and in the morning the calculations were done. He said he was ahead of the crowd at work because of it.

 

I told my cousin Lee about this. He was a math and engineering major in college. He now is part owner in a company that makes major tools for Boeing aircraft. He exploded with enthusiasm and gushed about the "expensive" TI 99/4A being a true '16-bit' computer. I remember being shocked. I barely knew anything about computers, but this conversation started me on my way.

 

Later that day we met with his best friend Phil. He had a fully buffed-out Altair 8800 computer with monitor and keyboard! It took up a quarter of his apartment living room. He wished he had the money to buy a full TI 99/4A system. Just to know his credentials a bit, that guy eventually wrote code for helicopter Helmet-to-Gun targeting. They drooled over the TI's specifications while eating cheeseburgers.

 

So, that was my direct introduction to the TI.

Brainiacs loved the machine for its 'raw power' back in the day.

 

Remember... as far as I knew, and know, it was the first 16-bit computer sold to the general public. Horsepower was a major driving factor for engineers, mathematicians, and programmers. Computer cycles were expensive!

 

Oh, after saving enough money, I built my system and still have it (Packed in the garage). I had my TI speak the text on BBS's while I worked on my radio controlled airplanes. I was living in the future!

[PeBo]

 

What? The vast majority of TI ports I've seen have been clunky, inferior things with weird colors, monochrome sprites, limited animation, and primitive sound effects.

you honestly don't think that's going to draw anyone into a defence do you?

 

Evidence is out there, believe whatever you wish, but I'm not gonna let ya pee on my cornflakes.

 

Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll go play one of those clunky, primitive sounding, inferior, weird coloured, limited animated games (weird coloured? you're nothing if not imaginative!)

[Casey]

I need to get a nice dot matrix printer for my TI. Any recommendations? There needs to be a modern source of ribbons for it of course otherwise it's pointless. Like the Imagewriter II I have on my IIgs for example. Can still get new ribbons for that and as dot matrix printers go it's a beaut.

 

Back in the day I had a Panasonic KX-P1180 dot matrix printer and I really don't think you could go wrong with any of the Panasonics of that era. They printed well, they were fast, and at least some of them had pretty good NLQ fonts built in. Looks like ribbons are still widely available for these. It has built in emulation of either the Epson FX-86 or the IBM Proprinter, so software compatibility should be good also. I used one of these for years on a Commodore 128 and then later a Tandy 1000.

[digdugnate]

you honestly don't think that's going to draw anyone into a defence do you?

 

Evidence is out there, believe whatever you wish, but I'm not gonna let ya pee on my cornflakes.

 

Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll go play one of those clunky, primitive sounding, inferior, weird coloured, limited animated games (weird coloured? you're nothing if not imaginative!)

cos we ALL know Pac-Man on the Atari 2600 was a shining example of what a port should be. ;)

[ZylonBane]

you honestly don't think that's going to draw anyone into a defence do you?

 

Being defensive has no correlation with being right. I just went and watched about a dozen let's-compares to refresh my memory, and in not a single case was the TI version the "best port". Even limiting comparison to 8-bit machines with hardware sprites, the TI version was nearly always the worst.

 

Since you disagree, feel free to provide counterexamples. The only port I saw that was particularly good compared to its peers was Burger Time, and even that had issues with the music dropping out every time a sound effect played.

[digdugnate]

in the spirit of discussion, my counterexample is this one- Q*Bert.

 

 

I happen to own this TI cart, plus a TI clone (Cubit) plus the 2600/VIC 20 versions. Given the hardware and the comparisons, I think it's a pretty darn good port of the arcade game.

[+InsaneMultitasker]

The TI version stands up very well to the competition. It is good and snappy, too.

[RXB]

Anyone notice they used the TI99 instead of TI99/4A?

The TI99 had a more crappy GROM and ROM so the game was much better on the TI99/4A.

[Keatah]

in the spirit of discussion, my counterexample is this one- Q*Bert.

 

I happen to own this TI cart, plus a TI clone (Cubit) plus the 2600/VIC 20 versions. Given the hardware and the comparisons, I think it's a pretty darn good port of the arcade game.

 

Yes it is pretty good. Some of those in the comparison are downright mutations and shouldn't have been made.

[digdugnate]

Anyone notice they used the TI99 instead of TI99/4A?

The TI99 had a more crappy GROM and ROM so the game was much better on the TI99/4A.

I did notice that! I can attest personally that the 4A runs it like gangbusters.