the 8-bit's reception after the crash

[tyranthraxus]

I was curious as to how the Atari computers were recieved by the

buying public around the time of the crash and the Tramiel take

over and subsequent ST release? Any oldtimers with impressions from

the day? Did the sell the same as usual, were people concerned Atari

was going under? Was there a drop in software production?

 

John

[Tempest]

I was a huge 8-bit computer fan going into the crash (83-84), but I didnt see much about them after. I remember getting some cartridges cheap on closeout circa 1985, but I swear I never saw a 65XE or 130XE in stores.

 

Tempest

[Mendon]

was a huge 8-bit computer fan going into the crash (83-84), but I didnt see much about them after. I remember getting some cartridges cheap on closeout circa 1985, but I swear I never saw a 65XE or 130XE in stores.

 

Kmart sold them for quite some time. I remember seeing 800XL's for $79, 65XE's for $99, and $130XE's for $129. No software or accessories but they did have the systems. Maybe they got them on some closeout deal with Atari or something.

 

But I never remember seeing a 7800 for sale anyplace other than Toy's R Us.

 

Mendon

[Big Player]

Crash? I thought that only affected the video game market? It seems my friends who played the video game in the early 80's spent the mid-80's playing games on some kind of 8-bit computer, either a C64 or Atari.

 

I got my 800XL for Christmas in 1984 and used it up through high school (graduated in 1988.) I guess I was unaware that the crash had affected the computer market since I got in after or during the crash.

[tyranthraxus]

Well the crash hit consoles and it was fueled by a trend for home

computers, coupled with some rotten console practices of the time

everything snowballed and meant no console sales but increased

computer sales. The C=64 profited the most from the crash so I was wondering whether Atari computers got a boost.

 

I know that the game crash dirtied Atari's name among consumers

so I'm curious as to whether their computer scene got hit hard or not.

 

John

[Big Player]

Well then I helped contribute to the crash since I put my 2600 in the basement when I got my 800XL. I hate to think all the cheap games I passed up then. Oh well, this isn't the 2600 forum.

 

I actually bought my 800XL because it was made by Atari. I was surprised that most people I knew who had 2600's went with the C64 instead.

 

I'm interested in how the Atari computer market was affected by the crash, since I got into it right in the middle of it.

[Shannon]

I was curious as to how the Atari computers were recieved by the  

buying public around the time of the crash and the Tramiel take

over and subsequent ST release? Any oldtimers with impressions from

the day? Did the sell the same as usual, were people concerned Atari

was going under? Was there a drop in software production?

 

John

 

Atari computer? I didn't know atari made computers was the general reaction I got from people around that time. But once I got an 8-bit computer I was in my own little world and missed out on alot of stuff.

 

Sure I was "aware" of a few things, but for the most part ignored it and missed alot of atari's history. By the time the tramiels took over and were busy running Atari into the ground I had switched to the Amiga. I just couldn't get into the ST.

[Bryan]

I just couldn't get into the ST.  

 

I got a 1040ST pretty soon after they came out. In fact, I stuck with Atari and got a Mega STE, and a Falcon030 as well. Looking back, I think I made a big mistake. I bought those machines out of brand loyalty, and not because they were better. The Amiga was a much better product (the ST's were thrown together in record time when the Tramiel/Amiga deal fell through). The ST's sound wasn't even as good as Pokey. If I'd known the true heritage of the Amiga, things would have been different.

 

So, in my attempt at Atari brand loyalty, I ended up rooting for the founders of Commodore, and against the machine designed by the inventors of the 400/800.

 

Today I don't have any ST stuff.

 

-Bry

[SmileyDude]

So, in my attempt at Atari brand loyalty, I ended up rooting for the founders of Commodore, and against the machine designed by the inventors of the 400/800.

 

Ironic, huh?

 

As far as my recolection goes, I honestly wasn't aware of the crash until a few years after it happened. But, then again, we weren't exactly contributing to the crash -- we bought the 2600, 5200, 7800, and Vectrex when they were new In fact, because of the 2600 adaptor for the 5200, we bought both a 2 port and 4 port 5200. On the computer side, we had a couple of 400s, a 1200XL, and finally a 65XE. Some were new, some were pass me downs, but we kept buying software for all of the machines.

 

Sadly, we sold off most of the 2600 stuff and the 1200XL... but, between myself and my dad, we still have most of everything else -- he has the Vectrex, the 7800, and at least one of the 5200s... most of the games are with him, but some are scattered about at my house. I have most of the computer stuff.

 

I think the only way the crash effected me was that we didn't get an NES -- 7800 games were just too cheap to pass up at the time, and by the time we had moved on, the GameBoy had just came out, and I moved to the GB for my new gaming needs.

 

So, the irony in my story is that the crash probably hurt Nintendo more than Atari in my house

[SmileyDude]

(the ST's were thrown together in record time when the Tramiel/Amiga deal fell through). The ST's sound wasn't even as good as Pokey.

 

I bet they could've pulled off a 16-bit version of the XLs just as fast, and had a better product -- similar to the Apple IIgs. They might've had a good chance at surviving if they had concentrated on upgrading their existing customers to newer, backwards compatible gear, but the insisted with breaking away from the past.

 

I imagine part of the reason why they did this was because of Apple -- the Atari 8-bit -> 16-bit transition looks alot like the Apple 8-bit -> 16-bit transistion. But I think what Atari didnt see is that it was only going to be a 2 horse race, and Apple already had the jump on the second horse. Another factor is that due to the price difference between an Apple II and the Atari 8-bits, the existing Atari customers probably didn't have the money to upgrade to an entirely new system (I know I didn't ), so they stuck with what they had, or traded it for something else (C-64, NES, etc). Meanwhile, the ST was stuck with trying to get new customers.

 

BTW, it's pretty easy to blame the Trammels for all of Atari's problems in the 80's and 90s, but to be fair, some of the blame has to go to Warner. If they would've been more aggressive with moving Atari forward, they wouldn't have fire saled Atari to the Trammels. There is absolutely no reason why the 400/800 line couldn't have had some more impressive upgrades over the years... 3 case changes and more RAM about sums it up (sadly enough) -- oh, and progressively making the keyboard worse Yet, years later, people are upgrading their machines with dual-POKEYs for stereo sound -- why didn't Atari do something like this? That would've been a good marketing point -- 8-channels of stereo sound -- take that, C-64 fanboys

 

Oh well, it's too late now to fix that... but it is frustrating to see now what Atari could've been after living through what it became.

[Bryan]

 

I bet they could've pulled off a 16-bit version of the XLs just as fast, and had a better product -- similar to the Apple IIgs.  They might've had a good chance at surviving if they had concentrated on upgrading their existing customers to newer, backwards compatible gear, but the insisted with breaking away from the past.

 

Well, Jack & Co. didn't have any interest in Atari's past, really. He just wanted to get back in the game. I don't there would have been much future in a 65816 machine. It would have been a cool thing to see, but there was just so much more potential in the 68000. Atari originally thought of using a National N32032, but the 68000 was easier to get.

 

In other words, a next generation machine was the right idea, there were just too many sacrifices made.

 

I imagine part of the reason why they did this was because of Apple -- the Atari 8-bit -> 16-bit transition looks alot like the Apple 8-bit -> 16-bit transistion.  But I think what Atari didnt see is that it was only going to be a 2 horse race, and Apple already had the jump on the second horse.  Another factor is that due to the price difference between an Apple II and the Atari 8-bits, the existing Atari customers probably didn't have the money to upgrade to an entirely new system (I know I didn't ), so they stuck with what they had, or traded it for something else (C-64, NES, etc).  Meanwhile, the ST was stuck with trying to get new customers.

 

With the shape it was in, Atari needed to attract all new customers. People looking to buy a new computer were more important than people who'd bought an 800 a few years back. Mainly, Atari needed to steal Amiga and Mac (and even PC) sales. The XE's were the bone thown to the existing base.

 

BTW, it's pretty easy to blame the Trammels for all of Atari's problems in the 80's and 90s, but to be fair, some of the blame has to go to Warner.  If they would've been more aggressive with moving Atari forward, they wouldn't have fire saled Atari to the Trammels.  There is absolutely no reason why the 400/800 line couldn't have had some more impressive upgrades over the years... 3 case changes and more RAM about sums it up (sadly enough) -- oh, and progressively making the keyboard worse  Yet, years later, people are upgrading their machines with dual-POKEYs for stereo sound -- why didn't Atari do something like this?  That would've been a good marketing point -- 8-channels of stereo sound -- take that, C-64 fanboys

 

Oh yes, Warner was making sooo much money that there's no excuse for how they bungled the entire product line. Warner had no vision of the future, they just milked the present until it ran dry. Remember that Atari's engineers left because Atari didn't want to invest in any new hardware designs (although the vaporware labs never seemed to close).

 

The 64 craze never should have happened. Atari should have sealed that market up tight. They never envisioned that the market was yearning for a low-cost alternative. The fancy 1200/1400/1450XL upgrades were a step in the wrong direction (although I think the 1200 is the best looking 8-bit ever) and it just shook people's confidence in the platform. Atari thought people would go for big and elaborate designs. At least Jack understood cost reduction.

 

Oh well, it's too late now to fix that... but it is frustrating to see now what Atari could've been after living through what it became.

 

I know. The PC kicked everyone's butt, because noone managed to dominate the market for very long. Everyone had a shot, though.

 

-Bry

[Shannon]

I just couldn't get into the ST.  

 

I got a 1040ST pretty soon after they came out. In fact, I stuck with Atari and got a Mega STE, and a Falcon030 as well. Looking back, I think I made a big mistake. I bought those machines out of brand loyalty, and not because they were better. The Amiga was a much better product (the ST's were thrown together in record time when the Tramiel/Amiga deal fell through). The ST's sound wasn't even as good as Pokey. If I'd known the true heritage of the Amiga, things would have been different.

 

So, in my attempt at Atari brand loyalty, I ended up rooting for the founders of Commodore, and against the machine designed by the inventors of the 400/800.

 

Today I don't have any ST stuff.

 

-Bry

 

Yeah... don't ask me why, but to me the ST was not much better than the 8-bits except in speed and amount of RAM available and maybe midi ports, but I didn't care about midi ports.

 

One look at defender of the crown was enough to make me switch over to the Amiga. It wasn't much longer before I found out who was the brains behind the Amiga chipset.

 

The Amiga would have done so much better if they would have gotten workbench 2.04 out sooner (I think that is the version). It was just so much more stable and professional looking (the manuals were fantastic). But until it came out they had what alot of people referred to as a kiddie GUI.

[TwiliteZoner]

Many people consider the ST version of Defender of the Crown to be the best one available.

[Shannon]

Many people consider the ST version of Defender of the Crown to be the best one available.

 

I couldn't say cause I never saw it and I had a hard time getting past the ugly colors of the gem desktop.

 

I did pick up a 1 meg 1040st/fm later on, but just never really got around to using it a whole lot. Unfortunately I sold off most all my stuff when I got married (big mistake).

 

A pity. I think alot of that could be blamed on BBS's and msg boards, and then later on the internet. I spent more time chatting then playing.

[tjlazah]

Many people consider the ST version of Defender of the Crown to be the best one available.

 

The Amiga version is a lot better than the ST version. Hands down. I recently tried the ST version to compare. I own both Amiga and ST computers, as well as A8's too

[jon-paul]

I keep hearing about this 'crash' but never noticed it at the time. I suppose the UK was much less affected.

 

My First pay packet went on a Dixons Atari 800xl pack in about september 85. Atari seemed to be on a reletive up at the time after years of playing second fiddle the the Acorn machines (which were adopted by the BBC and Schools). At the top of the market the Spectrum and C=64 were fighting it out for the No1 spot in machine sales and support.

 

Certainly we generaly wanted computers (parents were the usual source of our purchase money, we could blag that more than a consol). The Sega Master System was on the horizon at the time, Nintendo? Who? And the 2600/Colegovison/intelvison were still the only generaly available machines as far as consols were concerned and tehse had generaly dissapeared from shops. Since about 82 these had generaly fallen from grace as computers either did it better (C=64/Atari XLs etc) or cheeper (Spectrum's).

 

I heard the Dixons deals came about because of the Crash and the take over. Certainly i was grateful to upgrade from a spectrum, and star raiders was on my list of Must Buys.

 

Shopping for Atari software seemed a little easier. certainly they were not common in Boots/W H Smiths (2 high street names that had got into supplying computers and software in a big way) but smaller shops seemed to get the software, and stranger outlets like stalls in indoor markets or even a tourist trap shop in Great yarmouth i found when on holiday there (bang went all my holiday money). Most of these strange outlets got their stock from clearouts that occured because of the crash.

 

However Most of the 'specialist outlets' did seem to fold shortly before this time. I always assumed it was because Kingston at one time had 3 or 4 specilaist shops plus Boots, WH Smiths and the bentals department store all competing for the same pocket money. Basicly i thought on reflection the market was flooded! some time after the 'crash' barkman computers started in an indoor market in kingston, and many of us in the area made regular trips to the indoor market in Epsom (a long bus ride away). These survived for a long time on 'other machines' as Boots and Smiths were ignoring anything but BBC (schools market) Spectrum and Commodore. certainly the big chains had the Sega master and the NES only after the smaller shops had crated the market. I suppose they were nervious after being burned.

[surfnmadness]

I just remember having more interest in the Apple computers of the time because of the following.

 

1. They where commonly cheaper and seemed to offer more. Even the 3rd party hardware makers where pushing more Apple stuff.

 

2. $35+ for a game? NOT, with Apple it was go over a a few friends and use a copy program like Diskmuncher to make a copy for yourself.

 

3. Schools where using Apples. To do any type of work at home, you had to have one too.

[sack-c0s]

8-channels of stereo sound -- take that, C-64 fanboys

 

 

Some C64 users do have Dual SIDs, giving them 6 channels.

 

Now let's see what we get per channel shall we?

 

The SID has one less channel per chip to start with, however with a bit of crafty waveform switching in there (let's not forget the multiple waveforms available here ) you can merge a bass instrument and drums to create the illusion of 2 channels where there is just one.

 

On the pokey to get a C64 lead style effect or a nice bass sound where the distortion doesn't detune everything you chain 2 channels together. And having been sat around with RMT all night the resulting channel collisions are beginng to get on my t**s a little.

 

So although the C64 has less channels you can get more out of them. You could well end up in the worst case with a SID tune that has 3 channels that sounds like 4 or 5 where the 4 channel pokey is cut down to 2 effective channels.

 

 

...but at the end of the day an instrument is only as good as the musician right?*

 

 

 

 

*This might explain why my 8580 SID and pokey both sound lousy at this precise moment in time....

[atarian1]

Apple computers were cheaper?!

 

Don't make me laugh! They were the most overpriced, worst price/performance ratio machines I've ever seen! For $1,000, you get the computer, disk drive and a green MONO monitor. That's cheap?! (especially in 1983 dollars) For half that cost, you can get a C64 or Atari 800XL with better graphics, sound, etc and a disk drive and connect it to your TV. A COLOR monitor would add about $200.

 

The only reason why people bought Apples were because (1) They're rich (2) They don't know better (School uses it, so they must be good! Yeah... ) (3) They need to use software only available on the Apple (4) Their friends have one (they should do some comparison shopping first and see how Apples pale in comparison)

 

No doubt, Steve Jobs did an excellent marketing ploy by giving schools lots of Apple computers. So when kids work on Apples at school, the parents think "Wow, we should get one too." Well, the C64 and Atari 8-bits can do as good or better job than Apple software at less than half the cost.

 

I vividly remember the school computer "expert" showing AppleWriter and Bank Street Writer and neither of them can do a "Print Preview" (see what the text looks before you print it out). The lady didn't know what "Print Preview" was. She said "Why do you need to do that? Just print it out." Um, it's to see what the text formatting would look like before printing it out. Duh! I was using AtariWriter at the time, and that function was a huge paper/ink/time saver for me.

 

The large library of software also gave it a boost over the C64 and Atari 8-bits. I think it had the largest at the time. But is it worth $1000? I guess so for a lot of people...

[Shannon]

8-channels of stereo sound -- take that, C-64 fanboys

 

 

I'm surprised nobody brings up the fact that the atari sound chips were slightly off in (cents?) so that to get a tune to play properly and sound right you had to use different numbers than those listed by atari.

 

I remember reading an article on it.

[Shannon]

I never had an apple. I knew someone who did, but he lived a good 3 hrs away, and he was nuts about those overpriced machines. Anyways when I tried some apple games on an emulator it just bout drove me insane.

 

I skipped on the macintosh for the same reason. Too expensive, and I was not interested in monochrome or desktop publishing.

 

That is all I gotta say.

[+davidcalgary29]

Perhaps the 8-bits lingered longer in areas which were fortunate enough to have strong local support (what there was of it) from Atari Corp.

Southern Ontario is a case in point. I know others will disagree with me here, but Atari Canada continued to push the XE line well into the late '80s, and I never did have a problem getting the latest 8-bit products (XEP80, SX212, XEGS carts, etc.) in the Toronto area. The XEGS was available at all the big stores in the Toronto area, and I recall that 130XEs were available at both the discount chains and local computer stores.

 

Atari Canada also tended to promote their computers quite heavily. Does anyone recall the ST product giveaway contests on Toronto-area radio stations? I also seem to recall ST contests being featured in conjunction with "Smarties" and "Coffee Crisp" items.