Why, in 2023, the 5200 is a better system then the XEGS despite having 1/4 the RAM (16K vs. 64K)

[christo930]

55 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

'd rather not get into another discussion about the Tramiels and how they ran Atari, but whoever thought that having three different game consoles with varying degrees of incompatibility on the market at the same time was a good idea needed to have a hole drilled in their head.

I don't disagree with this.  I was just pointing out that they were 2 different companies though still related.  The 5200 was meant to be a new market leader in the home video game console business when Atari was still well in position to make that happen.   Whatever Jack's rationale for releasing the XEGS, it wasn't to be the market leader, at least not realistically.  There was just way too much better competition.  I don't think it is even clear that if the XEGS or 7800 had been a smash runaway success that he could have capitalized on it.  I think he was trying to turn the 8bit line into a simpler package and as primarily a game system.  The 8 bit run of home computers was done at this point, at least in the US.  The existing ones hung on a few more years, but no new 8 bit systems were viable.

 

If a market could have been created, say, by splitting the difference between an 8 bit and 16 bit home computer, it wasn't going to happen with a 1970s 8bit design.  The "16 bit" computers were still pretty expensive.  From my recollection of the era, in the neighborhood of 1000 bucks (US) was a minimum for a truly usable system including a monitor. This was an era when you could buy a running, inspected (but relatively old, say a 77 model)  car for $500. Granted, it wasn't going to be perfect, but it was a car vs what was seen largely as a toy for $1000. This was also in the clone era with floppy only PC clones available for around the same price..  In Britain it was different, but in America, this was at least my perspective. I was a teenager in 1987 and they may as well have cost 10,000 as far as my budget was concerned.

 

1 hour ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Thing is, the XEGS was really an attempt at generating some end-of-life interest in the 8-bit line; chronologically, the 5200 makes more sense.  I have nothing against the XEGS, but the reasons behind its existence always baffled me because the ST had already been on the market for a couple of years by the time it was unveiled, and the 2600 and 7800 were also in production alongside it.

As I said, I don't think Atari could have raised the capital even had it been a big success. He could have easily been faced with the position of holding a bunch of orders he couldn't fulfill.  I seriously doubt he would have been willing to allow "investors" to come in with the capital to do it.  Maybe his money guy would have helped him, but it's really all guesswork at this point anyway. Even his relationship with him was not a warm one.

[phuzaxeman]

4 hours ago, christo930 said:

 The 8 bit run of home computers was done at this point, at least in the US.  The existing ones hung on a few more years, but no new 8 bit systems were viable.

 

I'm not sure which time frame you're talking about but there was still many 8bit users into late 80s to early 90s in the US. I attended Atari user groups up into in the early 90s and there were a lot more 8bit users than ST owners at the meet ups. 

[christo930]

37 minutes ago, phuzaxeman said:

I'm not sure which time frame you're talking about but there was still many 8bit users into late 80s to early 90s in the US. I attended Atari user groups up into in the early 90s and there were a lot more 8bit users than ST owners at the meet ups. 

1987,  I know the existing 8 bit systems were still around and being supported with new software and some hardware too.  But I mean a new 8 bit computer system released in 1987, at least not in the US.  Japan had the MSX2, but it was an expanded existing system.

 

 

[phuzaxeman]

1 hour ago, christo930 said:

1987,  I know the existing 8 bit systems were still around and being supported with new software and some hardware too.  But I mean a new 8 bit computer system released in 1987, at least not in the US.  Japan had the MSX2, but it was an expanded existing system.

 

 

The XE game system was released in 1987 which is basically an XE computer and Atari's way to expand the 8bit. 

[+x=usr(1536)]

7 hours ago, phuzaxeman said:

The XE game system was released in 1987 which is basically an XE computer and Atari's way to expand the 8bit. 

Thing is, by omitting the PBI / ECI interface from the XEGS' design, they removed one of the XL & XE computer lines' major advantages.  Granted, it's one that didn't see a whole lot of use, but it's one that really should have been there if full compatibility was the goal.

 

The one thing I don't accept about that decision was that it was a cost reduction move.  Designing, engineering, and manufacturing the machine to have a separate keyboard would have eliminated any savings from not including the PBI as part of the design.  And, as the keyboard was always included with the console, it's not like it was an optional peripheral geared towards later expansion of the system, so it would always be an embedded cost.

[+DrVenkman]

3 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

The one thing I don't accept about that decision was that it was a cost reduction move.  Designing, engineering, and manufacturing the machine to have a separate keyboard would have eliminated any savings from not including the PBI as part of the design.  And, as the keyboard was always included with the console, it's not like it was an optional peripheral geared towards later expansion of the system, so it would always be an embedded cost

I think an under-discussed rationale for the XEGS redesign/repackaging was logistical in nature. Atari Corp. was in possession of a ton of cartridge PCBs and already-produced or -contracted mask ROM chips for the back catalog titles, and the same thing for A8 VLSI chips. POKEYs were being made into the late 80’s, maybe even the 90’s, for Atari Games’ line of cabs, but Atari had a ton of new, never used ANTIC, GTIA and SALLY chips and wanted to sell them instead of just dumping warehouses full of parts. As it was, they didn’t sell nearly enough since Best Electronics STILL has a lot of NOS stuff for sale, decades after he bought up those same warehouses full of stuff in the early 90’s. 

[+x=usr(1536)]

11 minutes ago, DrVenkman said:

I think an under-discussed rationale for the XEGS redesign/repackaging was logistical in nature. Atari Corp. was in possession of a ton of cartridge PCBs and already-produced or -contracted mask ROM chips for the back catalog titles, and the same thing for A8 VLSI chips.

That's a really good point, and agreed that it doesn't get enough attention.  The machine would probably have been more effective at that if released in 1985 with no bundled keyboard and alongside the 65 & 130XE, but I'd prefer to not go down the what-if rabbithole too far.

11 minutes ago, DrVenkman said:

POKEYs were being made into the late 80’s, maybe even the 90’s, for Atari Games’ line of cabs, but Atari had a ton of new, never used ANTIC, GTIA and SALLY chips and wanted to sell them instead of just dumping warehouses full of parts.

I want to say that POKEYs were made up until 1992 (along with the other 8-bit ASICs) and were axed from production at the same time as the A8, 2600, and 7800 were.  Don't ask me why that date is sticking in my head; I don't have a good answer and could be totally wrong anyway 

 

[leech]

7 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

That's a really good point, and agreed that it doesn't get enough attention.  The machine would probably have been more effective at that if released in 1985 with no bundled keyboard and alongside the 65 & 130XE, but I'd prefer to not go down the what-if rabbithole too far.

I could have sworn I have seen boxes / bundles that did not come with the keyboard.  Wasn't there a couple different SKUs, and one basically was no keyboard, light gun, joystick and two pack-in games?

[+DrVenkman]

For what it’s worth, when I built my 1088XEL back in late 2017 (I can’t believe it’s been so long!), I used all NOS Atari chips. These included SALLY and ANTIC both made in 1982, GTIA and PIA both from 1983, and two POKEYs, both from mid-1989. So as of just a few years ago, it was fully possible to buy NOS chips made well before the XEGS was even a twinkle in Jack’s eye, lol.  

 

I am CERTAIN someone looked around that parts warehouse and said something along the lines of, “We’ve gotta find a way to move these chips - they’re already paid for!” 

[leech]

1 hour ago, DrVenkman said:

For what it’s worth, when I built my 1088XEL back in late 2017 (I can’t believe it’s been so long!), I used all NOS Atari chips. These included SALLY and ANTIC both made in 1982, GTIA and PIA both from 1983, and two POKEYs, both from mid-1989. So as of just a few years ago, it was fully possible to buy NOS chips made well before the XEGS was even a twinkle in Jack’s eye, lol.  

 

I am CERTAIN someone looked around that parts warehouse and said something along the lines of, “We’ve gotta find a way to move these chips - they’re already paid for!” 

Ha, I so far have resisted building an 1088XEL... not sure how, as I really want one.

[+DrVenkman]

5 minutes ago, leech said:

Ha, I so far have resisted building an 1088XEL... not sure how, as I really want one.

Why resist?

[leech]

3 minutes ago, DrVenkman said:

Why resist?

I love this, also you are a bastard.  Haha

[christo930]

10 hours ago, phuzaxeman said:

The XE game system was released in 1987 which is basically an XE computer and Atari's way to expand the 8bit. 

Which failed miserably.

[leech]

38 minutes ago, christo930 said:

Which failed miserably.

We got a few new catts out of it (one of which is a very superb Mario Bros release).  It was in that weird Console but Computer field, one of the few outside of the Coleco Adam.

[leech]

2 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

That's a really good point, and agreed that it doesn't get enough attention.  The machine would probably have been more effective at that if released in 1985 with no bundled keyboard and alongside the 65 & 130XE, but I'd prefer to not go down the what-if rabbithole too far.

I knew I saw that info somewhere.   Europe didn't get the bundled one?

 

[phuzaxeman]

1 hour ago, christo930 said:

Which failed miserably.

Yes, but you said there were no new 8bit systems at the time.  And the XE Game System was new in 1987. 

[+x=usr(1536)]

1 hour ago, leech said:

I knew I saw that info somewhere.   Europe didn't get the bundled one?

 

I don't recall ever seeing it sold as anything but the bundled system, though the light gun was certainly available separately.  Of course, my experience is in one country 30-plus years ago, so location and accuracy of recollection may also be factors in this.

 

It is possible that availability of the separate or bundled items was on a market-by-market basis.  That sort of thing, while still going on today, was very common in the pre-EU (1992) days.

[phuzaxeman]

3 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Thing is, by omitting the PBI / ECI interface from the XEGS' design, they removed one of the XL & XE computer lines' major advantages.  Granted, it's one that didn't see a whole lot of use, but it's one that really should have been there if full compatibility was the goal.

 

The one thing I don't accept about that decision was that it was a cost reduction move.  Designing, engineering, and manufacturing the machine to have a separate keyboard would have eliminated any savings from not including the PBI as part of the design.  And, as the keyboard was always included with the console, it's not like it was an optional peripheral geared towards later expansion of the system, so it would always be an embedded cost.

At the time, I really didn't know why Atari even bothered with this computer/console.  

[christo930]

19 hours ago, christo930 said:

but no new 8 bit systems were viable

What I actually said

 

30 minutes ago, phuzaxeman said:

Yes, but you said there were no new 8bit systems at the time.  And the XE Game System was new in 1987

What I meant by the above is that introducing a new 8 bit system, especially one with chips from the 70s was not a viable new platform and had little chance of success.

 

The Atari 8-bit line was kind of exciting in 1979. It wasn't so exciting in 1987.  .

[phuzaxeman]

5 minutes ago, christo930 said:

What I actually said

 

What I meant by the above is that introducing a new 8 bit system, especially one with chips from the 70s was not a viable new platform and had little chance of success.

 

The Atari 8-bit line was kind of exciting in 1979. It wasn't so exciting in 1987.  .

For sure in the hardware dept.  I will say there were some great 8bit games though in that era. Then again, I wondered as a kid why many games were not ported to the 8bit line though...which is a different story.  

[zzip]

1 minute ago, phuzaxeman said:

For sure in the hardware dept.  I will say there were some great 8bit games though in that era. Then again, I wondered as a kid why many games were not ported to the 8bit line though...which is a different story.  

Ports to Atari 8-bit became sparse around 85-   Guess a lot of developers took a wait-and-see approach to see how the 8-bit line would be supported under the Tramiels.    The situation did improve after that and I think having the XEGS around helped give developers some confidence.

[leech]

6 minutes ago, zzip said:

Ports to Atari 8-bit became sparse around 85-   Guess a lot of developers took a wait-and-see approach to see how the 8-bit line would be supported under the Tramiels.    The situation did improve after that and I think having the XEGS around helped give developers some confidence.

Would have been interesting... yet annoying, had they done something like Commodore did with the CD32, and included some special feature / chip.  The CD32 had the Akiko chip.  Not sure what they could have added to the XEGS to improve upon the 8bit line, but maybe mixing in the 7800's chips could have been possible.  Granted the Tramiels shit the bed with the 7800 launch.

[+x=usr(1536)]

26 minutes ago, christo930 said:

What I meant by the above is that introducing a new 8 bit system, especially one with chips from the 70s was not a viable new platform and had little chance of success.

 

The Atari 8-bit line was kind of exciting in 1979. It wasn't so exciting in 1987.  .

While I fundamentally agree with the point that you're making, 1987 was very much in the 8-bit / 16-bit overlap era.  Commodore had released the 64C in 1986, the NES was in full swing, NEC would release the PC Engine in the same year as the XEGS, and, in Europe, Amstrad would continue to release Z80-based machines under both its and the Sinclair names.

 

This was definitely the tail end of the 8-bit era, though, and people were absolutely looking at and moving to other platforms.  But 8-bit machines weren't seriously on the way out until about 1990.  The decision to release the XEGS may be questionable, but Atari were far from the only ones still keeping one toe in that market.

[leech]

11 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

While I fundamentally agree with the point that you're making, 1987 was very much in the 8-bit / 16-bit overlap era.  Commodore had released the 64C in 1986, the NES was in full swing, NEC would release the PC Engine in the same year as the XEGS, and, in Europe, Amstrad would continue to release Z80-based machines under both its and the Sinclair names.

 

This was definitely the tail end of the 8-bit era, though, and people were absolutely looking at and moving to other platforms.  But 8-bit machines weren't seriously on the way out until about 1990.  The decision to release the XEGS may be questionable, but Atari were far from the only ones still keeping one toe in that market.

The fun thing was the adoption of 16bit was likely slowed due to the lack of support / compatibility with the 8bit software library.  All except the Apple IIGS, which would have remained incredibly popular if not gimped.

[+x=usr(1536)]

3 minutes ago, leech said:

The fun thing was the adoption of 16bit was likely slowed due to the lack of support / compatibility with the 8bit software library.  All except the Apple IIGS, which would have remained incredibly popular if not gimped.

Yup.  Not giving your existing userbase a clear upgrade path is a surefire way to send chunks of them off to other manufacturers' platforms.

 

The IIGS had so much potential.  It's a pity that Atari had their own equivalent in the works for a 1983/4 launch and didn't see what it could be either.