A weird thought about ST numbering

[Tyrant]

Ever since I was little and got my first ST, I always wondered why it was 520, and not 512, and why the 1040 was 1040 and not 1024. I put it down to rounding up to make nicer decimal values, but I think today I just stumbled upon one possible answer. ST video ram is enough to cope with a 320x200 screen if my memory serves me, and 320+200 is 520. 640+400 is 1040, but that's less likely as a 1040 has the same video ram.

 

Ok, Im probably nuts and totally off the mark, but its something I've never noticed before and offers a possible answer hehe, does anyone have a better one?

[lais]

That was very obscure and co-incidental, but then a 520 can also do 640 x 400 so your idea wouldn't apply there. The numbering system appears to start at the bottom of the range 8-bit models in the ST style, the 65XE, with 64 KB. I guess 64XE sounds too much like its arch-rival the C64, but also, as the capacities increase, you get "nicer" numbers which are simpler. So the next one was 2 x 64 KB = 2 x 65XE = 130XE, then there was 260ST with 256 KB, 520ST with 512 KB and 1040ST with 1,024 KB. If I remember right, there was a proposed but never released 130ST, the idea of which was about as silly as the later 1 MB Falcon. I have seen proper Atari 4160STE self-adhesive badges, but Atari never sold the 520/1040 style with more than 1,024 KB fitted, and 4160 probably sounds a little awkward. Machines with more than 1,024 were the professional machines, Mega 2, Mega 4. Even the "ST" bit was dropped, but when the STE version of the Mega came out, it was badged "MEGA/STE" (note the forward slash, I guess you could mathematically simplify that to MGA/ST...) with no reference to the memory amount. I suppose the ST branding itself was by then more important than the amount of memory inside. It could have got quite out of hand with the TT and the many memory configurations that machine could have. I don't own a TT but I seem to recall at least the base model was badged TT030/2 (correct me if I'm wrong), the 2 indicative of the RAM in MB.

[Tyrant]

There was a 256kb ST? ouch, poor thing must have been struggling a lot. I guess this is before they started adding f's and m's to the design?

 

And yes, I know Im being rather random with my ideas, but 42 is 6 times 9 in base 13 after all .

[atarianer2003]

then there was 260ST with 256 KB,

 

Nope, the 260 ST has the sam RAM as the 520 ST - 512 KB

 

Greetings

Mike

[lais]

then there was 260ST with 256 KB,

 

Nope, the 260 ST has the sam RAM as the 520 ST - 512 KB

 

Greetings

Mike

 

Whatever really happened, conceptually, the 260 would stand for 256 KB. I have read that due to lower DRAM prices by the time of production, the 260 was either shelved or simply renamed 520, or perhaps some 260STs were fitted with 512 KB.

http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/16bit...atari260st.html

 

130ST information here, including a scan from an Atari leaflet or brochure.

http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/16bits/130st.html

[Tyrant]

O...k.... what made them different then? apart from the number?

[lais]

Lost you there... What made what different?

[Tyrant]

My post was made seconds after yours, and thus was in reply to atarianer2003, was asking why make a 260 and a 520 if they have the same ram, what else is different between them?

[Mindfield]

I'm pretty sure the numering system was derived from the number of bytes that made up the system RAM, truncated and rounded down to the nearest nice, even number that ended in 0:

 

65XE: 64K = 65,536 bytes

130XE: 128K = 131,072 bytes

520ST: 512K = 524,288 bytes

1040ST: 1024K = 1,048,578 bytes

 

It's a marketing thing. After all, 65 (XE) sounds better than (Commodore) 64. 130 (XE) sounds better than (Commodore) 128. 520 (ST) sounds better than (Amiga) 500, and so on.

[+Stephen Moss]

I have a dim and distant memory of reading someing that explained the reason for them being badged 520 even though it had 512k of RAM was that RAM space + ROM space = 520k.

Although later versions of intergrated TOS ROM's (TOS+GEM) were larger than 8k IIRC this value was derived from the original ST that had only GEM on an internal ROM and loaded the rest of the opperating System (TOS) from Disk, or was it TOS in ROM and GEM on the floppy?

[The Eidolon]

I thought all the Atari numbered systems had to be multiples of 13.

Don't know why, but that's how they seem to have numbered things

since the 2600.

 

2600 = 13 x 200

5200 = 13 x 400

7800 = 13 x 600

 

65 (XE) = 13 x 5

130 (XE) = 13 x 10

 

520 (ST) = 13 x 40

1040 (ST) = 13 x 80

 

The only exception I can think of is the 400/800/1200 computer series.

By numbering the ST computers with the 13 series, I figure it reminds

consumers of Atari's best known product line, the 2600/5200/7800

console series.

 

--The Eidolon

[Tyrant]

I thought all the Atari numbered systems had to be multiples of 13.  

Ok now thats just spooky.

[Noeljb]

As I understand it. All the Atari model numbers are all divisable by 1. :-)

[Albert]

I'm sure Atari chose 520 and 1040 because they were "rounder" numbers than 512 and 1024. If you want simpler examples, just look at the Mega ST2 and Mega ST4, which stand for 2MB (2048K) and 4MB (4096K) respectively.

 

I'd like to see someone make sense of all the peripheral part numbers. There is some sense to them (such as the original Atari 800 peripherals starting with "8" and XL peripherals starting with "10"), but it's not always consistent.

 

..Al

[A2600]

This is how I see it

 

2600

2600 + 2600 = 5200

5200 + 2600 = 7800

 

400

400 + 400 = 800

800 + 400 = 1200

 

65XE

65 + 65 = 130XE

 

130ST

130 +130 = 260ST

260 + 260 = 520ST

520 + 520 = 1040ST

[Gunstar]

I'm sure Atari chose 520 and 1040 because they were "rounder" numbers than 512 and 1024.  If you want simpler examples, just look at the Mega ST2 and Mega ST4, which stand for 2MB (2048K) and 4MB (4096K) respectively.  

 

I'd like to see someone make sense of all the peripheral part numbers.    There is some sense to them (such as the original Atari 800 peripherals starting with "8" and XL peripherals starting with "10"), but it's not always consistent.  

 

..Al

 

I can offer some insight to the XL peripherals starting with "10;" it was because the original design of what would eventually be the 'XL' line (known as the "sweetsixteen" project) was supposed to be just the 'Atari 1000' line, 1000 because it's bigger&better than the 800. But after Atari management got a hold of the engineer's ideas, as usual, they had to hack and cripple original plans to cut costs. This crippled version of the 1000 was called the 1200XL. They decided on 1200 to fit with the 400(16k) and 800(48k); 1200 (16k+48k=64k) and then decided to add on the 'XL' (extended line) as more of an after thought. But, all the peripherals from the "SweetSixteen 1000" project were never renumbered, so even though we ended up with the 600/800/1200XL line, the peripherals still had the "10" at the beginning instead of a "12" which would have fit the 1200XL or even calling them 8xx(XL) peripherals, since they ended up going back to the '800' in the XL line. Plus, there was supposed to be the 1400XL line and "12" series peripherals wouldn't have fit it either, so I guess Atari decided the easy thing to do was keep the peripherals with the "10" designation which would fit close enough with anything in the XL line. As far as 1010,1020,1025,1027,1030,1050, etc. they just seem to go up by tens, depending on the size&value of the peripheral device, except for the printers, which were kept in the 1020 range, probably just because they were all printers.

 

just another bit of weirdness to all of this; ever notice that there was never any 1040 designation with XL peripherals? it was skipped. Then, the 1040 number shows up in the ST line under a "new" Atari...