The Atari gets no respect

[Great Hierophant]

When mainstream discussions ensue of home computing pioneers, you usually hear of the greats, the ubiquitous Apple IIs, the cheap TRS-80s, the prolific Commodore 64, the emerging IBM PC and compatibles, the advanced Amiga machines, and the revolutionary Macintosh. Do you hear Atari ever mentioned in the same breath as these other greats? I can't recall a mention of that mighty name.

 

Perhaps the first computer built with specific goals in mind, among them the ability to play games with great graphics and sound. However, no one bought a computer in the 1980s to play games. The computer was a learning and productivity tool first and foremost. Games were an afterthought and bought in mind that they would run on the system. Also, what was to distinguish a computer game, with all that RAM and that keyboard from an Atari 2600 or an Intellivision game that used a joystick or a paddle. Turn Based Strategy + Wargames, Role Playing Games and Text Based Adventures were what you played on a micro-computer.

 

In the technological progression it went from Apple II to Atari 800 to Commodore 64. But Atari suffered a perception problem. It did not really suffer a lack of the above mentioned genre titles, but it was also too associated with the less complex arcade style of games made for the Atari 2600, Intellivision, 5200 and Colecovision. (This did not prove to be a real problem for the Commodore 64 in Europe, as the PC genres required disk drives, which were too expensive for the 8-bits to penetrate the market.) Added to the fact that it was probably much more expensive than a Commodore 64 (which kept costs down through vertical integration) and did not have the application library of the Apple II family or its penetration into the businesses and schools. Finally, by 1985 it was overshadowed by the Atari ST line and support for the machine by third parties evaporated very quickly. (Ironically, Atari first party support for the line was among the strongest post-1985.)

[jdh]

 However, no one bought a computer in the 1980s to play games.  The computer was a learning and productivity tool first and foremost.  

 

At least that's what we told our parents

[andy_bernstein]

Hello Great Hierophant,

 

In addition to what you said, there's also been a lot of bad management happening over the years at Atari regarding the 8-bit line.

 

One other reason is that the machine didn't evolve when it could have. Apple released the Apple IIGS and Atari could have done the same thing with the XL/XE line but probably they didn't want to spend the extra money (or they didn't believe in the market).

 

Too bad when Chuck Steinman at Dataque had made it possible (integration of the 65C816 processor).

 

AB.

[AtariDude]

Very true. I often hear about the early days of the home computer and people will talk about the Apple II, the Commodore 64, and the IBM PC. You hardly ever heard about the Atari 8 bit series even though they were good machines for their time.

 

Maybe if Atari had produced something like a super Atari computer (like Apple did with the IIGS) than maybe we would be hearing about them more.

[TMR]

 However, no one bought a computer in the 1980s to play games.  The computer was a learning and productivity tool first and foremost.  

 

At least that's what we told our parents

 

[Launches into the start of "Hey, Hey, 16K"]

 

"We bought it to help with your homework,

we bought it to help with your homework.

And the household accounts,

if your dad ever... works it all out."

 

=-)

[jetset]

Hmm....I remember most people back in the 80's that I knew had either a TI, (especially when they bacame dirt cheap) a Tandy/TRS-80, or an Atari. My one buddy was fanatical about his Atari(s). I dont remember knowing anyone to have a Commodore. Apple(s) were prominent in school, but I never knew anyone to own one.

[AtariDude]

I did know a friend of mine who did an Apple IIe system. He would eventually upgrade to an Apple IIGS but after that I lost touch with him. I have no idea if he still works with Apple computers or joined the PC side.

[Great Hierophant]

The Apple IIGS was not very successful, despite its advanced graphics (rivaling the Amiga) and sound capabilities (that were the best of any system of the time). Why wasn't it successful? Two reasons.

 

First, the processor turned out to be an achilles heel. It was built on an architecture built when RAM chips could refersh themselves faster than CPUs could process clock counts. The 6502 was an efficient, for its time, processor that relied on RAM instead of registers. It kept the time it took to perform instructions very low. But none of these factors translates into a processor that has headroom to improve its clock speed. When the lads decided to update the 6502 architecture into the 65816, they found that they could not compete, clock for clock with the ~8MHz 68000s and 80286s. Considering how numbers are marketed, the ~2.5MHz 65816's were not as impressive, however efficient.

 

Second, Apple's shameful lack of support for the IIGS ensured that it was never a real contender. Macintoshes were the system Apple obsessed over, however visually and aurally inferior. The Apple IIGS got the shaft the moment it hit the door, and third parties quickly got the message. There were some good ports, but the whole gaming library of Apple IIGS specific games are ports. Many companies ignored the Apple IIGS and made games for the Apple II only even after the IIGS's release. As it was just a "gaming computer" it received no attention for those who wanted to use the computer for "serious" purposes.

[Mindfield]

Moreover though, Apple made a lot of inroads in the industry through educational discounts. Lots of schools used Apple IIs because they were provided in quantity at significant discounts to schools. That gave Apple a lot of exposure. I remember the first school I went to that had computers had Commodore PETs (this is back around the late 70s/early 80s) but in grade 8, my school had a library full of Apple IIe machines, as well as a computing class that used Apple IIs to teach computing. (Anyone remember Rocky's Boot? :-))

 

Add to that the fact that Commodore had a far larger advertizing budget than Atari ever had (especially post-Warner) and IBM's reputation for expensive but serious business machines and Atari didn't really have anywhere to fit comfortably.

 

Not that I'm knocking Atari -- I was a die-hard Atarian back in the day that took every opportunity to knock the ol' Commie, and as far as I'm concerned Atari had it all over the competition technologically. The C64 may have had SID, but Atari had more audio voices and a programmable ANTIC chip that really made it kick ass graphically (viva la Display List!), not to mention disk drives that loaded programs in a reasonable time, unlike Commodore's 1541s that might as well have been tape drives for as slow as they were. But Atari just didn't advertise properly. Commodore kept trying to push it as a business machine but it always got billed as a games machine. Its more frequent and more widely distributed as however put it at the forefront of people's minds, so it became the more popular machine.

 

When it comes to marketing, it's never been about the technology. Superior technology will always take a back seat to better marketing. It's a sad truth.

[Gregory DG]

Believe it or not, my High School had a room of Atari STs! I remember staying after the normal summer school hours (I went of my own choice, thank you) just so I could play Dungeon Master. That was my first exposure to the ST line and I knew I would have to get one (just for DM if nothing else).

[lais]

Believe it or not, my High School had a room of Atari STs! I remember staying after the normal summer school hours (I went of my own choice, thank you) just so I could play Dungeon Master. That was my first exposure to the ST line and I knew I would have to get one (just for DM if nothing else).

 

My university had a room full of them, for teaching 68000!

[deathtrappomegranate]

At one time, Atari owned half of Silicon Valley.

 

If they had been more careful, they could have been bigger than Microsoft is today. Stupid marketing and bad business decisions is not a good combination.

[tjlazah]

Believe it or not, my High School had a room of Atari STs! I remember staying after the normal summer school hours (I went of my own choice, thank you) just so I could play Dungeon Master. That was my first exposure to the ST line and I knew I would have to get one (just for DM if nothing else).

 

Where was this at? That would of been cool to see! All we had were Apple IIs and Macs and PETs...

[eobet]

When I grew up, I was the only kid in town with an Atari 130XE (granted, a small Swedish town, but still).

 

All the other kids had Commodore 64 machines with tape stations, and I remember they having hundreds of games on those tapes!

 

I only had boxed floppy games (hey, I didn't know anyone else with an Atari, so I couldn't copy anything), but I had a father who also liked playing video games, so he/we bought quite a lot.

 

Today, I know that my Atari had 4 voices instead of the 3 on the Commodore 64, and could display a lot more colors on screen than that machine.

 

But that didn't matter back then. All I knew was that I couldn't play Blood'n Guts or The Last Ninja, and that was something I really envied those who had Commodore 64.

 

I think I managed to impress a few people with some games, though, because when the Atari ST came out, I wasn't alone with it (in fact, I knew more people with ST machines than Amigas).

 

Today, I know that the Amiga could have been the ST, and that the ST was made from scratch, and forced into production in less than 12 months by that asshole Jack Tramiel.

 

In fact, it seems that all managers of Atari have been assholes, more or less. When Nolan Bushnell sold the company to Warner, he told the new managers that "the 2600 is dead, what shall we come up with now?" and they went totally pale and argued that the should concentrate all efforts into advertising the 2600 instead of coming up with new inventions.

[AtariDude]

It just shows that having quality products are one thing but you have to have good management as well. In addition, it is important not to think that one product can carry you forever because there will always be competition. It is important to keep developing new and better products to stay ahead of your competition.

[Gregory DG]

Believe it or not, my High School had a room of Atari STs! I remember staying after the normal summer school hours (I went of my own choice, thank you) just so I could play Dungeon Master. That was my first exposure to the ST line and I knew I would have to get one (just for DM if nothing else).

Where was this at? That would of been cool to see! All we had were Apple IIs and Macs and PETs...

This was back in... 1988 at the Senior H.S. in Lake Wales, Florida.

[jon-paul]

certainly in the UK the Atari had an up-hill struggle

 

priced about the same as the BBC micro (endorsed by the British Broadcastion Corperation, and supplied cheep to every school, parents stung by VHS/Betamax at least understood compatability issues and if they could afford it, bought it!), seriously undercut by the Sinclair Spectrum, the C=64 taking the price inbetween the Atari and Spectrum, its amazing it survived at all in that crowded market place. The push came about 85ish when JT *spits* slashed the price.

 

Atari did do stunningly well with the ST here, but by 1990 atari was fading quickly in the face of the revised amiga and the PC/Mac onslaught.

 

But atari, even in teh 800 days, did have the reputaion of being the machine for very serious games enthusiasts.

[www.atarimania.com]

Before the Spectrum and C64 appeared in the UK, the 800 was clearly the king of computers if you wanted to play games. The main problem was the high price tag, meaning few British publishers developed for the platform. Most of the software being expensive US imports, it didn't help market penetration. IIRC, Maplin were the ones handling distribution, not Atari, so I believe not everything was done to ensure success...

 

--

Atarimania

http://www.atarimania.com

[doncleth]

At least the Atari label is still alive (as opposed to a C64, Amiga, etc). It gives me great joy whenever I go to a video games store and see the Atari logo. Now if I can only get a t-shirt with an Atari logo...

[TMR]

At least the Atari label is still alive (as opposed to a C64, Amiga, etc).

 

Ah, so you haven't heard about the C64 Direct To TV console then...? 30 games in a reproduction Kemston joystick and some form of C64 simulator (same sort of gig as the 2600 10-In-1 stick), all officially licenced and hinted as the first step to more ambitious projects involving the C64 "brand" that may or may not involve parts of the C-One project. (Trying to get anyone to talk about it is a bugger, NDAs all over the place! =-)

[emkay]

At least the Atari label is still alive (as opposed to a C64, Amiga, etc). It gives me great joy whenever I go to a video games store and see the Atari logo. Now if I can only get a t-shirt with an Atari logo...  

 

 

The ATARI Lable is alive at least... that's all.

AMIGA never really died... it's like a Koma

Commodore is still Commodore, but now for business tool purposes only.

 

A dutch Corporation named "Tulip" is shipping a Joystick with some HW that runs the C64 Software incl. 30 Games. To be honest... those games are no reason to by this thing.

 

http://www.tulip.com/aboutus/corp_article.asp?nid=145

 

 

Why didn't they just use much more experiencing games like Turrican, Mayhem in Monsterland, Flimbo's Quest... etc.

...

[Cybernoid]

A dutch Corporation named "Tulip" is shipping a Joystick with some HW that runs the C64 Software incl.  30 Games. To be honest... those games are no reason to by this thing.

 

Now if we can just get an Atari XE in a joystick, I would be happy!

[TMR]

Now if we can just get an Atari XE in a joystick, I would be happy!  

 

We've not seen the Ironstone (not Tulip, they're only involved as the right holders for the Commodore name from what i understand) stick yet but, from what i understand, it's merely a simulation and not an emulation in the same way the 10-In-1 stick (by DC Studios, sister company of Ironstone Partners) was. S'a shame that the Epyx titles were chosen, but i assume it's because they don't push very hard on the machine so the simulator doesn't struggle...?

[Heaven/TQA]

if its sold in europe (it would be a wonder if not...) i'll get one...

just to play epyx' games again with friends... hope that the emulation or simulation is good enough...

 

btw. regarding c64 vs who ever... just reminds me limahl's song "neverending stooooooooooorrrrryyyyyy"

[eobet]

At least the Atari label is still alive (as opposed to a C64, Amiga, etc). It gives me great joy whenever I go to a video games store and see the Atari logo. Now if I can only get a t-shirt with an Atari logo...  

 

The Amiga is probably more alive an kicking than Atari computers (note that I'm including hardware as well, and know that Atari today, is just the American name for the publisher Infogrames... it has absolutely nothing to do with the Atari we love, as they merely bought the name because of brand recognition).

 

I know that some parts of Amiga was recently sold (again), so there's now a split between the companies who are going to make the new PPC hardware and OS4 (I think):

 

http://www.amiga.com/

 

Then there's things like PegasOS, MorphOS, AROS and a whole bunch of stuff I have very little knowledge about, but it's all alive and kicking.