Comparing the 5200 to the Atari 8-bit

[kiwilove]

Oooops - previously put this in the wrong thread/topic...

Throwing in my 2 cents worth of opinion...

The Sierra On-Line Frogger - is I believe the first Frogger conversion for the Ataris' - written by John Harris, which is brilliantly done. There's a small piece written about it in one of those books about the history of Atari? or was it about the early home computers?

I don't know the exact story how Parker Bros took over the rights? And commissioned a new version of Frogger. Presumably they couldn't secure the John Harris version for marketing.

Technically in a broad sense the Atari 400/800 and the 5200 are the same hardware (with minor differences) - same with the 600Xl/800XL/XE line too... The same program could run on all these - but the 5200 only had 16k of memory - the programmers here will explain how much modification is necessary, when games are greater than 16k. How much modification needs to be done?. Did someone convert Dropzone to run on the 5200? Which requires a minimum of 48k normally.

I do think that this hardware is only capable of reproducing arcade games of the early 80s' era - but not games of the mid 80s' and later years... because of the increased memory chips used in more elaborate coin-op graphics based games. Typically lots more sprites on screen, and having greater firepower at your disposal. Say from Flying Shark onwards...

I was disappointed with the release of the 7800 - because it was only marginally better hardware - of having more hardware sprites available. The background/playfield graphics seemed to be less than that of the Atari 400/800/5200 etc computers/console. This can be seen in Xevious - where the Nazca lines are crudely rendered - presumably because of running out of memory to render them better.

And of course the lack of a decent sound chip present.

I would nominate as the best home console for coin-op quality games of the mid-80s' onwards - would be the SNES (Super Nintendo) console. The best of the best titles for this system - did not disappoint - which the 7800 could not duplicate to the same quality.

Videogame design reached new heights - such as with Super Mario World (96 levels), Super Metroid, Legend of Zelda, Contra IV, Super SWIV, Super Aleste - and amazing coin-op conversions of R-Type, Ghouls n Ghosts, Streetfighter II and others...

For the next era - the Sony Playstation dominated - because of it's 3D hardware delivering Ridge Racer and it's Tekken series...

But the Sega Saturn got all the various spacey shooters in it's Japanese version.

Harvey

[Rybags]

Games needing >16K RAM can generally be converted but it can be lots of work.

 

Most disk loaded games that use more RAM will write to most areas - to get a 5200 ROM working with 16K RAM, it needs to be rewritten such that any work area is in the first 16K.

These days with good PC-based disassemblers we can generate working source code which makes the job a lot easier but it's still anything but trivial.

[SoundGammon]

Some 5200 carts are 32K plus the 16K ram equals 48K. Games that require 48K use the 32K of ram to "sit in memory"! How the games on floppy discs worked, the game got loaded to the ram memory, average 32K and the 16K was used for game operation. The 5200 works the same way where the game is in 32K, some down to 8K rom and the 16K is used for the game operation-graphic display lists, variables, etc. So, in theory, any game that requires "48K" should be able to work on a 5200 by putting it into a 32K rom. M.U.L.E., I believe, which required 48K, is a good example of this.

[SoundGammon]

Pac-Man on the 5200 has the intermissions, while the 8 bit cart doesn't. Not sure if there are any other differences.

There is a version of Pac-Man that is more complete than the 5200 version that has the animated title screen with all the ghost names and such, like the arcade version. It clocked in at about 10K rom size and Atari wanted it to fit in a 8K rom so away it went. Wish someone would convert version that to 5200 someday!

[SoundGammon]

The sierra version of frogger is better. It plays music the whole time.

Two different programmers-two different versions! Same with QIX, CENTIPEDE, DIG DUG.

[SoundGammon]

Let's don't forget the best baseball game...the one for the 5200! Makes you want to kiss the controller instead of hate it with its batting and pitching abilities! Oh yeah, it talks too!

[kogden]

My $0.02. The Atari 5200 is certainly worth having. Analog controllers help a lot with games like Star Raiders and Pole Position. With a stick in good shape, games like PacMan are still quite playable. With a worn stick it's terrible though.

 

Digital sticks are NOT superior to analog, they just require less maintenance and are simple to produce. Easier to deal with, yes. More advanced? No.

 

The 5200 also supported larger carts than 400/800 (32K I think, more with bankswitching) It really does have some advantages. The biggest problem is the sticks need to be rebuilt and cleaned often.

 

It's like a classic exotic sports car. For the 10 minutes a year it runs right, it's downright AWESOME. If you don't like to tinker and maintain stuff, the 5200 is not for you. I wouldn't get a 5200 by itself but as an additional toy in my Atari 8-bit collection it's a lot of fun.

 

I had a 5200 as a kid for a while. Just got one again last week and finally got it working. I might throw an S-video board in. Not sure yet.

[Lynxpro]

the A8 Ballblazer has a more intricate Lucasarts logo screen with animations of the Ballblazer car drivers driving around and waving, etc.

 

 

 

Damn…not even the 7800 version has that!

[Lynxpro]

Necrothread!

 

Everyone should know that the 5200 was originally intended to be the next console, but it was raped and pillaged to build the 400/800 series. Caught off guard, Atari needed a home computer right away right now.

 

The graphics and sound chips used by both A8 and the 5200 were originally intended to be used in the 2600's successor that was going to be released circa 1978/79. Ray Kassar wanted the higher profit margins that a computer line would bring so they were moved over for use in what became the 400/800 [A8]. Then, Atari toyed around with a console apparently using that odd-ball 10-bit CPU that the Intellivision ultimately used, but Atari's programmers hated it so they abandoned that in early 1979 [which was before Mattel was test marketing the Intellivision in Fresno in the same year] so it was back to the drawing board again. Then they had a 6502 based version that supposedly could also play 2600 games but that was scrapped and then when Intellivision started selling, they decided to just base it off the 400's hardware, more or less while emphasizing all of the other upgrades…single cable used for power and the automatic switching RF modulator, the first console analog joystick controller that also featured the first dedicated pause button on a controller for a console, etc.

 

What's interesting is that the A8 almost ended up switching to the Motorola 6809 CPU, but it wasn't cost effective as compared to the 6502s that Atari was ordering from Synertek.

[kogden]

The 5200 uses (mostly) the same chipset from the 400 but I wouldn't say the hardware is directly based on it. Support chips are mapped into RAM in different locations, no SIO, bigger cart window, no PIA, none of the OS facilities, etc.

 

Certainly related but different enough to not be called a 400 w/ no keyboard IMHO

[Seethransom]

There is a version of Pac-Man that is more complete than the 5200 version that has the animated title screen with all the ghost names and such, like the arcade version. It clocked in at about 10K rom size and Atari wanted it to fit in a 8K rom so away it went. Wish someone would convert version that to 5200 someday!

It still boils my blood, Atari was making some cash. Despite this, the big wigs never gave the programmers enough Memory (Time, credit, and money too, different topic). Too cheap to put a nice sound chip in the mentioned 7800. It cost them money to include a better chip in a game.

 

I had my 5200 when it was new. I was like 12, and blown a way. My Dad worked in the computer field. He understood back then about upgrading. I was also a master of joystick repair. I thought they were still better than Intelly, and Coleco. I too have a bias. I would like to own an A8, but my tiny studio cannot handle anymore.

 

There is lots of space to love them all. Past the specs, it is about what one had at the time. Being a kid, I was grateful to have any console in my house. Before that Xmas, I never knew the 5200 existed.

 

There is a version of Pac-Man that is more complete than the 5200 version that has the animated title screen with all the ghost names and such, like the arcade version. It clocked in at about 10K rom size and Atari wanted it to fit in a 8K rom so away it went. Wish someone would convert version that to 5200 someday!

[nox]

There is a version of Pac-Man that is more complete than the 5200 version that has the animated title screen with all the ghost names and such, like the arcade version. It clocked in at about 10K rom size and Atari wanted it to fit in a 8K rom so away it went. Wish someone would convert version that to 5200 someday!

It was a cassette by US Gold. I agree, it would be nice if it were converted.

 

Edited August 31, 2014 by nox

[Retro Rogue]

The decision for the computers was done before Ray was in charge of anything, and began immediately after the the VCS was finished.

 

Likewise, there was never any 10-bit system. Rather they looked into expanding the STELLA hardware with Super TIA.

 

 

 

The graphics and sound chips used by both A8 and the 5200 were originally intended to be used in the 2600's successor that was going to be released circa 1978/79. Ray Kassar wanted the higher profit margins that a computer line would bring so they were moved over for use in what became the 400/800 [A8].

 

 

Then, Atari toyed around with a console apparently using that odd-ball 10-bit CPU that the Intellivision ultimately used, but Atari's programmers hated it so they abandoned that in early 1979 [which was before Mattel was test marketing the Intellivision in Fresno in the same year] so it was back to the drawing board again. Then they had a 6502 based version that supposedly could also play 2600 games but that was scrapped and then when Intellivision started selling, they decided to just base it off the 400's hardware, more or less while emphasizing all of the other upgrades…single cable used for power and the automatic switching RF modulator, the first console analog joystick controller that also featured the first dedicated pause button on a controller for a console, etc.

 

What's interesting is that the A8 almost ended up switching to the Motorola 6809 CPU, but it wasn't cost effective as compared to the 6502s that Atari was ordering from Synertek.

 

[Lynxpro]

The decision for the computers was done before Ray was in charge of anything, and began immediately after the the VCS was finished.

 

Likewise, there was never any 10-bit system. Rather they looked into expanding the STELLA hardware with Super TIA.

 

 

 

 

http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/sylvia/sylvia.html

[Retro Rogue]

 

http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/sylvia/sylvia.html

 

I'm not sure why you're simply responding with that link, but right there in the first paragraph:

 

"Popular myth stated that the new console was to be based on a new 10-bit processor..."

 

Maybe you just misread it?

[Lynxpro]

 

I'm not sure why you're simply responding with that link, but right there in the first paragraph:

 

"Popular myth stated that the new console was to be based on a new 10-bit processor..."

 

Maybe you just misread it?

 

I didn't misread it. The way it's written it gives the impression that they did create a 10-bit processor prototypes and the programmers hated it which killed that particular version. The info below that area doesn't really refute the "popular myth", other than it "has never been fully verified".

[Retro Rogue]

 

I didn't misread it. The way it's written it gives the impression that they did create a 10-bit processor prototypes and the programmers hated it which killed that particular version. The info below that area doesn't really refute the "popular myth", other than it "has never been fully verified".

 

No that would be called misreading it. 10-bit is mentioned once the entire page, just in the opening paragraph, and specifically in the context of mentioning what the myth was. Then he follows with another myth, specifically regarding programming the early system, and that we were never able to verify that (mainly because we couldn't find anyone that actually claimed to program for Sylvia). That's also why he specifically mentions two separate myths related to Sylvia, rather than as just one combined myth that could never be verified, which is how you're interpreting it.

 

There was never any 10-bit system or chip pursued. That's why Curt used the term Myth in relation to it. That's also why the next paragraph after the two myths starts "In January 2010, the Atari Museum discovered the actual schematics to Sylvia..." As in, these were the myths and now here's the actual schematic. As stated, it was to be based on a souped up version of TIA called Super TIA along with the FRANTIC version of ANTIC and the Voltrax synthesizer. We talked to Steve Bristow, the project head, directly about it as is also mentioned. This system (Sylvia/3200) was the original System X, which was cancelled in favor of the PAM which was also under the term System X for a time. That's again what is exactly stated on the atari museum page and in our book. If you're misreading/misinterpreting it because how it's written is confusing to you, I'll make sure it's rewritten whenever Curt gets around to doing updates.

 

However, the full story is pretty well laid out in the book as well.

[+Allan]

That sure would have been a cool system. As much as I like the 5200, it is basicly a 400/800. It would have been nice to have a super 2600 that was (I assume) backwards compatible with the 2600. Yea I know about the 7800 but it is so different than the 2600. It's too bad we couldn't produce the Sylvia today. I'm sure you could get people to produce a bunch of software for it rather quickly considering the amount the 2600 programmers here.

 

Allan

 

[Retro Rogue]

That sure would have been a cool system. As much as I like the 5200, it is basicly a 400/800. It would have been nice to have a super 2600 that was (I assume) backwards compatible with the 2600. Yea I know about the 7800 but it is so different than the 2600. It's too bad we couldn't produce the Sylvia today. I'm sure you could get people to produce a bunch of software for it rather quickly considering the amount the 2600 programmers here.

 

Allan

 

 

Curt and I still may wind up using the case/controller design for one of our projects we've been looking into. Honestly though, the only reason the 3200 was started was because the actual followup wound up becoming the 400 instead. Pretty much up through January '79 they were still going back and forth on having the lower end "computer" be the new gaming system as it was originally intended. In fact at the January '79 Winter CES they had to display a mockup of the 400 next to the completed 800 because it had only just been decided to make it a low end computer instead.

 

Then in '81 they were going to do a three pronged approach of the 2600, Sylvia and PAM. It wound up getting whittled to just the 2600 and PAM. Where as the 3200 was more of a super version of the 2600, PAM was planned around lots of marketing research with the original hardware foundation of what became the 400. Sylvia was dropped because the marketing research deemed that having three systems on the market would be too confusing. Hence the confusion on System X's internally and historically.

 

The marketing research wasn't just focus groups but talking to major retailers about what they wanted in a new system as well. The results meant that PAM was to be targeted towards "game buffs, heavy coin-op players and those who always buy top price."

[+Allan]

Was Sylvia generally completed minus any software? I see the schematics but were the SuperTIA and Frantic ever completed? I'm assuming Frantic was just Antic adapted for the SuperTIA verses some form of Super Antic.

 

Allan

 

[Retro Rogue]

Was Sylvia generally completed minus any software? I see the schematics but were the SuperTIA and Frantic ever completed? I'm assuming Frantic was just Antic adapted for the SuperTIA verses some form of Super Antic.

 

Allan

 

Just double checked with Curt to be sure since we never stop researching and digging stuff up no matter what the topic. What he said:

 

Bristow said they did develop a game, I think it was Todd Frye who tried coding on it. I have the tape outs for Super Stella, so they did develop a chip, everything else was already existing IC's so it should've been plausible that they ran a small run of test IC's and breadboards or wire wrapped something up.

[Lynxpro]

 

No that would be called misreading it. 10-bit is mentioned once the entire page, just in the opening paragraph, and specifically in the context of mentioning what the myth was. Then he follows with another myth, specifically regarding programming the early system, and that we were never able to verify that (mainly because we couldn't find anyone that actually claimed to program for Sylvia). That's also why he specifically mentions two separate myths related to Sylvia, rather than as just one combined myth that could never be verified, which is how you're interpreting it.

 

There was never any 10-bit system or chip pursued. That's why Curt used the term Myth in relation to it. That's also why the next paragraph after the two myths starts "In January 2010, the Atari Museum discovered the actual schematics to Sylvia..." As in, these were the myths and now here's the actual schematic. As stated, it was to be based on a souped up version of TIA called Super TIA along with the FRANTIC version of ANTIC and the Voltrax synthesizer. We talked to Steve Bristow, the project head, directly about it as is also mentioned. This system (Sylvia/3200) was the original System X, which was cancelled in favor of the PAM which was also under the term System X for a time. That's again what is exactly stated on the atari museum page and in our book. If you're misreading/misinterpreting it because how it's written is confusing to you, I'll make sure it's rewritten whenever Curt gets around to doing updates.

 

However, the full story is pretty well laid out in the book as well.

 

I would just flat out write that it is a "commonly repeated rumor" that's been debunked [never existed] and that the Sylvia was the actual prototype that led to the confusion. That leaves no ambiguity. The section about Steve Bristow and the Sylvia as currently written doesn't really shoot down the previous myth when introducing the actual prototype. That's all.

 

As for Sylvia's controller, I'm on the fence about it. I think I'd prefer to see the joystick/paddle version made as a limited production run. Of course, since it lacks the keypad, I'm of the opinion it would have to be daisy-chained to a production 5200 joystick. And from the pic at Atari Museum, it looks like it only has 1 fire button. Maybe I'm just seeing one button.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Lynxpro