I chose an Atari 800 over an Apple II for my first computer mostly because of Star Raiders. A few years later at Synapse I wrote SynCalc for the Atari (later ported to the C64). Those were good times!
I remember my mom used SynFile+ to keep track of all kinds of things. That suite of software was fantastic! Jack Tramiel should have gone to prison for what he did to Synapse.
@@Jeepers1984 Star Raiders was amazing, but seeing Rescue on Fractalus for the first time REALLY blew my mind! A 3D action game that used real time fractal graphic generation for the terrain? HOW? The C64 version was not bad, but: Less color shading AND a processor that ran 80% slower than the 800's. These two games really showed what MHz meant and why it became the most important benchmark on PCs later.
I got a 400 as soon as I could after I started work, it was great (apart form the keyboard!) the SIO was more like ADB than USB, but I can see the parallel. I had a Miracle WS3000 300baud modem rigged up to it in later years and used it on early BBS, especially Gosport Apricot as the sysop took time to tweak the setup to allow me to dial in manually!
Me too. I had a 400 and I upgraded it to 64k and a real keyboard. Loved that thing. Spent way too much money on it. Traded it for a car in the late 80’s.
@@peterhurstOne of the key engineers of SIO also worked on the USB standard, which is why the comparison is generally there. Honestly, I think SIO is better, as the majority of things daisy chained, which seems like a way better method of cable management. These days, the only thing I see like that are some keyboards have USB ports. Joe Decuir is the man who worked on both. ADB also used some daisy chaining, which was nice. It works well enough on my IIGS, but was there printers and disk drives, etc that can run on it like the SIO port?
I loved Atari 800 and C64. My friends had them and I had a Texas Instruments Home Computer which I also loved. Home Computers were one of the most exciting parts of gaming history. They gave us the closest thing we had to arcade experience at home. They all had their pros and cons and were fun to compare. Atari 800 had a really good port of Donkey Kong and that was a huge deal back then. Going into the game crash and even after Home Computers were where it was at.
Indeed! It was so cool to get a game for your Atari 800 or C64, that was a descent remake of an Arcade game, that you didn't have to throw money into for every game! Software that was versions of arcade games were a big deal back then, eh?
There was a LOT of computer 'religion' back then - even more so than iPhone vs. Android today, but for similar reasons. Look, if you have saved up enough to buy one of these machines and the peripherals that went along with them, you wanted YOUR computer to 'win' - end of story. It wasn't just the hardware you'd have to replace, it was all the software too. There were endless 'demos' back in the day where C64 users slagged on Atari users and vice-versa. I have one for my Atari that has various competitor logos being blasted to bits. I remember one Amiga demo from Holland where PC users were called 'farmers' (apparently derogatory for some strange reason). It went something like this, 'Hey! Do you use a PC?' and the answer was, 'No sir, I am not a farmer.' 😀 Today, you generally replace a phone within a few years, but you keep the software. Back then, we didn't know just how often we'd be upgrading in the future, so people were VERY territorial about their machines and the companies that built them.
I picked up an 800XL in 1991 from a secondhand shop. It came with about 2 Tesco bags worth of cassettes. I had a lot of fun messing around with it, even in 1991!
This was the best Atari 8-bit overview that I can remember. Excellent narration, storytelling and pacing. The 'Overview of the silicon' segment was so sharp it made me touch the screen!. Will subscribe and check out some more content
These things were built like tanks, back in the 80's my hi-fi separates system (so mostly metal rather than plastic) fell on top on my 800XL from a shelf, it left the keyboard bent in the middle but every key continued to work and the entire system kept going for another 5 years until I replaced it with a 130 XE.
@@TheRetroShack In North America, the Commodore PET and Apple II/II+/IIe computers were popular in schools because of their relative ruggedness. Unfortunately, the later Platinum IIe had a weak keyboard that would bend or break if you put any kind of force on it, and I've seen some such examples from specimens that had been used in schools (earlier IIes aren't nearly as delicate in this way). Although Ataris tended to be well built (until the XE series), too, like non-PET Commodores, they tended to not be as appropriate for a school setting because of their various ports on the sides, fronts, and/or tops that were easily accessible (the Apple II's top lid was no issue because that was where the monitors sat). As for keyboards, the 800XL is (in)famous for having several rather different types. While they're all pretty sturdy, the type with the Mylar membrane (underneath), which is one of the worst in several ways, is by far the strongest. Having an all-metal frame, and pretty thick at that, it could seriously double as a lethal weapon for self-defense. I have one of those, and it's not the best to type on, and the Mylar sometimes needs restoration, but if I were to ever need an improvised bullet shield, it would be one of the first things I'd grab. :)
@@rbrtck Fascinating stuff and absolutely agree about the port placement for school use - it's one of the most genius aspects of the BBC Micro - where all of the I/o ports are actually underneath the machine - and many were bolted to desks with metal straps or fixed to metal monitor stands :) :)
@@davidschreiber1823 It depends on your school district. In mine, there were PETs from the start in the late 1970s, various models of Apple II through the 1980s, some IBM PCs, occasionally Macs, and even, rarely, the Apple IIGS. I never saw a single Atari in any school, nor any Commodore that wasn't a PET, although I realize that some school districts somewhere had them. PETs were pretty common in schools in general, but many districts started with Apple IIs or Atari 800s instead. Usually the ones with PETs started using computers earlier than most others.
My mother got me the 800+1050 for a birthday one year, I will never forget it and I still have it! I also owned the 1040ST, both systems ahead of their time.
The 8-bit Ataris were SO far ahead of their time and was really the last hardware Atari developed themselves. The 5200 was a failure because of the controls and lack of backwards compatibility. They might have done better if it was more like the XEGS, which is amazing.
The funny thing is, if you knew how the 9-pin controller inputs worked, you could come up with a solution that would support the amount of input buttons found on something like a SEGA controller if not more. (It could make out a lot of different voltage values which could be keyed to buttons or combos thereof.) Alternately the paddle inputs would also allowed to have an analog stick with a 256 value resolution on each axis. (But Atari only used that for a pair of paddles to each 9-pin plug.) Looking back, the company was really dumb with some things even if it's hardware itself could be considered rather clever. It'd be funny to see if any hobbyists ever make "backport" hardware stuff that takes advantage of things that Atari should have but never did.
C64 = Far better sprites, multi-color high resolution (like the ZX) and of course the SID. The best advantage the Atari had was POKEY, not for sound but the hardware keyboard debounce and a very capable RS-232-style serial controller.
This argument about "The SID" has become an Argument from ignorance fallacy. SID was the best synth ever found on a home computer but it was just that...a synth. Pokey was a hybrid, as Miner explained in his talks, Paula was the evolution of Pokey in all four channels (and a low pass filter). Its a good idea to visit the ASMA project page where there are more then 7.000 songs and check composers like BEWU, Staxx, Voss, Miker, X-Ray, Caruso, Vins Cool, Samurai, X-Ray, Ce-Pumpkin, Miker, MCH, PG, Wieczor, DJ V, Chiummo, V0yager, Gnome Design, Zilq, Cedyn, Lorien. SID was good but it was a dead end for the industry.
I actually chose an Atari 600xl with a 1028 tape drive instead of a C64 with a floppy drive. I thought I was an Atari fan, but apparently I found out that I actually was a Jay Miner fan, for my best computer after the Atari 8 bit family was the Amiga. Great stuff ANF fantastic memories!
This video made my day. I loved commodore back in the day owning a c64 but always was a little envious of my friend who had an Atari 800. Many a heated insult was lobbed at each others choice of platform. In the end they were both truly great lines of 8 bit computers.
The Action! compiler made me envious; to the degree I wondered "Why isn't this available on the C64?" which I had. Hearing Bill Wilkonson interviewed (Antic Podcast #7, 22-dec-14) saying they should have written for the C64 also was amusing, and also sad.
I had both. The Atari was engineered much better. The disk drive didn't go out of alignment, ran much faster, and the commands to copy stuff and such was much easier
Agreed, I had a 64 but it was obvious from the magazines I read that Atari had a more powerful BASIC with more commands I would have loved to use. The Commodore 128 did finally have a much improved BASIC, but it never really took off, and by that time the Amiga and the first decent IBM clones were coming out which spelled the beginning of the end for 8-bit.
@@mjp29 The C-64 disk drive was pathetic. I had one, and one on my Apple ][. I never had one for my Atari 1200XL however. You could brew a pot of coffee by the time the C-64 loaded a program. The early C-64's were also very prone to crashes, and to do word processing or anything other than games was risky.
Great video. I love my Atari's. I've recently upgraded one of my 800 XL's with a Sophia board for DVI video. :-D It looks amazing. One thing you didn't mention was the Atari 800 had S-Video abilities in 1979. Even though we didn't call it S-Video at the time.
@@cbmeeks Do you know what am I talking about? I doubt Sophia is able to correct wide mode as the problem is based on the moment ANTIC starts feeding video signal with data. I'm not sure if all modes have the same starting moment when video is getting data from ANTIC.
8:54 The specs weren't nearly as important as how the machines came across to third party developers. Atari built a very intriguing and advanced computer, but wouldn't tell you how it worked. That put them in a hole in 1979 versus Apple (because Wozniak would probably debug your Apple code if you caught him on the right day and asked nicely) and when the well-documented C64 hit the market, all the copies of the belated De Re Atari in the world weren't going to hold back the tide.
Yep, they had everything you needed to know in the form of very detailed technical documents that you had to pay a hefty fee to obtain. Coupling that with their litigation at anyone that they felt was pirating their IP didn't make for a very good image. I remember reading about a teen that obtained Atari technical information "illegally", programmed a very good Pac man game for Atari computers, and ended up getting sued by them for copyright infringement. He ended up giving his versions of the characters mustaches as a joke to "hide" their appearance.
yeah, exactly. 8-bit Atari competes with C-64 very well having all official tech documentation of both but C-64 wins heavily using sprite multiplication (invented around 90s) in many areas the same as Atari wins heavily in 3d games without any additional accelerators. with accelerator C-64 wins with ease of programming of anything not 3-d but Atari wins with everything else. C PLUS/4 is better than Atari but needs even better acceleration than Atari and has similar level of programming difficulty of anything more advanced. The thing C-64 really wins with Atari = simplicity of programming, Atari had some concept from 2600 which were too barebone in 80s. ZX Spectrum used strange idea of coding but it was more abstrtact. Atari had it 100% influcned by video signal and it required slightly different style of thinking. For truth sprite multiplication in C-64 was based on 2600/Atari way of programming anything.
the most important thing from my point of view: C-64+dedicated composite monitor = good quality of display Atari+dedicated composite monitor = still artifacting Atari never fixed quality of video output and C-64 had 3? different SIDs used with change of sound output requiring different players for each of them for any more complicated tune.
Software support was definitely a huge selling point for computers back when they were all incompatible with each other. The openness of the Apple II system and its "ecosystem" (ironic considering the closed, proprietary Apple of today) resulted in massive software (and hardware) support that alone made it a desirable computer to own, regardless of its technical limitations and even its price. While the Atari did manage to get a decent software library started years before the C64 even came out, it quickly fell behind while the C64 would rival the Apple II before long in this respect. The cost of joining the club was too steep (until later), while even the C64's included _User Manual/Guide_ offered most of what one needed to know in order to start writing software right away, and the comprehensive _Commodore 64 Programmer's Reference Guide_ was actually released to the public before the computer itself. In order to get support, you first have to give support, and like Apple, it came from Commodore easily, openly, immediately, and for cheap.
@@archieil One of the Atari's general weaknesses is resolution. On the C64, everything is based on 320 pixels horizontal resolution (hi-res for short), including sprites and smooth scrolling, while on the Atari almost everything is based on 160 horizontal resolution, including player-missile graphics (sprites) and smooth scrolling. The Atari does have a couple of 320 resolution modes, but they are kind of treated as afterthoughts in most respects. The dot or pixel clock is exactly twice the color carrier frequency, which is why there is color artifacting with hi-res graphics (and text), just like with the Apple II, although the latter has a color-killer circuit to make text more readable (as monochrome) and a clever way of exploiting color artifacts to give it 6 consistent colors instead of 4 varying ones. The C64 uses a pixel clock with a slightly higher frequency, resulting in slightly narrower pixels (a side-effect) and the cancellation of artifacts (the real reason), which is why GEOS is usable even through RF on a TV set. The Atari, in contrast, takes none of this into account, and just puts the pixels out there, come what may. This is why its hi-res graphics are unclear, and even the artifact colors are different for each model. Even games that use hi-res graphics and try to take advantage of artifacting often don't look right, as a result. Atari didn't do anything to ensure the consistency of artifact colors. _Ultima III_ might have purple trees and green water in some Atari models, and the right colors in others. You just can't rely on anything that is hi-res on the Atari, except for the character set, which is designed to minimize the effects of artifacting, although it still doesn't look as clear/clean as on the Apple II and C64.
What a great video. The first computer I purchased for myself with my own money was a second hand Atari 1200XL, had no idea back in the 80s it was so RARE. That machine was brilliant and the ergonomics were some of the best of ANY machine of that era. It ran extremely HOT though I never had a problem with it. It lead to me purchasing a 400, two 800s, 3 800xls, and a 130xe. All were second hand and cheap as chips as everyone “upgraded” to Atari ST, Apple IIgs, Macintosh, PC, or Amiga. I amassed 1000s of floppies and dozens of peripherals, books and magazines as I would happily take them off people’s hands to make room for their shiny new putty colored desktop computers. Later in the early 90s I too sold everything for a freshly discounted brand new Amiga 500 (on its way out at the time). I never had 10% of the fun with the Amiga that I had with those old Ataris. Over the decades I’ve owned dozens of computers both new and retro. Most recently picked up TheC64 Maxi which really is quite brilliant. I had actually purchased a Nintendo Switch last year but just did not enjoy the gameplay like the old 8-bits...there really is just something magical about those 8-bit machines isn’t there? Keep up the great work! Subscribed and Liked!!
I had an Atari 800 back in the early 80s. I get the feeling that the engineers had relatively free reign with the design. For example: the 4 joystick ports were not only inputs but also outputs. While we never got it working, my Dad and I tried to build a cable to hook up his IBM PC printer to the joystick ports!
It's very possible to use the joystick ports to print. They are capable of a good throughput. A special device driver would need to be written, which should not take too long to program but would need some technical skill.
@@vitoswat General Electric had a line of centroninc printers (TXP 1000 and TXP 8100) which had an optional interface for the Atari (I believe they had some extra RAM in the interface which could be used as a buffer).
Even the 6502 was custom. The original 400/800 used a stock 6502 with some extra external circuitry to allow it to halt the Antic chip. This was built into the new 6502C (not to be confused with the stock enhanced 65C02) "Sally". Got mine for Christmas in '85. Still have it but it's in bits. Planning on doing an extreme refurb one day.
Glad to see this. Less than a week ago I was in a discussion with an old friend re: the Atari 8-bits vs the Commodores. As an Atari 800 owner, I of course argued for the Jay Miner-designed machines. :)
I think you missed an important point. These machines were successful. There are a lot more PCs than there are Macs but that doesn't make them unsuccessful. As an 130xe user I found myself feeling jealous of the games that the c64 (or the CPC my friend had) which were all over the magazines while the Atari would only get obscure releases if any. Still the A8 has a huge following and a lot of development. That is important. I think a major drawback was the BASIC that came with it. It had some good ideas and some bad design choices that made it much slower than it should be. Strings being arrays of chars and variables (and line numbers) being floats were two of them.
I never tried Atari BASIC, but what's wrong with strings being arrays, basically? It was the same in Sinclair BASIC and others, and that approach is standard in most modern languages.
Many BASICs also had only floating point variables, although those implementing integer variables could be faster, of course. Usually not more than by a factor 2-3 or so though, compared to floats on the same BASIC. Lots of overhead masked the slow floating point computations in all but the most advanced (often half compiled) variants. I'm thinking of Cromemco, Luxor ABC 800, and Acorn/BBC Micro BASICs. Some variants of HP Basic was pretty quick as well.
@spindizzy Really? I more or less assumed he meant that strings were not garbage collected, like they are in M$ Basic. (Or rather the results of operations on them.)
@@herrbonk3635 basically in any basic you have this: Input name$ In Atari basic Dim name$(20) Input name$ and name$ can be 20 characters long. This means that you can't have matrices of strings which is often necessary. I don't know about zx basic but gw, locomotive and BBC didn't do it that way. Also if you look at benchmarking tests often done in old magazines Atari basic would always come last and some tests weren't able to be performed.
Macs definitely were unsuccessful, as they had to drop all their hardware and software, and create a new architecture and new OS from scratch in 2001. No one does it unless they encounter a total failure.
Enjoyed the video. I originally had and used an Atari 800XL from 84-87. It remains my most fondly remember system from the 80's. Even now I have a 256K 800XL that's usually my choice for my retro computer gaming fix. Also have an original 800 that I restored 6 years ago. That thing really was built like a tank. I also love the C64 which was my main computer from 87-92 when I moved to a PC, but I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the 800XL.
@@TheRetroShack Jumpman is my favorite game on it, the C64 version feels lacking after playing the Atari version. All the Lucasfilm 3D games play more fluid than their C64 counterparts. Montezuma's Revenge, Mr. Robot and his Robot Factory, Miner 2049er and Mountain King are all good fun too.
That shielding, especially on the 800 was a good part of the cost. The FCC was really harsh on early computers the C64 benefited from the battles won with regulators. I had a friend with a trs80 that you could watch on another tv in another room.
To be fair, Commodore fought that fight along with the rest of the industry, earlier versions of the VIC 20 had some rather heavy shielding. By the time the last 64's rolled off the line in the early 90's I believe some could use cardboard, so much had changed.
Wonder how much the 800's aluminum block cost. Guessing around $20. There is an 800XL parts cost spreadsheet out there but never seen one for the 800. IIRC the 800XL keyboard cost them $8 and the CPU was about $5.
@@gamedoutgamer Yeah but if you double the cost for assembly, packaging and shipping and add it again for profit the cost of everything goes up by 3 and the retailer doubles that you end up paying 48 bucks for the keyboard.
I got an Atari 800 in winter 1980 and it was $1000+ for Atari 800 with 16K and Cassette tape. It cost about another $700+ to get 48K more ram and a dusk drive. The c64 was like $400 with cassette and 64K ! STAR RAIDERS cost $100 ! Space invaders was $20 on cassette tape
I remember wanting an Atari 800 in 1983.. in the end i ended up getting a Commodore 64 for Christmas '83. The main issue i found with Atari 8 bit machine was that Atari kept changing the model names Atari 800, Atari 600XL, Atari 800XL, Atari 65XE and Atari 130XE. Commodore on the otherhand build the same commodore 64 for the whole life of the machine.. Commodore did do low cost machines such as the Commodore 16 & Plus4.. but the Commodore 64 remained king.
I think it was mostly down to retail prices, why C64 became such a big seller. Like C64 had better sound yet Atari 8bit computers had better video signal quality. Such a strange thought, that the best selling machine had the worst video signal.
Atari did many huge mistakes in marketing. On the other hand Commodore produced a robust architecture and made it available in supermarkets and toy stores at a good price.
I was an Atari 800 user at the age of 11, but I had to admit that per-character color control and multi-color sprites of the C64 made it an easier machine to write arcade style games for.
Yes but the Atari 800 was like 3-4 years early, which even in those tech days was a long time. What Atari missed was an opportunity to update the marchine when the 800XL or XE's came. A new 16 colour graphics mode with slighty better resolution. A new sprite system so better games could be created, and update the sound chip with 1-2 new additional features to synth like the C64. Improved tape turbo loading baud rate which should have been better. They missed a trick as elsewhere the Atari beat the C64 in every other department generally.
@@MrKarlyboy That would have been Jay the Amiga, but Jay Miner was driven out of Atari long before the xl line came out and he took the Amiga Idea with him!
Space Harrier, Final Assault, Stunt car racer, Time Wizard, Albert...there are so many homebrew and late games that compliment the abilities of the system.
I had a 400 then traded it for an 800 back in 1982, great machines but the reason it did not do as well was due to Atari trying to control software made for the VCS, they didn't want anyone else producing games for it and until Activision came along few other companies did. This resulted in a lot of software vendors to bypass the Atari 8-bit line and make games for the C64. I always hated it when a big game came out without any Atari support.
This is not entirely true. Atari did release the full documentation in '82 in order to compete with the C64. Yes some damage had already been done by the time but it's fair to give them some credence because the industry was very young and everyone was pioneering. Hindsight is always 20/20. Sounds like a corporate decision more than engineering.
I loved the Atari 8bit machines. I got my first one from Dixons who were selling the 800XL with floppy drive for £150 (I think). I still have them in the attic with numerous floppies, cartridges, paddle controllers, roller ball, printer and touchpad. I also have a 130XE which I bought when the 800XL stopped working. I really need to get them unboxed and give them a work out.
@@TheRetroShack Atari released several modems during the life of the system. The early ones like the 830 were RS-232 and required the 850 parallel/serial interface to connect the machine, later units from the 835 on had SIO ports removing the need for the 850.
I was quite surprise myself when I got a hold of an Atari 600xl how technologically strong it was. Upgraded the memory to 64k and gutted and modded the RF module to output composite video and sound. Just as solid as an 800xl!
@@KopperNeoman Actually the atari 8bit line was the first home computer with S video capabilities. The only thing you had to do in some models of the XL series was to connect the Luma and Chroma pins to their signals , a pretty straight forward procedure. I was lucky with my 800xl since the connections were there from the factory.
I was so happy when I picked up a classic Atari 800 at a car boot sale along with a disk drive and a couple of disk games. For me it really is the Cadillac of 8-bit machines.
I got lucky many years ago. I went to a flea market in Milwaukee and found a guy who had a big box full of Atari computer hardware and software. Included were two Atari 800s (both still worked), a floppy drive, a cassette drive, a number of cartridges and floppies all for............. $25 !!!
Hi! It seems you're connecting the dropping price of the Atari 400 and 800 with the video game crash. It had pretty much nothing to do with the crash, and everything to do with Commodore's very aggressive pricing on their VIC-20 and Commodore 64.
They are connected. The transition from home video game systems was part of the problem for the video game market and Atari were absolutely tied up in both camps. The Video Game Crash of 1983 was worsened massively by the introduction of cheaper home computers and Atari came off the worst. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983
@@TheRetroShack Atari as a whole was greatly affected by the video game crash, but home computers were still in demand throughout the crash. Commodore's success is proof of that. Atari didn't have to drop their computer prices because nobody wanted computers; they had to drop their prices because Commodore had very competitive products (the VIC-20 and C64) at a lower price than the 400/800.
@@remo27 That point is made in the IEEE Spectrum article, there's no data for the development cost on the 6567 & 6581. "Although custom chips are usually considered expensive, the C-64 chips were not. Not only were development costs absorbed in company overhead..."
Great video, the Ataris have always been my favourite 8-bit machines. Just one thing, those RAM chips are not 8K chips. They are 64K * 1bit chips, hence you need 8 of them to make up a byte...it's written right on the top of them "4164".
I did a hack on mine, back when it was my main computer (!) to replace the 64K rams with 128K rams. It did some bank switching magic to swap out the upper 16K chunks. A modified DOS used it as ram disk.
@@TheRetroShack you cant always go by the type number that easily though, i have some HM4864s that are equivalent to 4164s 😉 plus there are other very different number equivalents, but generally they normally do indicate size, 4164, 1 bit 64k, 4464 4bit 64k, eproms 27256 256 'bits', aka 32k bytes, static ram 6264, 64k 'bit' , 8k byte ,,and so on...
Most games played better on the 800XL than they did on the 64. And most XL games played fine on the 800 or even the 400. The 256-color graphics just plain looked better too; even though the resolution was crazy low. There weren't any C64 games like Zone Ranger; just a bad Defender clone with not enough moving objects to pull off the effect. The best way to enjoy 8-bits in the 80s was to have friends with the other platforms. Then you could get to play the best games on all of them.
IMO it comes down to two things: Software and marketing. Commodore seemed to have much more software and was better marketed over Atari (until the 16-bit ST came out). Most of the 80's micro computers were much of a muchness H/W wise, and what often tipped the balance was price and software availability. Commodore software was EVERYWHERE when I was a kid in England, and often priced for budget (£1.99-£2.99) as well as the big box full price games £10 and up and a Commodore was not much more expensive than the Spectrum towards the end. Spectrum was always seen as the poor mans computer and the graphics weren't as good, plus the fact that peripherals were more difficult to connect (Kemptson joystick etc) so after you'd bought all the expensive peripherals such as extra ram, joystick add on etc, it could have been more expensive than a Commodore. I also think the move from console to computer wasn't working in Atari's favour. Computersin general were for games and the console already had a huge library. So if all kids wanted was games, the incentive to spend $1000 for a computer that didn't really give you more than the woody console didn't make financial sense. It's a bit like the reverse of what Commodore tried to do with the GS. The GS wasn't much cheaper than an actual C64 and only had the cartridge slot (and not many games available) so what was the point? You had a cartridge slot on a C64 AND the ability to play (cheap) cassette games, so didn't make sense at all.
Really, have you sat an Atari 800 next to an Atari 2600 and seen the difference in graphics? I could have bought an Atari 2600 back in 80s, instead I got an Atari 400, with 16 k , and damn glad I did, I hate when people even compare what the Atari 8 bit was to the 2600. Not until the C64 came out did a computer even challenge the graphics capabilities of the Atari 8 bit line. And when the Atari' first came out, Apples were 3 times the price. What hurt Atari was no advertising, almost zero in the US. when I would bring people into my home and they seen star raiders on my 400, their damn jaws dropped. and they had 2600s, so no sir, it was not just a bit more of an 2600 , it was a hell of a leap forward . and the only reason C64s dropped in price was tramiel wanted to bury texas instruments, so he made almost no profit on the C64 . and Atari soon dropped their prices. Not all people that bought computers in the day were kids. maybe over there?, but not here in the US. have a nice day...
Cost and Price must be justifiable for a game machine since most people didn't really know what else they could do with a computer. Shelling their product in Toy stores and Supermarkets also helped their numbers.
What a great video! I haven't experienced the Atari 8-bit computers' prime firsthand, but I remember playing the XEGS with my father and being amazed by the graphics and sound. All we had before was an Atari 2600, after all
The XEGS was essentially a 65XE with a detachable keyboard and built-in Missile Command. So it actually was a fully fledged Atari 8-bit computer. One thing I really liked about its release was a lot of games that were only available on disk before were rereleased on cartridge.
I hope next video comes very soon, I never get enough of your videos, any new episode about MSX machines, I remember that you mentioned there will be another one if I'm not mistaken, Thanks and have a great day
My first computer. Originally had the tape drive, then added a 1050 floppy. Upgraded the floppy with a 'Happy Computers' chip mod to make it a programmable drive. Had a pen plotter (1020) for it, too. My first printer was an Okimate 10.
Great memories owning this. The Atari machines were a bit more expensive back in the day but I’d argue the XL line was probably the best looking 8 bit range ever produced. Matching tape and disk drives, FOUR different printer models, memory module, touch tablet and all in the same design livery. And then the ultimate 8 bit machine that never was, the 1450XLD…..
Still own my 800, also an XL. several drives. Nice collection of floppies and cartridges. These things don’t break. Played a nice round of Joust just last night. People think I’m nuts.
Stil have the 800XL and 130XE, sold my first one the 600XL unfortunaly. But I kept the assesories, the cassette, the touch tablet and the plotter. That plotter was so fun to see working! I remember to have made a program to calculate the prime numbers and it run for days.
@@TheRetroShack they are, they work with a kind of balpen’s. You can see the writing of each letter but then very fast. Also they work with paper on a rol so you can draw very large figures. What I remember is making geometrical figures that where like artforms. And also refill the pens because they where so expensive.
I own an Atari 800XL Computer System and I still use it today. I worked at one place where the lady down the hall had a Commodore 64 that I looked at and I thought that that is a good Computer System, but I noticed that some of the things that one would do with it could be done faster and more efficiently on the Atari 800XL instead.
I've been revisiting via emulation in my MAME cabinet which has an RGB CRT monitor and classic Wico joysticks from the early 80s. I've been realizing the Atari 8 bit largely seems to be better than the C-64. But I had all of them in the early 80s. A friend of mine had an Atari 800 in 1980. I loved it, and when we shopped for a home computer the following year, the TI 99/4a looked pretty good for half the price. The membrane keyboard on the Atari 400 made it a difficult choice. But the main thing, on the store shelves there was far more software & accessories for the many TI glass display cases vs the one small Atari display case. Little did we know the fate the TI would have before long. We bought a C-64 in early 1983 for $150. It was way cheaper than the Atari 800. I don't recall the Atari 800 falling to under $200 in 1983 like this video mentions. In fact the Atari 1200XL was around $1000 and I heard the Atari 800 cheaper when it was out, but not anywhere near the price of the C-64. It was the price of the C-64 that made it a popular machine. And because it was so cheap, lots of software and items for it appeared on store shelves. The amount of items for Atari 8 bit computers was minuscule in comparison. In late 1983 we bought a used Apple ][ Plus, but still had our other computers. Around 1985 I got an Atari 1200XL on clearance, but there just didn't seem to be a lot of things made for it you could find in stores here in New England. We didn't have the Internet to help find them. Looking back now and checking out a lot of games, it seems there was a lot more software made for the Atari computers than I thought. We wouldn't know back in the early 80s. I generally prefer the graphics of the Atari 8 bit to the C-64, and the kinds of games made for it. The Pokey sound chip is surprisingly capable vs the better known SID chip. I feel it was the marketing and price of the Atari 8 bit computers early on that allowed the C-64 to be the dominate machine. Yet some how, the Apple ][''s managed to stay popular despite the huge cost difference, but they were market away from just games and sold largely because of the other tasks you could do with them too. There is a homebrew game called "Atari Blast! " that really demonstrates what the old 1979 technology can do when given more ram and some creative programmers. Apparently this game can run on a 16k Atari 400 computer via the cartridge version. I haven't seen a game for the C-64 nearly as impressive, and being a fan of the Atari arcade games and the 2600, there is a connection between them on the Atari 8 bit computer line missing from the C-64 that I appreciate.
I was given a C-64 for my birthday in 1984 when I was nine years old. That was the thing you had to have back then, at least in Germany and Austria. Unfortunately, due to this Commodore hegemony, I had little contact with other systems at that time. In the 8-bit era, almost everyone with an affinity for computers at our school (~1200 pupils) had a C-64 or C-128, at most 5 had a Schneider CPC (the Amstad CPC franchise in the German-speaking world). Other systems, such as the Apple II or the Atari 8-bit family, we knew only from hearsay or from computer magazines. They were also considered inferior and antiquated, they somehow had a 70s smell to them - the worst image you could have in the 80s. Only later in life (thanks to the internet, retrocomputing, emulators, etc.) did I find out that this was a completely unjustified prejudice, at least in the case of the Atari 8-bit line. It was way ahead of its time, technically very advanced and the true predecessor of the Amiga. Unlike Commodore, Atari also managed to keep their computers backwards compatible throughout the 8-bit era and not release one incompatible, sometimes obscure, insular cashcow system after another. Please don't misunderstand me: I love the C-64 and I don't mean to belittle its superior 2D animation and sound capabilities. And it is absolutely crazy what is still squeezed out of the old C-64 "breadbox" today. But the Atari shone with its wide colour palette, its almost 80% faster CPU, its better 3D capabilities and its 4 sound channels. It unfortunately still doesn't get the recognition and attention it actually deserves. Back then, there was a much smaller selection of games, beyond the simple early 80s games, than with Commodore. And even today in the retrocomputing and demo scene, the system doesn't receive the same attention as the C-64, and amazing games like "Eye of the Beholder" or "Sonic the Hedgehog" unfortunately don't exist (yet). The horizontal shooter classics are also missing. Sadly.
Things in the retro-computing and demo scene are far better than you think for the Atari 8bit platform. Its the third most vibrant 8bit homebrew community (behind c64 and speccy) with huge titles been released each year i.e. Trax(Chaos engine), Space Harrier, Stunt car racer, Pang , Bomb Jack, Prince of persia, Total Eclipse, shared homebrew titles like Dimos Quest (amiga), Yoomp(C64), Assembloids(C64), Tony (Amiga, C64), quality demos and many hardware solutions (memory, sound and graphics upgrades, cartridges loading mediums etc)and video/sound players taking advantage of its video capabilities. I can understand why people outside this specific community think that things are dry but that's not the case.
have both, XE line looks good but it resembles a plastic toy next to my XL machines. TO be fair if the plastics are in good condition it does well....but they are cheap and age badly in hot environment.
An Atari 800 was my first computer, it was quite a machine at the time. The big three then were the Atari 800, the Apple II, and the Commodore 64. There was also the TRS-80 with it's own fanbase, but it was kind of on the sidelines. The Atari was clearly the one with the most potential, it had the dual cartridges (few uses for the 2nd ever came around) and it had an external bus that never really saw its potential, nothing ever happened with it. The Atari was the first home computer to ever be UL listed and you could use it with out taking out TV on the whole block. I remember a friend who played around with mine and was amazed how much nicer it was than his Apple II, much to his surprise. The C64 had its features, but always seemed like a kludge to me. I still think the Atari is the most fun machine to program, one you learn how to work with all the chips, the 6502, the POKEY, The ANTIC, and the GITA you can really have some fun. Many of the arcade games at the time had what were really Atari 800 guts that had been customized for the particular game. The Ataris were also built like tanks and could take it (mine still works), I remember an early MIDI setup that used an Atari 800 to control it, the developers told me they picked the 800 because it was the only one you could drop and it would still work. I guess its the way the cards played out that the Atari 8 bit line never saw its full potential. I did most of my programming in Assembler using the Macro Assembler, but the Basic language in the cartridge was pretty capable for such a tiny language. It was such a pretty architecture.
The Atari 8-bits are kind of like a time capsule, the lack of software support and development by the mid-1980s means the majority of it's good game library is pretty much stuck in the late 70s/early 80s era, whereas the C64's popularity saw it supported well into the 1990s and a lot of the later C64 games simply wipe the floor with the Atari. On the flip side though, the early 80s C64 games VS the Atari and it's a much closer match, with the Atari probably coming out slightly on top in terms of decent games. I got an Atari 65XE for my collection earlier this year and that was the first time I'd ever used one in person, they were pretty much dead & gone by the time I got my first C64 as a kid.
Yes, I can't help but wonder what would have happened if the documentation, support and talent were there for the machine earlier on - may have been an interesting race :)
all Atari 8bit computer has the same hardware as a rehash from 800, 400, 800XL, 600XL, 65XE, 130XE, till XEGS all software is compatible among them but its old hardware if you compare to C64 Chipset.
a proof of how far can going A8bit hardware is found on the latest homebrew games i.e. Space Harrier or more recently Prince of Persia... But despite that, C64 old software and new homebrew games are much...much better, VIC II and SID chip win by far...
Wipe the floor with Atari 800..? really....??, the C64.......? yea, ok, Maybe the C64 has a little leg up on the Atari, after all, it was born 3 years later , which is like 12 years, in dog years, or something to that effect. And maybe the SID chip could play pretty musical notes, BUT to say the C64 could wipe the floor with the Atari? BS... The Atari has a rich palette of colors, all of which with display list interrupts , can be produced on the screen at the same time. Its sprite system, with only 5 sprites can not only be reproduced over and over again with Dlists, down the screen, but with clever programming, also be reused on the same lines , given some distance between the two. Before the Atari 8 bit, you had the Apple II computer, which though I love the great and powerful WOZ, was under powered when it came to a computer like the Atari 8 bit line. SO yea, the Atari did what the C64 could do, years before it was a tramiel wet dream, and totally stomped the Vic 20. Oh and for proof of what the Atari can and still does, and why, "No".. the C64 will never mop the floor up with the Atari, check out this colorful game called "Albert". th-cam.com/video/ZNfWa4CyehE/w-d-xo.html And check out any of the new games and demos produced with the Atari, and you'll see, the Atari 800 might not have all the bells and whistles the C64 does, but its right up the C64's ass, pushin it on a broom. Not bein mopped up by it. Oh and one last comment, Star Raiders, 8k cart, best 3D home game of its time. top 20 game in computer magazines, 10 years running. nuff said....drops mic... gets a beer.
Atari 8-bit computers were very popular in Poland in the early 90's. C64 vs 8-bit Atari was the biggest platform war back then. This war extended to Amiga vs Atari ST. Even today Polish retro community still can't decide which was better with some C64 fans from back then admitting that Atari 8-bit are much more interesting. Atari 8-bit computers were so popular in Poland that Polish developers were making games for these computers and multiple publishers were releasing them. I don't know how many games were developed, but recently Retronics managed to bring 100+ Polish Atari games in new boxed editions. Also there's a global trend of exploring less known retro hardware, since we know nearly everything about C64, Amiga, ZX Spectrum etc. Early PCs are one of such platform. Tandy 1000 is especially interesting, since it was quite popular in USA at some point, but everyone forgot about it for over 20 years. Now 8-bit Atari computers are getting global recognition.
The Atari 800 was huge. The reason for this was because of stringent FCC regulations regarding interference. Much of the system board was attached to aluminum shielding which made the system more robust, but expensive to manufacture. The XL models were released later, but were not fully compatible with the older 400/800 machines as their memory locations were different, causing certain games to not work. Atari released translator disk, which loaded the older operating system to allowed the incompatible games to work. Alas, with the North American Video Game crash of 1983, Atari was in serious financial trouble, losing a whopping $536 million! Faced with inventory they couldn’t sell, Atari took those to a landfill in Alamogordo, New Mexico and buried them. The consumer division, which included the home computer and consoles, was purchased by former CEO of Commodore Jack Tramiel.
The Atari 8-Bit machines were really ahead of their time. The higher clock speed when compared to the C64 is a bit misleading though, because the Atari's graphics chip can and in fact does hold the CPU (that's the reason for the special version of the 6502 in the Atari) slowing it down to effectively something around 1.3 MHz. Still faster than the C64's CPU by around 30%. Graphics wise, its superior to the C64 when it comes to the actual number of colors (256 vs. 16) but it somehow fails to put them to good use, because it has no attribute ram like the C64 has. Meaning that on the C64 you can use all 16 colors on one screen while on the Atari you are limited to the number of colors of the current palette, which are 2 in 320*192 and 4 in 160*192. That's why most Atari games look less colorful than their counterparts on the C64. You can work around this by using display list interrupts to a certain degree, but it's still more limited.
Yes, the Atari 8-bits were amazing for 1979. As for the comparison, the C64 also has much more capable sprites: 8 24-pixel wide sprites (or multicolour 12-pixel) compared to the A8's 4 (or 5, kind of) 8-pixel wide monochrome sprites. That's about 5x the sprite power.
@@8_Bit Yes, and the Atari's sprites are actually half the resolution. They are basically monochrome sprites with multicolor resolution when compared to the C64. However, they are not limited to 21 pixels in height but can fill the whole screen height, which might be an advantage in some cases. That said, there's no way to move them vertically other than copying them around in memory.
The Display list interrupts was/is a powerful tool. The home brew game community and many old games have shown that those limitations were a problem only for rushed titles or lazy/ignorant programmers . In addition to that the faster CPU allowed the machine to perform better in pseudo 3D graphics and use colorful software sprites without serious slowdowns or combine hardware sprites. The tricks available for this 3-4 years old architecture and ICs were good enough to produce a far more colorful experience and better performance in many cases. Its main drawbacks were the lower resolution and ram management. Comparing old and new titles from all the classic 8bits micros this older machine easily offers the best performance in average across all characteristics (graphics , sound and scrolling). I always thought that CPCs palette and C64 scrolling capabilities were the best case scenarios for any micro and the Atari 8bit line was the only machine to implement both to a degree. That is also true for the Plus/4 but without a software library and a decent sound chip ...that is a difficult argument.
It depends on the game or application. There are games and demos that use a lot more than 16 colors at the same time on the A8. The 800(XL) has a lot of different graphics modes too, something I believe the C64 does not have so many(??) and the different graphics modes can be mixed on the screen at the same time similar to the Amiga. Don't forget that the 800 can use sprites along the screen border while the C64 can not afaik. Also the 800's sprites' colors can combine when two occupy the same pixels. That said, the C64 does have better hardware sprite support. Many games look better on one platform than the other more due to the quality of porting by the developer more than the platform itself. Eidolon for example has a faster framerate on A8 perhaps it was natively developed on it. Ballblazer also looks better (higher resolution) on A8. Return from Factalus has a much better framerate (native to the 800), etc etc.. Commando got a poor quality port to XL/XE and suffers. Same with Pitstop 2 being better on C64. I think your saying "it somehow fails to put them (colors) to good use" is not often true but sometimes it is true and shows. High resolution is essentially monochrome (text mode in BASIC), however one can get color there using NTSC artifacting which is okay but not nearly as nice as the C64's 16 color text mode. But then there are games that do with color what the C64 could only dream of ever achieving, for example Alternate Reality's use of 128+ colors. There are many differences between the platforms. IMO Commodore took the 800 as inspiration for the C64 but was brilliant in how they cost reduced it, however the C64 build/reliability quality suffered tremendously. Atari 8bits are not suffering the chip failure plague that are the C64's are presently. The C64's SID and PLA chips are failing en masse. Usually an untested A8 works. The chips don't run nearly as hot and are showing a much longer life span. I see the 800XL in this video has mT RAM which is likely bad due to, well, Micron RAM being Micron RAM =) mT RAM on A8's is uncommon. Back to color, modern video playback is now a thing and shows how colorful is the 800 line. There are anime videos that look quite good while the C64's video playback using Ultimax Unleashed look less colorful but also better in how every line is drawn. Six of one half a dozen of the other. Getting late here.
I'm an Atari man, and in recent times the Atari scene has had some genius programmers produce some mind blowing games. It's late but absolutely welcome! Ive had a few c64 setups in the past, the first I leant to a friend, who's mother bagged it all up and gave it to a charity shop!! I was gutted. The second setup I had to sell as I needed the pennies. Really regret it. The c64 had some really cool games, easy to see how many people still love it to this day. I even like the zx spectrum +2 , had it's issues but still it was a great machine.
Atari 8-bit line had a bunch of great games but the BASIC language was just weird. I always remember getting those old Compute magazines and seeing how they couldn't really even do arrays. Commodore was just great though too. But I remember having Pitfall II on the Atari XL and really loving that game.
I think you got that backwards. There is a great Ben Heck's video where he creates a player missile game in a couple of minutes in front of a friend (C64 fan). Atari basic allowes access to almost all features of the system (sound graphics) which isn't true for the C64.
MOS had a bit of a challenge trying to get a 40 column color video chip off the ground. The 6560 VIC went into production in 1977, but had very few buyers, and was finally used in the VIC-20, but in the middle, there were two chip designs that didn't make it, for variations of the same reason, they both needed very expensive and fast RAM.
What makes a computer great is not it's capabilities and specs but the software and the community around it. I remember some Acorn Archimedes fanboy going out of his mind to prove that it was better than the Amiga, because he made a demo with some flying bubbles that was impossible on the equivalent system from Amiga. So what when Amiga had Aminet, state of the art games of it's era and enormous demoscene when Archimedes was just some niche school computer. C64 wasn't super powerful, but it had the best sound chip and people went crazy about this machine creating unbelievable amount of software for it even when it was obsolete when 16-bits took over. In the console world NES was obviously worse than SMS but it had almost all the love from the greatest gamemakers at the time and it was flooded with iconic games. 💡
C64 only had the best synth chip, but not the best sound chip. POKEY didn't had the best synth specs but it was by far ahead of its time, clearly pointing out the direction for industry to follow in relation to sound circuits. It had basic PCM capabilities with many parameters to mesh with, allowing the generation of different types of sound waves and PWM with low demand in cpu time and a huge diversity in its character. I know most old games don't take advantage of Pokeys capabilities but most games and demos of the 90s and forward show us why Jay Miner designed Paula based on Pokey's pioneer characteristics.
That was completely different take on the Atari 8 bit line than the video I did on it. I really enjoyed this video and can't wait to see what you'll do with the S Drive.
My family had several Atari computer through the years. The 800 was always my favorite though. I just liked the keyboard better than the XL and XE series. We had 4 1050 floppy drive a 1030 modem and a Star dot matrix printer attached to it. My dad offered the whole collection to me years ago. I wish I had taken him up on it. Sadly though, I’m sure none of our software would have still functioned after all these years, but it would be cool to play some of my old cartridge games at least.
I actually posted a video yesterday where I review the SIO2PC dongle and watch a demo. And I admit, that the 800XL was as good if not better. And I’m a C64 guy. I am truly impressed with the colors the scrolling. I have been watching demos since I have that dongle! And there’s real incredible work.
@@TheRetroShack it’s truly incredible what they’ve been doing. Unfortunately this machine didn’t have a big install base here in The Netherlands or in Germany, where a lot of demo coders were located. Maybe it wouldn’t been very different if the Atari was cheaper and more widespread.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 the Amiga was very pervasive in Europe. Even more so than the more affordable ST (which is stupidly and still regrettably bought). I bought and refurbished two amigas and did a lot of 68000 assembler over de lockdowns. And it’s a blessing. And the copper is obvious been inspired by the Atari (gosh forgot the name) xyz table. I adore the Amiga. It’s my favorite retro platform from a technical point what I regret is that there’s no nostalgia there.
@@CallousCoder Even If I finally managed to own an Amiga (mid 90s) I got to "play" a lot with my Friend's STE for years. I love both systems but I have to acknowledge the superiority of Amiga in so many aspects.
I had an Atari 800 before I got a Commodore 64. The SID chip made the biggest difference. I was programming music on the Atari 800, so being introduces to a real sound synthesizer in the Commodore 64 was incredible. Also the SID played actual notes, which mean I can jam with the C64 on the guitar.
Yeah, the SID was essentially a complete digitally-controlled subtractive analog synthesizer on a chip, which I think makes it unique. It provides more functions such as ADSR envelopes so that the CPU doesn't have to do as much work, as well as 16-bit frequency resolution for each of its 3 channels, which is why it could play in tune. The POKEY could do a lot of the same things, but not without the CPU constantly manipulating it, and with only 8-bit frequency resolution, it was pretty much always wildly out of tune. While you could combine 2 channels to get 16-bit frequency resolution, this would reduce the number of channels available from 4 to 2, which is a big deal with so few voices. Additionally, the SID offers more modulation options and an analog filter.
@@rbrtck As a musician, I'm sure you found the SID chip to be a great advantage. As being a non-musician, I found the sound/music difference between the Atari 800XL & the C64 to be a non issue, as I mainly used the computer to play games and occasionally for word processing. I was/am a computer geek. The Atari 8 bit line had a superior disk operating system, IMO. The disk operating system was far far less buggy, worked much more consistently, & was faster than the Commodore's.
I had an 800XL for a good few years, before moving onto the C64. Games like: Ninja, Rescue On Fractalus, Dropzone, Elktraglide, worked so much better on the Atari, POKEY was a very versatile soundchip, but the lack of Turbo LOADERS, PMG, compared to the C64 sprites and Atari's refusal to lower the price of the hardware and software here in the UK, killed it's chances to gain a foothold and later really hold it's own, next to the C64. You simply went where the software support was and that wasn't the A8.
Thanks for this great video about the ATari 8bit. I still use my Atari 130XE in 2021 ! bought the SIDE2 cartridge to be able to use many games on compactflash memory and SpartaDos X.
@@TheRetroShack 200% yes. The SIDE3 is the upgraded SIDE2. Using SD cards instead of CompactFlash cards. also is a bit faster and has current (=more) support by main Spartados developer JazzFlashCat.
The 6507 in the 2600 topped out at 4K of ROM. More ROM is bankswitched in by electronics in the cartridge. The 1200XL was failed in getting market traction due to its slightly incompatible OS due to changes made to the XL OS. This was easily resolved by the Translator boot disk or even FixXL which was able to switch out the XL OS for a RAM shadowed original 800 OS. A neat trick. Plus the 1200XL needed a resistor removed from its SIO vias and replaced with a jumper so you could use SIO powered devices like the P:R: Connection or the XM301 modem.
Really does not get enough love and recognition considering it was made in 1979... like all those early machines, probably too expensive in the UK to really gain a foothold.. I recall seeing the 800 and 400 in 1981 or so... Star Raiders in particular was an amazing achievement. By Xmas 1983 the C64 was about £199 in Comet and so was obtainable to the regular family.. I also remember a Saturday Superstore/Swap Shop episode where the magician Paul Daniels was giving away his system in a competition...
Yeah, I remember way back when I got started, they were pretty nice machines but soooo expensive, there was a real lack of decent software compared to other machines like the VIC20, sure it beat the pants off the VIC but it was twice the price for the Atari 400 and the 800 was 3-4 times the price, the software was expensive too. Then the C64 came out and Atari was in the wilderness until the ST came out, even then they didn't fare well against the Amiga.
LOL Atari ST beat Amiga unit mid to late 88, with the chip shortage of the time Atari focused on europe and we couldnt get product so we sold what we could get sadly
If you were only into games as an early adopter Atari owner and savvy, you waited for the Nintendo NES which was released in Japan only one year after the C64 (C64 cost $595 in 1982) And NES finally arrived in 1985 for $179. However the 16bit era was on the way by then for home computer needs. The Amiga was the spiritual successor to the Atari 800, using same designers.
ATARI/SONY SHOULD HAVE PARTNERED AT THAT MOMENT WITH THE SONY OPEN SOURCE PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE IT HAD BEEN DEVELOPING. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN UNSTOPPABLE ECOSYSTEM 🇺🇸💪⚡️
@10:56 the XL machines were designed by industrial designer Regan Cheng. They were inspired by B&O speaker designs, syd mead, and imagery from the 2001 movie.
I'm lucky enough to have been able to find both an 800 and 800xl. I love both of them! The build quality is just plain solid especially compared to the C64. From what I can see when comparing the Atari 8-bits to the C64, in general the C64 graphics seem a bit better. Sound depends on your preference, both seem really similar. Disk load times...the Atari beats the C64 by so much it is just plain silly. With the C64 I type the "Run" command and walk away to fix myself and eat a quick meal. When I get back the game is close to being loaded. On the Atari, I load up a program and check the time on my watch briefly and then look back at the screen at it's ready to go. Night and day difference.
@@TheRetroShack You could get parallel interface mods for the C64 and 1541 which improved disc speeds up to 60 times. Alternatively you could get software solutions, stuff like Warp__ springs to mind.
@@ensor2872 The IEC runs at about 400 bytes per second or 3200 bps. However, using software alone, it is possible to achieve much greater loading speed. Epyx's popular _Fast Load_ cartridge (all you have to do is insert it in the expansion port) gives the C64 and 1541 faster disk transfer speed than the Atari 8-bit and 810/1050 drive, and with no hardware mod (other than inserting the cartridge and leaving it there, since few C64 users seemed to have any other cartridges anyway). There were certainly faster solutions available, as well, as such Epyx's later _Vorpal_ fastloader that was built into some of their games, such as _Winter Games_ , whose disk access makes even the Apple II's DOS feel slow (again, with no hardware modification necessary). :) Actually, I just did a race, and it's not just my perception. _Winter Games_ on the C64 objectively does load significantly faster than on the Apple II! Wow. This is just with software. I don't think Ataris can load this fast without hardware modifications. The reason Commodores can be sped up so much is that the drives are programmable, as in you can transfer (or load directly from disk) machine code into the drive's RAM, and command the drive to execute your custom code with its 6502 CPU. While the Atari drives also have a CPU (the 6507), they only have 256 bytes of RAM compared to the 2K of RAM in the 1541 and other Commodore drives.
@@rbrtck I know, I was exaggerating. The IEC bus runs at 300 *bytes* per second (when communicating with a 1541) but it feels more like 300bps. And as for the Epyx FastLoad cartridge, well in my experience at least it was problematic at best causing all sorts of issues with commercial software requiring it to be unplugged far too often. But I'm not looking at it through rose tinted spectacles. The Atari SIO bus has been run at close to 100Kbps with no hardware mods, you just need the appropriate driver and a device capable of running at such speeds. While stock Atari drives like the 810 and 1050 were fixed at 19.2Kbps upgrades like the Happy would push that to around 56Kbps with no compatibility issues. But the point is, out of the box, Ataris didn't require any kind of fast loader as they were already more than fast enough.
In the early 1990s, a mate gave me an 800XL. I was learning lots of stuff about IBM PC's so that was my interest at the time, and there was no documentation available to me about the 800XL. I know I plugged it in a couple of times so I know it worked, but I didn't have any software for it so it went into the attic. Eventually I had to get rid of it when I emigrated. And all that time I didn't even know it had a 6502 which was one of my favorite processors. Now I wish I had spent more time with it, and that I would still have one. I still don't know much about it but it seems like such a fun machine.
The first time I saw a computer up close was in an Asda supermarket (UK). They had an Atari 800, an Atari 400, and a Ti99. I was fascinated by them, but they cost far too much. I looked around, and my dad was walking away quickly.... I assume he'd seen the prices too.
You could of given the Atari 800xl a clean for goodness sakes, poor little fella 🥺 Great video by the way, thank you for showing me a great in depth history of the first computer I ever used. That was way back when I was in primary school year 3 here in Australia. Thank you!!! 🇦🇺🕹️😷👍
It's very telling that despite being released in 1979 and based on a design from 1977, the 8-bit Ataris remained superior to basically every 8-bit machine with the exception of the C64 right up until the end of the 8-bit era. They really were quite ridiculously powerful for the time - but once they reached the UK, they were also ridiculously expensive until the major cost-cutting kicked in, by which time it was too late for them to dominate the UK market. They were much more successful in America, where families had far more disposable income. The only real advantages the C64 had over the 8-bit Ataris were more sprites with more colours, and SID - and even then, the Atari's sound processing wasn't exactly lacking. It was always noticeable that where the same game was available for both the Atari and C64, the C64 version had slightly (but *only* slightly) better graphics, but the Atari version always ran significantly faster and smoother, because as well as having a faster processor, the Ataris had unique hardware tricks that the C64 couldn't emulate.
Price and software availability were the tragedy of the Atari 8-bit line. They had a tremendous head start on the C-64, but programming info was so hard to come by for so long, and the machines so much more expensive than Commodore's, that the software never caught up. I seriously studied all the machines carefully when I went to purchase a home computer in 1985, and the C-64, with only a few years of software, really seemed to shine over what I saw available for the 800XL (which should have been great considering it had been around for much longer). I never regretted my C-64 purchase, but I do regret that I never fully experienced the Atari line.
That was Atari shooting themselves in the foot, unfortunately. The lead was theirs to lose, and they overplayed their hand, as it were. But fortunately, what they created speaks for itself now, and has plenty of supporters to do the actual talking and writing.
AFAIK Atari released full documentation for the line in '82, taking example from the C64. By '85 the programming documentation issue was long resolved. You could buy one or two books for less than $30 and have all the system documentation you needed. The documentation issue was only for a couple years but it did have some impact early on. There were two or three primary reasons the A8 line collapsed earlier than it should have. Firstly, delays for the 600XL/800XL machines meant they mostly missed the '83 xmas season. A small quantity were released by xmas but not enough. Atari was in real financial trouble in late '83. This is a primary reason the C64 took over from a sales perspective. The 1200XL cost nearly double the price of a C64 and while it's build quality was far better, it had a buggy OS and some features removed from the original 800. Around March of '84 the 600/800XL supply was fully available but some damage had been done. Even still, the new cost reduced XL machines cost more than a C64 but they were built better, too and the disk drive was much faster and it had a much, much better cartridge selection. Second. The collapse of the 2600 was a massive boat anchor that collapsed and bankrupted Atari. The whole 800 line was profitable during this time. In June or July of '84 is when Warner sold Atari to Tramiel. Tramiel cut far, far too deep into the company. He basically gutted the company. He did leave manufacturing for the existing XL line in tact, AFAIK. He saw clearly the XL line was profitable or he would have had zero hesitation to drop it all. Thirdly, the C64 was indeed extremely competitive from a cost and sales perspective. It was much cheaper to make and they made machines in vast quantities. The C64 won by being on the shelves. But let's be clear, it was cheaper and quality suffered a lot. Very few actually knew what the hardware capabilities were back then, but somehow they did know what was selling and what they could afford. It wasn't a huge price difference but it was enough.
when the c64 was release Atari had over 2000 titles.. no sure why anyone ever bought a c64 other than it was cheap and cheaply made with a high defect rate, I know I had a dealership who sold both.
@@davidschreiber1823 Price matters, especially in the mass consumer market, and defect rates only matter if they're high enough to make the mainstream news or set the proverbial grapevine on fire (like with the Coleco Adam). Capability also matters, which is why the C64 far outsold the even cheaper VIC-20, but when capability is roughly equal, price is mainly what matters (masses > classes in terms of sales numbers). By the way, the C64's defect rate went down and overall reliability went up over time, even as cost was going down. Typical consumers would never know the difference in terms of the big picture anyway.
I had an Atari 800, and it was really unbelievable. The graphics, and it's capabilities were so awesome. Way ahead of everything at the time. I think I got prolonged use out of my Atari 800, cause I also had a modem and was introduced to the BBS world thanks to my dad, who took me too a local BBS meeting. I was then exposed to the "online" world, before the internet. It was such an experience and fun time. I really believe it made me into the person I am today as corny as that sounds.
had the 800 go it in 1980 it was awesome. the only thing about the commodore was the sold 28 million and even commodore employee's recon 14 million were faulty but the shipped them anyway lol. still the c64 was very good it was a bit more flexable because of the kernal
What do you mean the C64 was more flexible because of the kernel? Someone can invent a new type of computer devise, write a driver for the Atari 8 bit, and it should run the new devise with programs written in 1979. The Atari had a true operating system where all I.O. was done the same for every devise. Want to write to the screen? Format an input output control block and jump to $E456. What to output to a printer? Format an input output control block and jump to $E456. Want to write to a floppy? Format an input output control block and jump to $E456. For the new devise you have to write drivers implementing certain operations (open, close, write, read, etc.) then all you have to do is... you guessed it. Format an input output control block and jump to $E456. Is the C64's kernel that powerful; that you can create a new computer component and it will work on a Basic program written 40 years ago?
I started out with an Atari 400, then onto a C64....amazing for a computer that was released 3 years before how it actually had certain better hardware features. Faster stock baud rate for loading games, a far superior Basic and a better colour palette. To the C64s advantage though is the glorious SID chip and its vast library of games, particularly in the european market, and that is what swayed me the most to 'upgrade' although for the most part it felt more like a side-step to have a machine that was more popular, hence supported better.
I grew up with Atari as a kid in UK. 400 and then 800xl with 1050 and 1020 plotter. It felt odd as most kids has Speccys or c64s or some other UK machine. I still have my Atari now in my collection incl 2 800xls and a 400, as well as Orics, dragon, speccy and the c64, plus4. Love the Atari more as it's just so Americana. An era of gaming when US ruled the gaming industry. I would love an 1200xl but they are rare as hens teeth now. All 8bits had their own charm and quirks and I fire them up depending on mood.
Mine too. I got my 400 in 1983 when Dixons were selling them off for £150 to make way for the XL range. Such a step up from the non-computers I'd had until then, a ZX80 and an '81 which were utter trash.
@@ensor2872 Yeah would of been same time. We had a proper ATARI Centre here in Birmingham we got ours from there then got The 800XL which is the one I own today with an sd card reader for floppy drive emulation. Cant beat a bit of Miner 2049er.
Some schools had Atari computers, which would account for a good bit of their sales. Commodore dominated home market. I didn't know anyone who owned an Atari, but knew a lot of people with Commodore.
This was a good video and I can certainly like the design of the Atari 800. It is a needle in the haystack here in Europe though. Guess there never was a proper PAL version. Also nice to see is why european machines are so nice to tinker with nowadays: we had no RF shielding inside. Power supplies could be built in without problems. No FCC messing up!
I chose an Atari 800 over an Apple II for my first computer mostly because of Star Raiders. A few years later at Synapse I wrote SynCalc for the Atari (later ported to the C64). Those were good times!
I remember SynCalc. Loved my 800 too. It was my first computer. Learned my first 5 or 6 computer languages on it.
I remember my mom used SynFile+ to keep track of all kinds of things. That suite of software was fantastic! Jack Tramiel should have gone to prison for what he did to Synapse.
@@johnhunt1725 Epyx too later on. Really self-defeating just to save a few quid.
Star Raiders was the bomb!!
@@Jeepers1984 Star Raiders was amazing, but seeing Rescue on Fractalus for the first time REALLY blew my mind! A 3D action game that used real time fractal graphic generation for the terrain? HOW? The C64 version was not bad, but: Less color shading AND a processor that ran 80% slower than the 800's. These two games really showed what MHz meant and why it became the most important benchmark on PCs later.
Absolutely love the Atari 8 bit computers. Looking forward to the next video 👍
Thanks - I've come to really admire this machine and really wish I'd had access to one earlier!
I got a 400 as soon as I could after I started work, it was great (apart form the keyboard!) the SIO was more like ADB than USB, but I can see the parallel. I had a Miracle WS3000 300baud modem rigged up to it in later years and used it on early BBS, especially Gosport Apricot as the sysop took time to tweak the setup to allow me to dial in manually!
Me too
Me too. I had a 400 and I upgraded it to 64k and a real keyboard. Loved that thing. Spent way too much money on it. Traded it for a car in the late 80’s.
@@peterhurstOne of the key engineers of SIO also worked on the USB standard, which is why the comparison is generally there. Honestly, I think SIO is better, as the majority of things daisy chained, which seems like a way better method of cable management. These days, the only thing I see like that are some keyboards have USB ports.
Joe Decuir is the man who worked on both.
ADB also used some daisy chaining, which was nice. It works well enough on my IIGS, but was there printers and disk drives, etc that can run on it like the SIO port?
I loved Atari 800 and C64. My friends had them and I had a Texas Instruments Home Computer which I also loved. Home Computers were one of the most exciting parts of gaming history. They gave us the closest thing we had to arcade experience at home. They all had their pros and cons and were fun to compare.
Atari 800 had a really good port of Donkey Kong and that was a huge deal back then. Going into the game crash and even after Home Computers were where it was at.
Indeed! It was so cool to get a game for your Atari 800 or C64, that was a descent remake of an Arcade game, that you didn't have to throw money into for every game! Software that was versions of arcade games were a big deal back then, eh?
There was a LOT of computer 'religion' back then - even more so than iPhone vs. Android today, but for similar reasons. Look, if you have saved up enough to buy one of these machines and the peripherals that went along with them, you wanted YOUR computer to 'win' - end of story. It wasn't just the hardware you'd have to replace, it was all the software too.
There were endless 'demos' back in the day where C64 users slagged on Atari users and vice-versa. I have one for my Atari that has various competitor logos being blasted to bits. I remember one Amiga demo from Holland where PC users were called 'farmers' (apparently derogatory for some strange reason). It went something like this, 'Hey! Do you use a PC?' and the answer was, 'No sir, I am not a farmer.' 😀
Today, you generally replace a phone within a few years, but you keep the software. Back then, we didn't know just how often we'd be upgrading in the future, so people were VERY territorial about their machines and the companies that built them.
I picked up an 800XL in 1991 from a secondhand shop. It came with about 2 Tesco bags worth of cassettes. I had a lot of fun messing around with it, even in 1991!
This was the best Atari 8-bit overview that I can remember. Excellent narration, storytelling and pacing. The 'Overview of the silicon' segment was so sharp it made me touch the screen!. Will subscribe and check out some more content
These things were built like tanks, back in the 80's my hi-fi separates system (so mostly metal rather than plastic) fell on top on my 800XL from a shelf, it left the keyboard bent in the middle but every key continued to work and the entire system kept going for another 5 years until I replaced it with a 130 XE.
That's amazing but not unexpected after taking a look at this machine! They really do remind me of the Beeb and the Electron in their build quality :)
@@TheRetroShack In North America, the Commodore PET and Apple II/II+/IIe computers were popular in schools because of their relative ruggedness. Unfortunately, the later Platinum IIe had a weak keyboard that would bend or break if you put any kind of force on it, and I've seen some such examples from specimens that had been used in schools (earlier IIes aren't nearly as delicate in this way).
Although Ataris tended to be well built (until the XE series), too, like non-PET Commodores, they tended to not be as appropriate for a school setting because of their various ports on the sides, fronts, and/or tops that were easily accessible (the Apple II's top lid was no issue because that was where the monitors sat). As for keyboards, the 800XL is (in)famous for having several rather different types. While they're all pretty sturdy, the type with the Mylar membrane (underneath), which is one of the worst in several ways, is by far the strongest. Having an all-metal frame, and pretty thick at that, it could seriously double as a lethal weapon for self-defense. I have one of those, and it's not the best to type on, and the Mylar sometimes needs restoration, but if I were to ever need an improvised bullet shield, it would be one of the first things I'd grab. :)
@@rbrtck Fascinating stuff and absolutely agree about the port placement for school use - it's one of the most genius aspects of the BBC Micro - where all of the I/o ports are actually underneath the machine - and many were bolted to desks with metal straps or fixed to metal monitor stands :) :)
@@rbrtck never ever saw or heard of a pet in schools, saw lots of apple and some Atari 800.
@@davidschreiber1823 It depends on your school district. In mine, there were PETs from the start in the late 1970s, various models of Apple II through the 1980s, some IBM PCs, occasionally Macs, and even, rarely, the Apple IIGS. I never saw a single Atari in any school, nor any Commodore that wasn't a PET, although I realize that some school districts somewhere had them. PETs were pretty common in schools in general, but many districts started with Apple IIs or Atari 800s instead. Usually the ones with PETs started using computers earlier than most others.
What makes a presentation great? It's when a viewer may know almost everything about the subject, but still gets amazed and mesmerized.
That’s very kind - thank you and glad you enjoyed it :)
My mother got me the 800+1050 for a birthday one year, I will never forget it and I still have it! I also owned the 1040ST, both systems ahead of their time.
The 8-bit Ataris were SO far ahead of their time and was really the last hardware Atari developed themselves. The 5200 was a failure because of the controls and lack of backwards compatibility. They might have done better if it was more like the XEGS, which is amazing.
The funny thing is, if you knew how the 9-pin controller inputs worked, you could come up with a solution that would support the amount of input buttons found on something like a SEGA controller if not more. (It could make out a lot of different voltage values which could be keyed to buttons or combos thereof.) Alternately the paddle inputs would also allowed to have an analog stick with a 256 value resolution on each axis. (But Atari only used that for a pair of paddles to each 9-pin plug.)
Looking back, the company was really dumb with some things even if it's hardware itself could be considered rather clever.
It'd be funny to see if any hobbyists ever make "backport" hardware stuff that takes advantage of things that Atari should have but never did.
C64 = Far better sprites, multi-color high resolution (like the ZX) and of course the SID. The best advantage the Atari had was POKEY, not for sound but the hardware keyboard debounce and a very capable RS-232-style serial controller.
This argument about "The SID" has become an Argument from ignorance fallacy. SID was the best synth ever found on a home computer but it was just that...a synth. Pokey was a hybrid, as Miner explained in his talks, Paula was the evolution of Pokey in all four channels (and a low pass filter).
Its a good idea to visit the ASMA project page where there are more then 7.000 songs and check composers like BEWU, Staxx, Voss, Miker, X-Ray, Caruso, Vins Cool, Samurai, X-Ray, Ce-Pumpkin, Miker, MCH, PG, Wieczor, DJ V, Chiummo, V0yager, Gnome Design, Zilq, Cedyn, Lorien.
SID was good but it was a dead end for the industry.
I actually chose an Atari 600xl with a 1028 tape drive instead of a C64 with a floppy drive. I thought I was an Atari fan, but apparently I found out that I actually was a Jay Miner fan, for my best computer after the Atari 8 bit family was the Amiga. Great stuff ANF fantastic memories!
Most of us share the same journey.
I had the 800XL and loved it. Had the accompanying disk drive and a modem so I could login to the local BBS. It's what got me into computing.
This video made my day. I loved commodore back in the day owning a c64 but always was a little envious of my friend who had an Atari 800. Many a heated insult was lobbed at each others choice of platform. In the end they were both truly great lines of 8 bit computers.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The Action! compiler made me envious; to the degree I wondered "Why isn't this available on the C64?" which I had. Hearing Bill Wilkonson interviewed (Antic Podcast #7, 22-dec-14) saying they should have written for the C64 also was amusing, and also sad.
I had both. The Atari was engineered much better. The disk drive didn't go out of alignment, ran much faster, and the commands to copy stuff and such was much easier
Agreed, I had a 64 but it was obvious from the magazines I read that Atari had a more powerful BASIC with more commands I would have loved to use. The Commodore 128 did finally have a much improved BASIC, but it never really took off, and by that time the Amiga and the first decent IBM clones were coming out which spelled the beginning of the end for 8-bit.
@@mjp29 The C-64 disk drive was pathetic. I had one, and one on my Apple ][. I never had one for my Atari 1200XL however.
You could brew a pot of coffee by the time the C-64 loaded a program. The early C-64's were also very prone to crashes, and to do word processing or anything other than games was risky.
Great video. I love my Atari's. I've recently upgraded one of my 800 XL's with a Sophia board for DVI video. :-D It looks amazing. One thing you didn't mention was the Atari 800 had S-Video abilities in 1979. Even though we didn't call it S-Video at the time.
I'll try and remember to mention that in the next video :)
my most dissapointing moment with Atari:
connecting it to a Sony TV with s-video and seeing that 384x200 mode is a cheat.
@@archieil Oh man, that's odd. My experiences were exactly the opposite. Crystal clear with no flicker. Even on crappy TV's.
@@cbmeeks Do you know what am I talking about?
I doubt Sophia is able to correct wide mode as the problem is based on the moment ANTIC starts feeding video signal with data. I'm not sure if all modes have the same starting moment when video is getting data from ANTIC.
@@archieil I was talking about S-Video.
8:54 The specs weren't nearly as important as how the machines came across to third party developers. Atari built a very intriguing and advanced computer, but wouldn't tell you how it worked. That put them in a hole in 1979 versus Apple (because Wozniak would probably debug your Apple code if you caught him on the right day and asked nicely) and when the well-documented C64 hit the market, all the copies of the belated De Re Atari in the world weren't going to hold back the tide.
Yep, they had everything you needed to know in the form of very detailed technical documents that you had to pay a hefty fee to obtain. Coupling that with their litigation at anyone that they felt was pirating their IP didn't make for a very good image.
I remember reading about a teen that obtained Atari technical information "illegally", programmed a very good Pac man game for Atari computers, and ended up getting sued by them for copyright infringement.
He ended up giving his versions of the characters mustaches as a joke to "hide" their appearance.
yeah, exactly.
8-bit Atari competes with C-64 very well having all official tech documentation of both but C-64 wins heavily using sprite multiplication (invented around 90s) in many areas the same as Atari wins heavily in 3d games without any additional accelerators.
with accelerator C-64 wins with ease of programming of anything not 3-d but Atari wins with everything else. C PLUS/4 is better than Atari but needs even better acceleration than Atari and has similar level of programming difficulty of anything more advanced.
The thing C-64 really wins with Atari = simplicity of programming, Atari had some concept from 2600 which were too barebone in 80s. ZX Spectrum used strange idea of coding but it was more abstrtact. Atari had it 100% influcned by video signal and it required slightly different style of thinking.
For truth sprite multiplication in C-64 was based on 2600/Atari way of programming anything.
the most important thing from my point of view:
C-64+dedicated composite monitor = good quality of display
Atari+dedicated composite monitor = still artifacting
Atari never fixed quality of video output and C-64 had 3? different SIDs used with change of sound output requiring different players for each of them for any more complicated tune.
Software support was definitely a huge selling point for computers back when they were all incompatible with each other. The openness of the Apple II system and its "ecosystem" (ironic considering the closed, proprietary Apple of today) resulted in massive software (and hardware) support that alone made it a desirable computer to own, regardless of its technical limitations and even its price. While the Atari did manage to get a decent software library started years before the C64 even came out, it quickly fell behind while the C64 would rival the Apple II before long in this respect. The cost of joining the club was too steep (until later), while even the C64's included _User Manual/Guide_ offered most of what one needed to know in order to start writing software right away, and the comprehensive _Commodore 64 Programmer's Reference Guide_ was actually released to the public before the computer itself. In order to get support, you first have to give support, and like Apple, it came from Commodore easily, openly, immediately, and for cheap.
@@archieil One of the Atari's general weaknesses is resolution. On the C64, everything is based on 320 pixels horizontal resolution (hi-res for short), including sprites and smooth scrolling, while on the Atari almost everything is based on 160 horizontal resolution, including player-missile graphics (sprites) and smooth scrolling.
The Atari does have a couple of 320 resolution modes, but they are kind of treated as afterthoughts in most respects. The dot or pixel clock is exactly twice the color carrier frequency, which is why there is color artifacting with hi-res graphics (and text), just like with the Apple II, although the latter has a color-killer circuit to make text more readable (as monochrome) and a clever way of exploiting color artifacts to give it 6 consistent colors instead of 4 varying ones. The C64 uses a pixel clock with a slightly higher frequency, resulting in slightly narrower pixels (a side-effect) and the cancellation of artifacts (the real reason), which is why GEOS is usable even through RF on a TV set. The Atari, in contrast, takes none of this into account, and just puts the pixels out there, come what may. This is why its hi-res graphics are unclear, and even the artifact colors are different for each model.
Even games that use hi-res graphics and try to take advantage of artifacting often don't look right, as a result. Atari didn't do anything to ensure the consistency of artifact colors. _Ultima III_ might have purple trees and green water in some Atari models, and the right colors in others. You just can't rely on anything that is hi-res on the Atari, except for the character set, which is designed to minimize the effects of artifacting, although it still doesn't look as clear/clean as on the Apple II and C64.
What a great video. The first computer I purchased for myself with my own money was a second hand Atari 1200XL, had no idea back in the 80s it was so RARE. That machine was brilliant and the ergonomics were some of the best of ANY machine of that era. It ran extremely HOT though I never had a problem with it. It lead to me purchasing a 400, two 800s, 3 800xls, and a 130xe. All were second hand and cheap as chips as everyone “upgraded” to Atari ST, Apple IIgs, Macintosh, PC, or Amiga. I amassed 1000s of floppies and dozens of peripherals, books and magazines as I would happily take them off people’s hands to make room for their shiny new putty colored desktop computers. Later in the early 90s I too sold everything for a freshly discounted brand new Amiga 500 (on its way out at the time). I never had 10% of the fun with the Amiga that I had with those old Ataris. Over the decades I’ve owned dozens of computers both new and retro. Most recently picked up TheC64 Maxi which really is quite brilliant. I had actually purchased a Nintendo Switch last year but just did not enjoy the gameplay like the old 8-bits...there really is just something magical about those 8-bit machines isn’t there? Keep up the great work! Subscribed and Liked!!
Welcome to the channel! Glad you're enjoying the content and thanks for sharing :)
I had an Atari 800 back in the early 80s. I get the feeling that the engineers had relatively free reign with the design. For example: the 4 joystick ports were not only inputs but also outputs. While we never got it working, my Dad and I tried to build a cable to hook up his IBM PC printer to the joystick ports!
Now that would have been an interesting project!
You however did not need that as there were quite popular Atari SIO to centronics cables. I used to use Star dot matrix printer with my Atari.
It's very possible to use the joystick ports to print. They are capable of a good throughput. A special device driver would need to be written, which should not take too long to program but would need some technical skill.
@@vitoswat General Electric had a line of centroninc printers (TXP 1000 and TXP 8100) which had an optional interface for the Atari (I believe they had some extra RAM in the interface which could be used as a buffer).
Even the 6502 was custom. The original 400/800 used a stock 6502 with some extra external circuitry to allow it to halt the Antic chip. This was built into the new 6502C (not to be confused with the stock enhanced 65C02) "Sally". Got mine for Christmas in '85. Still have it but it's in bits. Planning on doing an extreme refurb one day.
Glad to see this. Less than a week ago I was in a discussion with an old friend re: the Atari 8-bits vs the Commodores. As an Atari 800 owner, I of course argued for the Jay Miner-designed machines. :)
Never owned (or even seen) an Atari 8bit computer, but very interesting as a precursor to the Amiga. Really enjoyed this video.
Glad you enjoyed it :)
I think you missed an important point. These machines were successful. There are a lot more PCs than there are Macs but that doesn't make them unsuccessful.
As an 130xe user I found myself feeling jealous of the games that the c64 (or the CPC my friend had) which were all over the magazines while the Atari would only get obscure releases if any. Still the A8 has a huge following and a lot of development. That is important.
I think a major drawback was the BASIC that came with it. It had some good ideas and some bad design choices that made it much slower than it should be. Strings being arrays of chars and variables (and line numbers) being floats were two of them.
I never tried Atari BASIC, but what's wrong with strings being arrays, basically? It was the same in Sinclair BASIC and others, and that approach is standard in most modern languages.
Many BASICs also had only floating point variables, although those implementing integer variables could be faster, of course. Usually not more than by a factor 2-3 or so though, compared to floats on the same BASIC. Lots of overhead masked the slow floating point computations in all but the most advanced (often half compiled) variants. I'm thinking of Cromemco, Luxor ABC 800, and Acorn/BBC Micro BASICs. Some variants of HP Basic was pretty quick as well.
@spindizzy Really? I more or less assumed he meant that strings were not garbage collected, like they are in M$ Basic. (Or rather the results of operations on them.)
@@herrbonk3635 basically in any basic you have this:
Input name$
In Atari basic
Dim name$(20)
Input name$ and name$ can be 20 characters long. This means that you can't have matrices of strings which is often necessary.
I don't know about zx basic but gw, locomotive and BBC didn't do it that way. Also if you look at benchmarking tests often done in old magazines Atari basic would always come last and some tests weren't able to be performed.
Macs definitely were unsuccessful, as they had to drop all their hardware and software, and create a new architecture and new OS from scratch in 2001. No one does it unless they encounter a total failure.
Enjoyed the video. I originally had and used an Atari 800XL from 84-87. It remains my most fondly remember system from the 80's. Even now I have a 256K 800XL that's usually my choice for my retro computer gaming fix. Also have an original 800 that I restored 6 years ago. That thing really was built like a tank. I also love the C64 which was my main computer from 87-92 when I moved to a PC, but I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the 800XL.
Glad you enjoyed it - recommended games for the 800XL?
@@TheRetroShack Jumpman is my favorite game on it, the C64 version feels lacking after playing the Atari version. All the Lucasfilm 3D games play more fluid than their C64 counterparts. Montezuma's Revenge, Mr. Robot and his Robot Factory, Miner 2049er and Mountain King are all good fun too.
That shielding, especially on the 800 was a good part of the cost. The FCC was really harsh on early computers the C64 benefited from the battles won with regulators. I had a friend with a trs80 that you could watch on another tv in another room.
To be fair, Commodore fought that fight along with the rest of the industry, earlier versions of the VIC 20 had some rather heavy shielding. By the time the last 64's rolled off the line in the early 90's I believe some could use cardboard, so much had changed.
@@remo27 Yep, my early 80s C64 and C16 have stiff metal shielding, meanwhile my late 80s C64 has cardboard as you say!
cardboard with foil over it
Wonder how much the 800's aluminum block cost. Guessing around $20. There is an 800XL parts cost spreadsheet out there but never seen one for the 800. IIRC the 800XL keyboard cost them $8 and the CPU was about $5.
@@gamedoutgamer Yeah but if you double the cost for assembly, packaging and shipping and add it again for profit the cost of everything goes up by 3 and the retailer doubles that you end up paying 48 bucks for the keyboard.
I got an Atari 800 in winter 1980 and it was $1000+ for Atari 800 with 16K and Cassette tape. It cost about another $700+ to get 48K more ram and a dusk drive. The c64 was like $400 with cassette and 64K !
STAR RAIDERS cost $100 ! Space invaders was $20 on cassette tape
I remember wanting an Atari 800 in 1983.. in the end i ended up getting a Commodore 64 for Christmas '83. The main issue i found with Atari 8 bit machine was that Atari kept changing the model names Atari 800, Atari 600XL, Atari 800XL, Atari 65XE and Atari 130XE. Commodore on the otherhand build the same commodore 64 for the whole life of the machine.. Commodore did do low cost machines such as the Commodore 16 & Plus4.. but the Commodore 64 remained king.
I think it was mostly down to retail prices, why C64 became such a big seller. Like C64 had better sound yet Atari 8bit computers had better video signal quality. Such a strange thought, that the best selling machine had the worst video signal.
Atari did many huge mistakes in marketing. On the other hand Commodore produced a robust architecture and made it available in supermarkets and toy stores at a good price.
The 800/5200 systems were virtually TWINS!
I was an Atari 800 user at the age of 11, but I had to admit that per-character color control and multi-color sprites of the C64 made it an easier machine to write arcade style games for.
Yes but the Atari 800 was like 3-4 years early, which even in those tech days was a long time. What Atari missed was an opportunity to update the marchine when the 800XL or XE's came. A new 16 colour graphics mode with slighty better resolution. A new sprite system so better games could be created, and update the sound chip with 1-2 new additional features to synth like the C64. Improved tape turbo loading baud rate which should have been better. They missed a trick as elsewhere the Atari beat the C64 in every other department generally.
@@MrKarlyboy That would have been Jay the Amiga, but Jay Miner was driven out of Atari long before the xl line came out and he took the Amiga Idea with him!
I am quite amazed how Crownland looks. Seems it's by far the most advanced piece of game software on the architecture.
AtariBlast! or Prince of Persia are the ones to see for XL/XE!
Space Harrier, Final Assault, Stunt car racer, Time Wizard, Albert...there are so many homebrew and late games that compliment the abilities of the system.
I had a 400 then traded it for an 800 back in 1982, great machines but the reason it did not do as well was due to Atari trying to control software made for the VCS, they didn't want anyone else producing games for it and until Activision came along few other companies did. This resulted in a lot of software vendors to bypass the Atari 8-bit line and make games for the C64. I always hated it when a big game came out without any Atari support.
True....plus the machines came out early, they were expensive and when the prices came down....it was the "old machine" of the bunch.
This is not entirely true. Atari did release the full documentation in '82 in order to compete with the C64. Yes some damage had already been done by the time but it's fair to give them some credence because the industry was very young and everyone was pioneering. Hindsight is always 20/20. Sounds like a corporate decision more than engineering.
I loved the Atari 8bit machines. I got my first one from Dixons who were selling the 800XL with floppy drive for £150 (I think). I still have them in the attic with numerous floppies, cartridges, paddle controllers, roller ball, printer and touchpad. I also have a 130XE which I bought when the 800XL stopped working. I really need to get them unboxed and give them a work out.
You didn't mention the modem that they could connect to. The Atari 830.
LOTS of love for these machines it seems :) - And yes, I'll mention the modem next time :)
@@TheRetroShack Atari released several modems during the life of the system. The early ones like the 830 were RS-232 and required the 850 parallel/serial interface to connect the machine, later units from the 835 on had SIO ports removing the need for the 850.
I have a chance to pick up an Atari 800 this weekend, so this video is very timely for me. Thanks!
Go for it! Hope you enjoy it :) :)
I was quite surprise myself when I got a hold of an Atari 600xl how technologically strong it was. Upgraded the memory to 64k and gutted and modded the RF module to output composite video and sound. Just as solid as an 800xl!
You know it's old when you have to COMPOSITE mod it.
@@KopperNeoman Actually the atari 8bit line was the first home computer with S video capabilities. The only thing you had to do in some models of the XL series was to connect the Luma and Chroma pins to their signals , a pretty straight forward procedure. I was lucky with my 800xl since the connections were there from the factory.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Your 800XL might be an XLF machine if it had chroma/luma connected. =) They had 128K.
I was so happy when I picked up a classic Atari 800 at a car boot sale along with a disk drive and a couple of disk games. For me it really is the Cadillac of 8-bit machines.
I got lucky many years ago. I went to a flea market in Milwaukee and found a guy who had a big box full of Atari computer hardware and software. Included were two Atari 800s (both still worked), a floppy drive, a cassette drive, a number of cartridges and floppies all for............. $25 !!!
@@bjbell52 that's a bargain!! Nicely done
Hi! It seems you're connecting the dropping price of the Atari 400 and 800 with the video game crash. It had pretty much nothing to do with the crash, and everything to do with Commodore's very aggressive pricing on their VIC-20 and Commodore 64.
They are connected. The transition from home video game systems was part of the problem for the video game market and Atari were absolutely tied up in both camps. The Video Game Crash of 1983 was worsened massively by the introduction of cheaper home computers and Atari came off the worst. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983
@@TheRetroShack Atari as a whole was greatly affected by the video game crash, but home computers were still in demand throughout the crash. Commodore's success is proof of that. Atari didn't have to drop their computer prices because nobody wanted computers; they had to drop their prices because Commodore had very competitive products (the VIC-20 and C64) at a lower price than the 400/800.
@@8_Bit Yep. Owning their own fab was a great asset to Commodore.
@@remo27 That point is made in the IEEE Spectrum article, there's no data for the development cost on the 6567 & 6581. "Although custom chips are usually considered expensive, the
C-64 chips were not. Not only were development costs absorbed in company overhead..."
Great video, the Ataris have always been my favourite 8-bit machines.
Just one thing, those RAM chips are not 8K chips. They are 64K * 1bit chips, hence you need 8 of them to make up a byte...it's written right on the top of them "4164".
Well you can consider me well and truly schooled :) :)
I did a hack on mine, back when it was my main computer (!) to replace the 64K rams with 128K rams. It did some bank switching magic to swap out the upper 16K chunks. A modified DOS used it as ram disk.
@@TheRetroShack you cant always go by the type number that easily though, i have some HM4864s that are equivalent to 4164s 😉 plus there are other very different number equivalents, but generally they normally do indicate size, 4164, 1 bit 64k, 4464 4bit 64k, eproms 27256 256 'bits', aka 32k bytes, static ram 6264, 64k 'bit' , 8k byte ,,and so on...
I look back fondly on my old 600XL and 800XL computers, as well as my C64--they were a lot of fun!
The 800XL was my first computer! Thank you for this video.
Well, my handle says it all. Sadly I have 2 C64 and none of 8 bit Ataris in my possession now, but that will soon change.
Most games played better on the 800XL than they did on the 64. And most XL games played fine on the 800 or even the 400. The 256-color graphics just plain looked better too; even though the resolution was crazy low. There weren't any C64 games like Zone Ranger; just a bad Defender clone with not enough moving objects to pull off the effect.
The best way to enjoy 8-bits in the 80s was to have friends with the other platforms. Then you could get to play the best games on all of them.
IMO it comes down to two things: Software and marketing. Commodore seemed to have much more software and was better marketed over Atari (until the 16-bit ST came out). Most of the 80's micro computers were much of a muchness H/W wise, and what often tipped the balance was price and software availability. Commodore software was EVERYWHERE when I was a kid in England, and often priced for budget (£1.99-£2.99) as well as the big box full price games £10 and up and a Commodore was not much more expensive than the Spectrum towards the end. Spectrum was always seen as the poor mans computer and the graphics weren't as good, plus the fact that peripherals were more difficult to connect (Kemptson joystick etc) so after you'd bought all the expensive peripherals such as extra ram, joystick add on etc, it could have been more expensive than a Commodore.
I also think the move from console to computer wasn't working in Atari's favour. Computersin general were for games and the console already had a huge library. So if all kids wanted was games, the incentive to spend $1000 for a computer that didn't really give you more than the woody console didn't make financial sense. It's a bit like the reverse of what Commodore tried to do with the GS. The GS wasn't much cheaper than an actual C64 and only had the cartridge slot (and not many games available) so what was the point? You had a cartridge slot on a C64 AND the ability to play (cheap) cassette games, so didn't make sense at all.
only afgter 85, from 79 to 85 Atari had massive amounts of software.
Really, have you sat an Atari 800 next to an Atari 2600 and seen the difference in graphics? I could have bought an Atari 2600 back in 80s, instead I got an Atari 400, with 16 k , and damn glad I did,
I hate when people even compare what the Atari 8 bit was to the 2600. Not until the C64 came out did a computer even challenge the graphics capabilities of the Atari 8 bit line.
And when the Atari' first came out, Apples were 3 times the price.
What hurt Atari was no advertising, almost zero in the US.
when I would bring people into my home and they seen star raiders on my 400, their damn jaws dropped. and they had 2600s,
so no sir, it was not just a bit more of an 2600 , it was a hell of a leap forward .
and the only reason C64s dropped in price was tramiel wanted to bury texas instruments, so he made almost no profit on the C64 .
and Atari soon dropped their prices. Not all people that bought computers in the day were kids. maybe over there?, but not here in the US.
have a nice day...
@@moronicmisfit9148 Commodore also made their own chips, where as many others had to buy them. That's why they could price the C64 so low.
Cost and Price must be justifiable for a game machine since most people didn't really know what else they could do with a computer. Shelling their product in Toy stores and Supermarkets also helped their numbers.
What a great video! I haven't experienced the Atari 8-bit computers' prime firsthand, but I remember playing the XEGS with my father and being amazed by the graphics and sound. All we had before was an Atari 2600, after all
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it :)
The XEGS was essentially a 65XE with a detachable keyboard and built-in Missile Command. So it actually was a fully fledged Atari 8-bit computer. One thing I really liked about its release was a lot of games that were only available on disk before were rereleased on cartridge.
I hope next video comes very soon,
I never get enough of your videos,
any new episode about MSX machines, I remember that you mentioned there will be another one if I'm not mistaken,
Thanks and have a great day
Thanks very much and glad you enjoy the channel :) And yes, BIG MSX video coming very soon :)
@@TheRetroShack Excited already
Thanks
My first computer. Originally had the tape drive, then added a 1050 floppy. Upgraded the floppy with a 'Happy Computers' chip mod to make it a programmable drive. Had a pen plotter (1020) for it, too. My first printer was an Okimate 10.
I keep hearing about these plotters :) - I'm on the hunt! :)
Great memories owning this. The Atari machines were a bit more expensive back in the day but I’d argue the XL line was probably the best looking 8 bit range ever produced. Matching tape and disk drives, FOUR different printer models, memory module, touch tablet and all in the same design livery. And then the ultimate 8 bit machine that never was, the 1450XLD…..
The 5200 would have been the ADAM AND APPLE KILLER AND 1200 ALTERNATE!
Some custom chips, display lists... It seems to be the granpa of the Amiga!
Still own my 800, also an XL. several drives. Nice collection of floppies and cartridges. These things don’t break. Played a nice round of Joust just last night. People think I’m nuts.
Stil have the 800XL and 130XE, sold my first one the 600XL unfortunaly. But I kept the assesories, the cassette, the touch tablet and the plotter. That plotter was so fun to see working! I remember to have made a program to calculate the prime numbers and it run for days.
I might have to get my hands on one of those plotters - sounds fun!
@@TheRetroShack they are, they work with a kind of balpen’s. You can see the writing of each letter but then very fast. Also they work with paper on a rol so you can draw very large figures. What I remember is making geometrical figures that where like artforms. And also refill the pens because they where so expensive.
I own an Atari 800XL Computer System and I still use it today. I worked at one place where the lady down the hall had a Commodore 64 that I looked at and I thought that that is a good Computer System, but I noticed that some of the things that one would do with it could be done faster and more efficiently on the Atari 800XL instead.
I've been revisiting via emulation in my MAME cabinet which has an RGB CRT monitor and classic Wico joysticks from the early 80s.
I've been realizing the Atari 8 bit largely seems to be better than the C-64. But I had all of them in the early 80s.
A friend of mine had an Atari 800 in 1980. I loved it, and when we shopped for a home computer the following year, the TI 99/4a looked pretty good for half the price. The membrane keyboard on the Atari 400 made it a difficult choice. But the main thing, on the store shelves there was far more software & accessories for the many TI glass display cases vs the one small Atari display case. Little did we know the fate the TI would have before long.
We bought a C-64 in early 1983 for $150. It was way cheaper than the Atari 800. I don't recall the Atari 800 falling to under $200 in 1983 like this video mentions. In fact the Atari 1200XL was around $1000 and I heard the Atari 800 cheaper when it was out, but not anywhere near the price of the C-64.
It was the price of the C-64 that made it a popular machine. And because it was so cheap, lots of software and items for it appeared on store shelves. The amount of items for Atari 8 bit computers was minuscule in comparison.
In late 1983 we bought a used Apple ][ Plus, but still had our other computers. Around 1985 I got an Atari 1200XL on clearance, but there just didn't seem to be a lot of things made for it you could find in stores here in New England. We didn't have the Internet to help find them.
Looking back now and checking out a lot of games, it seems there was a lot more software made for the Atari computers than I thought. We wouldn't know back in the early 80s. I generally prefer the graphics of the Atari 8 bit to the C-64, and the kinds of games made for it. The Pokey sound chip is surprisingly capable vs the better known SID chip.
I feel it was the marketing and price of the Atari 8 bit computers early on that allowed the C-64 to be the dominate machine. Yet some how, the Apple ][''s managed to stay popular despite the huge cost difference, but they were market away from just games and sold largely because of the other tasks you could do with them too.
There is a homebrew game called "Atari Blast! " that really demonstrates what the old 1979 technology can do when given more ram and some creative programmers. Apparently this game can run on a 16k Atari 400 computer via the cartridge version. I haven't seen a game for the C-64 nearly as impressive, and being a fan of the Atari arcade games and the 2600, there is a connection between them on the Atari 8 bit computer line missing from the C-64 that I appreciate.
I was given a C-64 for my birthday in 1984 when I was nine years old.
That was the thing you had to have back then, at least in Germany and Austria. Unfortunately, due to this Commodore hegemony, I had little contact with other systems at that time. In the 8-bit era, almost everyone with an affinity for computers at our school (~1200 pupils) had a C-64 or C-128, at most 5 had a Schneider CPC (the Amstad CPC franchise in the German-speaking world).
Other systems, such as the Apple II or the Atari 8-bit family, we knew only from hearsay or from computer magazines. They were also considered inferior and antiquated, they somehow had a 70s smell to them - the worst image you could have in the 80s.
Only later in life (thanks to the internet, retrocomputing, emulators, etc.) did I find out that this was a completely unjustified prejudice, at least in the case of the Atari 8-bit line. It was way ahead of its time, technically very advanced and the true predecessor of the Amiga. Unlike Commodore, Atari also managed to keep their computers backwards compatible throughout the 8-bit era and not release one incompatible, sometimes obscure, insular cashcow system after another.
Please don't misunderstand me: I love the C-64 and I don't mean to belittle its superior 2D animation and sound capabilities. And it is absolutely crazy what is still squeezed out of the old C-64 "breadbox" today. But the Atari shone with its wide colour palette, its almost 80% faster CPU, its better 3D capabilities and its 4 sound channels. It unfortunately still doesn't get the recognition and attention it actually deserves. Back then, there was a much smaller selection of games, beyond the simple early 80s games, than with Commodore. And even today in the retrocomputing and demo scene, the system doesn't receive the same attention as the C-64, and amazing games like "Eye of the Beholder" or "Sonic the Hedgehog" unfortunately don't exist (yet). The horizontal shooter classics are also missing. Sadly.
Things in the retro-computing and demo scene are far better than you think for the Atari 8bit platform. Its the third most vibrant 8bit homebrew community (behind c64 and speccy) with huge titles been released each year i.e. Trax(Chaos engine), Space Harrier, Stunt car racer, Pang , Bomb Jack, Prince of persia, Total Eclipse, shared homebrew titles like Dimos Quest (amiga), Yoomp(C64), Assembloids(C64), Tony (Amiga, C64), quality demos and many hardware solutions (memory, sound and graphics upgrades, cartridges loading mediums etc)and video/sound players taking advantage of its video capabilities.
I can understand why people outside this specific community think that things are dry but that's not the case.
Oh, a trip on memory lane... I started with programming on a 800XL - a marvelous machine indeed!
Couldn’t agree more :)
Loving the content, bringing back memories of looking enviously at the Atari 800s in the local John Lewis's when we only had a ZX81.
Glad you're enjoying the channel :) There's not much comparison between the Zeddy and the A8 :) :) They both have a keyboard :)
Sharing this on my Twitter so all my Commodore friends can see it.
Should I be expecting a backlash? :) :)
And the Atari 5200 X Keyboard was being developed with a computer module add-on as well, it was so close. 😔🇺🇸💪⚡️
The keyboard/keypads for the 400/5200 and non-centering controllers were failures for both, they knew they needed to move on at that moment.
10:53
The Retro Shack: "...800 XL one of the nicest looking 8 bit machines ever made..."
Me : Laughing in Atari 65XE (and 130XE)
have both, XE line looks good but it resembles a plastic toy next to my XL machines. TO be fair if the plastics are in good condition it does well....but they are cheap and age badly in hot environment.
An Atari 800 was my first computer, it was quite a machine at the time. The big three then were the Atari 800, the Apple II, and the Commodore 64. There was also the TRS-80 with it's own fanbase, but it was kind of on the sidelines. The Atari was clearly the one with the most potential, it had the dual cartridges (few uses for the 2nd ever came around) and it had an external bus that never really saw its potential, nothing ever happened with it. The Atari was the first home computer to ever be UL listed and you could use it with out taking out TV on the whole block. I remember a friend who played around with mine and was amazed how much nicer it was than his Apple II, much to his surprise. The C64 had its features, but always seemed like a kludge to me. I still think the Atari is the most fun machine to program, one you learn how to work with all the chips, the 6502, the POKEY, The ANTIC, and the GITA you can really have some fun. Many of the arcade games at the time had what were really Atari 800 guts that had been customized for the particular game. The Ataris were also built like tanks and could take it (mine still works), I remember an early MIDI setup that used an Atari 800 to control it, the developers told me they picked the 800 because it was the only one you could drop and it would still work. I guess its the way the cards played out that the Atari 8 bit line never saw its full potential. I did most of my programming in Assembler using the Macro Assembler, but the Basic language in the cartridge was pretty capable for such a tiny language. It was such a pretty architecture.
Thanks for sharing - very interesting!
The Atari 8-bits are kind of like a time capsule, the lack of software support and development by the mid-1980s means the majority of it's good game library is pretty much stuck in the late 70s/early 80s era, whereas the C64's popularity saw it supported well into the 1990s and a lot of the later C64 games simply wipe the floor with the Atari. On the flip side though, the early 80s C64 games VS the Atari and it's a much closer match, with the Atari probably coming out slightly on top in terms of decent games. I got an Atari 65XE for my collection earlier this year and that was the first time I'd ever used one in person, they were pretty much dead & gone by the time I got my first C64 as a kid.
Yes, I can't help but wonder what would have happened if the documentation, support and talent were there for the machine earlier on - may have been an interesting race :)
all Atari 8bit computer has the same hardware as a rehash from 800, 400, 800XL, 600XL, 65XE, 130XE, till XEGS all software is compatible among them but its old hardware if you compare to C64 Chipset.
a proof of how far can going A8bit hardware is found on the latest homebrew games i.e. Space Harrier or more recently Prince of Persia... But despite that, C64 old software and new homebrew games are much...much better, VIC II and SID chip win by far...
Wipe the floor with Atari 800..? really....??, the C64.......?
yea, ok,
Maybe the C64 has a little leg up on the Atari, after all, it was born 3 years later , which is like 12 years, in dog years, or something to that effect.
And maybe the SID chip could play pretty musical notes,
BUT to say the C64 could wipe the floor with the Atari? BS...
The Atari has a rich palette of colors, all of which with display list interrupts , can be produced on the screen at the same time.
Its sprite system, with only 5 sprites can not only be reproduced over and over again with Dlists, down the screen, but with clever programming, also be reused on the same lines , given some distance between the two.
Before the Atari 8 bit, you had the Apple II computer, which though I love the great and powerful WOZ, was under powered when it came to a computer like the Atari 8 bit line. SO yea, the Atari did what the C64 could do, years before it was a tramiel wet dream, and totally stomped the Vic 20.
Oh and for proof of what the Atari can and still does, and why, "No".. the C64 will never mop the floor up with the Atari, check out this colorful game called "Albert".
th-cam.com/video/ZNfWa4CyehE/w-d-xo.html
And check out any of the new games and demos produced with the Atari,
and you'll see,
the Atari 800 might not have all the bells and whistles the C64 does, but its right up the C64's ass, pushin it on a broom.
Not bein mopped up by it.
Oh and one last comment, Star Raiders, 8k cart, best 3D home game of its time. top 20 game in computer magazines, 10 years running.
nuff said....drops mic... gets a beer.
Atari 8-bit computers were very popular in Poland in the early 90's. C64 vs 8-bit Atari was the biggest platform war back then. This war extended to Amiga vs Atari ST. Even today Polish retro community still can't decide which was better with some C64 fans from back then admitting that Atari 8-bit are much more interesting.
Atari 8-bit computers were so popular in Poland that Polish developers were making games for these computers and multiple publishers were releasing them. I don't know how many games were developed, but recently Retronics managed to bring 100+ Polish Atari games in new boxed editions.
Also there's a global trend of exploring less known retro hardware, since we know nearly everything about C64, Amiga, ZX Spectrum etc.
Early PCs are one of such platform. Tandy 1000 is especially interesting, since it was quite popular in USA at some point, but everyone forgot about it for over 20 years. Now 8-bit Atari computers are getting global recognition.
The Atari 800 was huge. The reason for this was because of stringent FCC regulations regarding interference. Much of the system board was attached to aluminum shielding which made the system more robust, but expensive to manufacture. The XL models were released later, but were not fully compatible with the older 400/800 machines as their memory locations were different, causing certain games to not work. Atari released translator disk, which loaded the older operating system to allowed the incompatible games to work. Alas, with the North American Video Game crash of 1983, Atari was in serious financial trouble, losing a whopping $536 million! Faced with inventory they couldn’t sell, Atari took those to a landfill in Alamogordo, New Mexico and buried them. The consumer division, which included the home computer and consoles, was purchased by former CEO of Commodore Jack Tramiel.
I was just surprised by how well it did compare to the c64 considering the time difference between the machines - I'm loving Star Raiders btw :) :)
@@TheRetroShack I was able to defeat the Commander mission. It’s the most difficult mode on the game. It’s not easy, but it can be done.
The Atari 8-Bit machines were really ahead of their time. The higher clock speed when compared to the C64 is a bit misleading though, because the Atari's graphics chip can and in fact does hold the CPU (that's the reason for the special version of the 6502 in the Atari) slowing it down to effectively something around 1.3 MHz. Still faster than the C64's CPU by around 30%. Graphics wise, its superior to the C64 when it comes to the actual number of colors (256 vs. 16) but it somehow fails to put them to good use, because it has no attribute ram like the C64 has. Meaning that on the C64 you can use all 16 colors on one screen while on the Atari you are limited to the number of colors of the current palette, which are 2 in 320*192 and 4 in 160*192. That's why most Atari games look less colorful than their counterparts on the C64. You can work around this by using display list interrupts to a certain degree, but it's still more limited.
I’ve certainly become very fond of this machine very quickly!
Yes, the Atari 8-bits were amazing for 1979. As for the comparison, the C64 also has much more capable sprites: 8 24-pixel wide sprites (or multicolour 12-pixel) compared to the A8's 4 (or 5, kind of) 8-pixel wide monochrome sprites. That's about 5x the sprite power.
@@8_Bit Yes, and the Atari's sprites are actually half the resolution. They are basically monochrome sprites with multicolor resolution when compared to the C64. However, they are not limited to 21 pixels in height but can fill the whole screen height, which might be an advantage in some cases. That said, there's no way to move them vertically other than copying them around in memory.
The Display list interrupts was/is a powerful tool. The home brew game community and many old games have shown that those limitations were a problem only for rushed titles or lazy/ignorant programmers .
In addition to that the faster CPU allowed the machine to perform better in pseudo 3D graphics and use colorful software sprites without serious slowdowns or combine hardware sprites.
The tricks available for this 3-4 years old architecture and ICs were good enough to produce a far more colorful experience and better performance in many cases.
Its main drawbacks were the lower resolution and ram management.
Comparing old and new titles from all the classic 8bits micros this older machine easily offers the best performance in average across all characteristics (graphics , sound and scrolling).
I always thought that CPCs palette and C64 scrolling capabilities were the best case scenarios for any micro and the Atari 8bit line was the only machine to implement both to a degree. That is also true for the Plus/4 but without a software library and a decent sound chip ...that is a difficult argument.
It depends on the game or application. There are games and demos that use a lot more than 16 colors at the same time on the A8.
The 800(XL) has a lot of different graphics modes too, something I believe the C64 does not have so many(??) and the different graphics modes can be mixed on the screen at the same time similar to the Amiga. Don't forget that the 800 can use sprites along the screen border while the C64 can not afaik. Also the 800's sprites' colors can combine when two occupy the same pixels. That said, the C64 does have better hardware sprite support.
Many games look better on one platform than the other more due to the quality of porting by the developer more than the platform itself. Eidolon for example has a faster framerate on A8 perhaps it was natively developed on it. Ballblazer also looks better (higher resolution) on A8. Return from Factalus has a much better framerate (native to the 800), etc etc.. Commando got a poor quality port to XL/XE and suffers. Same with Pitstop 2 being better on C64.
I think your saying "it somehow fails to put them (colors) to good use" is not often true but sometimes it is true and shows. High resolution is essentially monochrome (text mode in BASIC), however one can get color there using NTSC artifacting which is okay but not nearly as nice as the C64's 16 color text mode. But then there are games that do with color what the C64 could only dream of ever achieving, for example Alternate Reality's use of 128+ colors.
There are many differences between the platforms. IMO Commodore took the 800 as inspiration for the C64 but was brilliant in how they cost reduced it, however the C64 build/reliability quality suffered tremendously. Atari 8bits are not suffering the chip failure plague that are the C64's are presently. The C64's SID and PLA chips are failing en masse. Usually an untested A8 works. The chips don't run nearly as hot and are showing a much longer life span. I see the 800XL in this video has mT RAM which is likely bad due to, well, Micron RAM being Micron RAM =) mT RAM on A8's is uncommon.
Back to color, modern video playback is now a thing and shows how colorful is the 800 line. There are anime videos that look quite good while the C64's video playback using Ultimax Unleashed look less colorful but also better in how every line is drawn. Six of one half a dozen of the other. Getting late here.
I'm an Atari man, and in recent times the Atari scene has had some genius programmers produce some mind blowing games. It's late but absolutely welcome!
Ive had a few c64 setups in the past, the first I leant to a friend, who's mother bagged it all up and gave it to a charity shop!! I was gutted. The second setup I had to sell as I needed the pennies. Really regret it.
The c64 had some really cool games, easy to see how many people still love it to this day.
I even like the zx spectrum +2 , had it's issues but still it was a great machine.
+2 eh? The baby Amstrad :) :) I really liked the design and the keyboard was a vast improvement over the plus!
Great video as always. Looking forward to the next episodes.
Thanks - me too :) :)
Atari 8-bit line had a bunch of great games but the BASIC language was just weird. I always remember getting those old Compute magazines and seeing how they couldn't really even do arrays. Commodore was just great though too. But I remember having Pitfall II on the Atari XL and really loving that game.
I think you got that backwards. There is a great Ben Heck's video where he creates a player missile game in a couple of minutes in front of a friend (C64 fan). Atari basic allowes access to almost all features of the system (sound graphics) which isn't true for the C64.
MOS had a bit of a challenge trying to get a 40 column color video chip off the ground. The 6560 VIC went into production in 1977, but had very few buyers, and was finally used in the VIC-20, but in the middle, there were two chip designs that didn't make it, for variations of the same reason, they both needed very expensive and fast RAM.
awesome, great introduction part, looking forward to the next video
Thanks very much - Glad you enjoyed it :)
What makes a computer great is not it's capabilities and specs but the software and the community around it. I remember some Acorn Archimedes fanboy going out of his mind to prove that it was better than the Amiga, because he made a demo with some flying bubbles that was impossible on the equivalent system from Amiga. So what when Amiga had Aminet, state of the art games of it's era and enormous demoscene when Archimedes was just some niche school computer. C64 wasn't super powerful, but it had the best sound chip and people went crazy about this machine creating unbelievable amount of software for it even when it was obsolete when 16-bits took over. In the console world NES was obviously worse than SMS but it had almost all the love from the greatest gamemakers at the time and it was flooded with iconic games. 💡
C64 only had the best synth chip, but not the best sound chip. POKEY didn't had the best synth specs but it was by far ahead of its time, clearly pointing out the direction for industry to follow in relation to sound circuits. It had basic PCM capabilities with many parameters to mesh with, allowing the generation of different types of sound waves and PWM with low demand in cpu time and a huge diversity in its character. I know most old games don't take advantage of Pokeys capabilities but most games and demos of the 90s and forward show us why Jay Miner designed Paula based on Pokey's pioneer characteristics.
That was completely different take on the Atari 8 bit line than the video I did on it. I really enjoyed this video and can't wait to see what you'll do with the S Drive.
Thanks! Not long to wait :)
My family had several Atari computer through the years. The 800 was always my favorite though. I just liked the keyboard better than the XL and XE series. We had 4 1050 floppy drive a 1030 modem and a Star dot matrix printer attached to it. My dad offered the whole collection to me years ago. I wish I had taken him up on it. Sadly though, I’m sure none of our software would have still functioned after all these years, but it would be cool to play some of my old cartridge games at least.
Wonderful episode! I'm trying to get my hands on an original 800 here in NZ, but it's almost impossible!!
I actually posted a video yesterday where I review the SIO2PC dongle and watch a demo. And I admit, that the 800XL was as good if not better. And I’m a C64 guy. I am truly impressed with the colors the scrolling. I have been watching demos since I have that dongle! And there’s real incredible work.
Yes, the demo scene really seem to have gotten a lot out of these custom chips!
@@TheRetroShack it’s truly incredible what they’ve been doing. Unfortunately this machine didn’t have a big install base here in The Netherlands or in Germany, where a lot of demo coders were located. Maybe it wouldn’t been very different if the Atari was cheaper and more widespread.
@@CallousCoder Amiga almost suffered the same fate (rather late acknowledgement) but it was way to good to be ignored.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 the Amiga was very pervasive in Europe. Even more so than the more affordable ST (which is stupidly and still regrettably bought). I bought and refurbished two amigas and did a lot of 68000 assembler over de lockdowns. And it’s a blessing. And the copper is obvious been inspired by the Atari (gosh forgot the name) xyz table. I adore the Amiga. It’s my favorite retro platform from a technical point what I regret is that there’s no nostalgia there.
@@CallousCoder Even If I finally managed to own an Amiga (mid 90s) I got to "play" a lot with my Friend's STE for years. I love both systems but I have to acknowledge the superiority of Amiga in so many aspects.
I had an Atari 800 before I got a Commodore 64. The SID chip made the biggest difference. I was programming music on the Atari 800, so being introduces to a real sound synthesizer in the Commodore 64 was incredible. Also the SID played actual notes, which mean I can jam with the C64 on the guitar.
Yeah, the SID was essentially a complete digitally-controlled subtractive analog synthesizer on a chip, which I think makes it unique. It provides more functions such as ADSR envelopes so that the CPU doesn't have to do as much work, as well as 16-bit frequency resolution for each of its 3 channels, which is why it could play in tune. The POKEY could do a lot of the same things, but not without the CPU constantly manipulating it, and with only 8-bit frequency resolution, it was pretty much always wildly out of tune. While you could combine 2 channels to get 16-bit frequency resolution, this would reduce the number of channels available from 4 to 2, which is a big deal with so few voices. Additionally, the SID offers more modulation options and an analog filter.
@@rbrtck As a musician, I'm sure you found the SID chip to be a great advantage. As being a non-musician, I found the sound/music difference between the Atari 800XL & the C64 to be a non issue, as I mainly used the computer to play games and occasionally for word processing. I was/am a computer geek. The Atari 8 bit line had a superior disk operating system, IMO. The disk operating system was far far less buggy, worked much more consistently, & was faster than the Commodore's.
@@mortimore4030 The SID plays actual notes, though. I can jam with it with my guitar or keyboard.
@@mortimore4030agreed. I never liked Sid… always sounded to me like a war of kazoo’s and oboes. I preferred Atari’s pure tones.
Try the ASMA project, browse the library and see what you missed.
Fantastic video! Subscribed. I have a huge collection of atari 8 bit, I still have a setup running today. Atari gets better with age
Thanks! And welcome aboard :)
I had an 800XL for a good few years, before moving onto the C64.
Games like:
Ninja, Rescue On Fractalus, Dropzone, Elktraglide, worked so much better on the Atari, POKEY was a very versatile soundchip, but the lack of Turbo LOADERS, PMG, compared to the C64 sprites and Atari's refusal to lower the price of the hardware and software here in the UK, killed it's chances to gain a foothold and later really hold it's own, next to the C64.
You simply went where the software support was and that wasn't the A8.
Thanks for this great video about the ATari 8bit. I still use my Atari 130XE in 2021 ! bought the SIDE2 cartridge to be able to use many games on compactflash memory and SpartaDos X.
I was eyeing the SIDE3 over the weekend - would you recommend?
@@TheRetroShack 200% yes. The SIDE3 is the upgraded SIDE2. Using SD cards instead of CompactFlash cards. also is a bit faster and has current (=more) support by main Spartados developer JazzFlashCat.
The 6507 in the 2600 topped out at 4K of ROM. More ROM is bankswitched in by electronics in the cartridge.
The 1200XL was failed in getting market traction due to its slightly incompatible OS due to changes made to the XL OS. This was easily resolved by the Translator boot disk or even FixXL which was able to switch out the XL OS for a RAM shadowed original 800 OS. A neat trick. Plus the 1200XL needed a resistor removed from its SIO vias and replaced with a jumper so you could use SIO powered devices like the P:R: Connection or the XM301 modem.
Still desperately want a 1200XL even though I’m not really sure why :) :)
Really does not get enough love and recognition considering it was made in 1979... like all those early machines, probably too expensive in the UK to really gain a foothold.. I recall seeing the 800 and 400 in 1981 or so... Star Raiders in particular was an amazing achievement. By Xmas 1983 the C64 was about £199 in Comet and so was obtainable to the regular family..
I also remember a Saturday Superstore/Swap Shop episode where the magician Paul Daniels was giving away his system in a competition...
My mate had the 400 but never got to see an 800 until I was in my late teens but by then I was an Amiga addict :)
Yeah, I remember way back when I got started, they were pretty nice machines but soooo expensive, there was a real lack of decent software compared to other machines like the VIC20, sure it beat the pants off the VIC but it was twice the price for the Atari 400 and the 800 was 3-4 times the price, the software was expensive too.
Then the C64 came out and Atari was in the wilderness until the ST came out, even then they didn't fare well against the Amiga.
LOL Atari ST beat Amiga unit mid to late 88, with the chip shortage of the time Atari focused on europe and we couldnt get product so we sold what we could get sadly
If you were only into games as an early adopter Atari owner and savvy, you waited for the Nintendo NES which was released in Japan only one year after the C64 (C64 cost $595 in 1982) And NES finally arrived in 1985 for $179. However the 16bit era was on the way by then for home computer needs. The Amiga was the spiritual successor to the Atari 800, using same designers.
LOL ST beat amiga for 3+ years
ATARI/SONY SHOULD HAVE PARTNERED AT THAT MOMENT WITH THE SONY OPEN SOURCE PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE IT HAD BEEN DEVELOPING. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN UNSTOPPABLE ECOSYSTEM 🇺🇸💪⚡️
@10:56 the XL machines were designed by industrial designer Regan Cheng. They were inspired by B&O speaker designs, syd mead, and imagery from the 2001 movie.
And what an amazing job! They are absolutely beautiful :)
I'm lucky enough to have been able to find both an 800 and 800xl. I love both of them! The build quality is just plain solid especially compared to the C64. From what I can see when comparing the Atari 8-bits to the C64, in general the C64 graphics seem a bit better. Sound depends on your preference, both seem really similar. Disk load times...the Atari beats the C64 by so much it is just plain silly. With the C64 I type the "Run" command and walk away to fix myself and eat a quick meal. When I get back the game is close to being loaded. On the Atari, I load up a program and check the time on my watch briefly and then look back at the screen at it's ready to go. Night and day difference.
You're not wrong about the c64 disk loading speeds :) I've got an Atari 1050 here to go with this 800XL so will do some comparisons :)
@@TheRetroShack Tha Atari SIO bus generally runs at 19.2Kbps (but can go *MUCH* faster), OTOH the CBM IEC bus runs at a blistering 300bps. LOL.
@@TheRetroShack
You could get parallel interface mods for the C64 and 1541 which improved disc speeds up to 60 times. Alternatively you could get software solutions, stuff like Warp__ springs to mind.
@@ensor2872 The IEC runs at about 400 bytes per second or 3200 bps. However, using software alone, it is possible to achieve much greater loading speed. Epyx's popular _Fast Load_ cartridge (all you have to do is insert it in the expansion port) gives the C64 and 1541 faster disk transfer speed than the Atari 8-bit and 810/1050 drive, and with no hardware mod (other than inserting the cartridge and leaving it there, since few C64 users seemed to have any other cartridges anyway). There were certainly faster solutions available, as well, as such Epyx's later _Vorpal_ fastloader that was built into some of their games, such as _Winter Games_ , whose disk access makes even the Apple II's DOS feel slow (again, with no hardware modification necessary). :)
Actually, I just did a race, and it's not just my perception. _Winter Games_ on the C64 objectively does load significantly faster than on the Apple II! Wow. This is just with software. I don't think Ataris can load this fast without hardware modifications. The reason Commodores can be sped up so much is that the drives are programmable, as in you can transfer (or load directly from disk) machine code into the drive's RAM, and command the drive to execute your custom code with its 6502 CPU. While the Atari drives also have a CPU (the 6507), they only have 256 bytes of RAM compared to the 2K of RAM in the 1541 and other Commodore drives.
@@rbrtck I know, I was exaggerating. The IEC bus runs at 300 *bytes* per second (when communicating with a 1541) but it feels more like 300bps. And as for the Epyx FastLoad cartridge, well in my experience at least it was problematic at best causing all sorts of issues with commercial software requiring it to be unplugged far too often. But I'm not looking at it through rose tinted spectacles.
The Atari SIO bus has been run at close to 100Kbps with no hardware mods, you just need the appropriate driver and a device capable of running at such speeds. While stock Atari drives like the 810 and 1050 were fixed at 19.2Kbps upgrades like the Happy would push that to around 56Kbps with no compatibility issues.
But the point is, out of the box, Ataris didn't require any kind of fast loader as they were already more than fast enough.
In the early 1990s, a mate gave me an 800XL. I was learning lots of stuff about IBM PC's so that was my interest at the time, and there was no documentation available to me about the 800XL. I know I plugged it in a couple of times so I know it worked, but I didn't have any software for it so it went into the attic. Eventually I had to get rid of it when I emigrated. And all that time I didn't even know it had a 6502 which was one of my favorite processors. Now I wish I had spent more time with it, and that I would still have one. I still don't know much about it but it seems like such a fun machine.
The first time I saw a computer up close was in an Asda supermarket (UK). They had an Atari 800, an Atari 400, and a Ti99. I was fascinated by them, but they cost far too much. I looked around, and my dad was walking away quickly.... I assume he'd seen the prices too.
You could of given the Atari 800xl a clean for goodness sakes, poor little fella 🥺
Great video by the way, thank you for showing me a great in depth history of the first computer I ever used. That was way back when I was in primary school year 3 here in Australia.
Thank you!!! 🇦🇺🕹️😷👍
Glad you enjoyed it :) next video is the full refurb :)
It's very telling that despite being released in 1979 and based on a design from 1977, the 8-bit Ataris remained superior to basically every 8-bit machine with the exception of the C64 right up until the end of the 8-bit era. They really were quite ridiculously powerful for the time - but once they reached the UK, they were also ridiculously expensive until the major cost-cutting kicked in, by which time it was too late for them to dominate the UK market. They were much more successful in America, where families had far more disposable income.
The only real advantages the C64 had over the 8-bit Ataris were more sprites with more colours, and SID - and even then, the Atari's sound processing wasn't exactly lacking. It was always noticeable that where the same game was available for both the Atari and C64, the C64 version had slightly (but *only* slightly) better graphics, but the Atari version always ran significantly faster and smoother, because as well as having a faster processor, the Ataris had unique hardware tricks that the C64 couldn't emulate.
ahh memories... the 800xl was my 1st computer. loved the machine.
Price and software availability were the tragedy of the Atari 8-bit line. They had a tremendous head start on the C-64, but programming info was so hard to come by for so long, and the machines so much more expensive than Commodore's, that the software never caught up.
I seriously studied all the machines carefully when I went to purchase a home computer in 1985, and the C-64, with only a few years of software, really seemed to shine over what I saw available for the 800XL (which should have been great considering it had been around for much longer). I never regretted my C-64 purchase, but I do regret that I never fully experienced the Atari line.
Yes they kind of passed me by too as they weren't part of my journey, but I'm so happy to be discovering them now - lovely machines :)
That was Atari shooting themselves in the foot, unfortunately. The lead was theirs to lose, and they overplayed their hand, as it were. But fortunately, what they created speaks for itself now, and has plenty of supporters to do the actual talking and writing.
AFAIK Atari released full documentation for the line in '82, taking example from the C64. By '85 the programming documentation issue was long resolved. You could buy one or two books for less than $30 and have all the system documentation you needed. The documentation issue was only for a couple years but it did have some impact early on.
There were two or three primary reasons the A8 line collapsed earlier than it should have. Firstly, delays for the 600XL/800XL machines meant they mostly missed the '83 xmas season. A small quantity were released by xmas but not enough. Atari was in real financial trouble in late '83. This is a primary reason the C64 took over from a sales perspective. The 1200XL cost nearly double the price of a C64 and while it's build quality was far better, it had a buggy OS and some features removed from the original 800. Around March of '84 the 600/800XL supply was fully available but some damage had been done. Even still, the new cost reduced XL machines cost more than a C64 but they were built better, too and the disk drive was much faster and it had a much, much better cartridge selection.
Second. The collapse of the 2600 was a massive boat anchor that collapsed and bankrupted Atari. The whole 800 line was profitable during this time. In June or July of '84 is when Warner sold Atari to Tramiel. Tramiel cut far, far too deep into the company. He basically gutted the company. He did leave manufacturing for the existing XL line in tact, AFAIK. He saw clearly the XL line was profitable or he would have had zero hesitation to drop it all.
Thirdly, the C64 was indeed extremely competitive from a cost and sales perspective. It was much cheaper to make and they made machines in vast quantities. The C64 won by being on the shelves. But let's be clear, it was cheaper and quality suffered a lot. Very few actually knew what the hardware capabilities were back then, but somehow they did know what was selling and what they could afford. It wasn't a huge price difference but it was enough.
when the c64 was release Atari had over 2000 titles.. no sure why anyone ever bought a c64 other than it was cheap and cheaply made with a high defect rate, I know I had a dealership who sold both.
@@davidschreiber1823 Price matters, especially in the mass consumer market, and defect rates only matter if they're high enough to make the mainstream news or set the proverbial grapevine on fire (like with the Coleco Adam). Capability also matters, which is why the C64 far outsold the even cheaper VIC-20, but when capability is roughly equal, price is mainly what matters (masses > classes in terms of sales numbers). By the way, the C64's defect rate went down and overall reliability went up over time, even as cost was going down. Typical consumers would never know the difference in terms of the big picture anyway.
I had 600XL and that was very powerful comp!
Watching one on eBay now :) :)
I had an Atari 800, and it was really unbelievable. The graphics, and it's capabilities were so awesome. Way ahead of everything at the time. I think I got prolonged use out of my Atari 800, cause I also had a modem and was introduced to the BBS world thanks to my dad, who took me too a local BBS meeting. I was then exposed to the "online" world, before the internet. It was such an experience and fun time. I really believe it made me into the person I am today as corny as that sounds.
I have an Atari 800XL and 65XE - I love them.
I can understand why :)
had the 800 go it in 1980 it was awesome. the only thing about the commodore was the sold 28 million and even commodore employee's recon 14 million were faulty but the shipped them anyway lol. still the c64 was very good it was a bit more flexable because of the kernal
What do you mean the C64 was more flexible because of the kernel? Someone can invent a new type of computer devise, write a driver for the Atari 8 bit, and it should run the new devise with programs written in 1979. The Atari had a true operating system where all I.O. was done the same for every devise. Want to write to the screen? Format an input output control block and jump to $E456. What to output to a printer? Format an input output control block and jump to $E456. Want to write to a floppy? Format an input output control block and jump to $E456. For the new devise you have to write drivers implementing certain operations (open, close, write, read, etc.) then all you have to do is... you guessed it. Format an input output control block and jump to $E456.
Is the C64's kernel that powerful; that you can create a new computer component and it will work on a Basic program written 40 years ago?
@@bjbell52 of course I love the Atari more and it was easier to use but the kernel on the C64 was flexible the Atari was limited with Gita imho
I started out with an Atari 400, then onto a C64....amazing for a computer that was released 3 years before how it actually had certain better hardware features. Faster stock baud rate for loading games, a far superior Basic and a better colour palette. To the C64s advantage though is the glorious SID chip and its vast library of games, particularly in the european market, and that is what swayed me the most to 'upgrade' although for the most part it felt more like a side-step to have a machine that was more popular, hence supported better.
I was my child with Atari 800XL and Atari 1050. I like 256 colors and many games on boot menu. I love Atari XL/XE!!!
I grew up with Atari as a kid in UK. 400 and then 800xl with 1050 and 1020 plotter. It felt odd as most kids has Speccys or c64s or some other UK machine. I still have my Atari now in my collection incl 2 800xls and a 400, as well as Orics, dragon, speccy and the c64, plus4. Love the Atari more as it's just so Americana. An era of gaming when US ruled the gaming industry. I would love an 1200xl but they are rare as hens teeth now. All 8bits had their own charm and quirks and I fire them up depending on mood.
EXACTLY me :) :) I love them all and they all get booted up now and then depending on my mood :)
my Atari 400 came stock with 16k in the UK back when it was released. Love my 800XL and 65XE.
Nice!
Mine too. I got my 400 in 1983 when Dixons were selling them off for £150 to make way for the XL range. Such a step up from the non-computers I'd had until then, a ZX80 and an '81 which were utter trash.
@@ensor2872 Yeah would of been same time. We had a proper ATARI Centre here in Birmingham we got ours from there then got The 800XL which is the one I own today with an sd card reader for floppy drive emulation. Cant beat a bit of Miner 2049er.
Some schools had Atari computers, which would account for a good bit of their sales. Commodore dominated home market. I didn't know anyone who owned an Atari, but knew a lot of people with Commodore.
I had a friend at school who had a 400 and I remember admiring Dropzone at the time - I had a spectrum so the 400’s graphics just amazed me! :)
back then, for gamers the sound was as important as the gameplay and the graphics, and when it came to sound, the SID was unbeatable!
Thanks. Cheers from Chile!
Beautiful! Excellent video. I subscribed immediately.
Thanks! Welcome aboard :)
This was a good video and I can certainly like the design of the Atari 800. It is a needle in the haystack here in Europe though. Guess there never was a proper PAL version. Also nice to see is why european machines are so nice to tinker with nowadays: we had no RF shielding inside. Power supplies could be built in without problems. No FCC messing up!