Atari 7800, XEGS, and ST questions [Archive]

Pantechnicon

08-14-2007, 02:46 PM

1. Looking at just the raw specs, the 7800 had better graphic capabilities than the XEGS.

2. Because when the NES started to catch on the U.S., Atari, now under the control of Jack Tramiel, was reluctantly trying to play catch-up to get back into the console market. The 7800 was actually developed in 1984, shelved owing to the market crash of `84, then given a wide release in 1986. The XEGS came out the next year. So a better question might be why the XEGS, clearly inferior to the 7800 (whose inventory, I suspect, Atari mostly only wanted to be rid of at this point), was released as a "successor" to that system, let alone as a competitor to the NES? My guess was that Atari since XE development began in 1985, Atari had a lot of components laying around and this allowed a quicker, cheaper dev cycle for the XEGS. So Atari was able to put a "new" system on the market, sure, but there was no way it was going to be any threat to the NES. When you think about it, all Atari systems between the 400 and the XEGS (including the 5200) are virtually the same thing. So it was a case of 1979 Atari technology going up against 1983 Famicom technology. No contest.

3. Jack Tramiel did not want Atari to be in the game business while under his watch. He wanted to turn it into a full-fledged computer company. There was no way he was going to let his emerging ST line get hacked into a game console, no matter how potentially profitable it would have been.

Rob2600

08-14-2007, 02:50 PM

# 1... 7800

So Atari released the XEGS a year after the 7800 and the XEGS had worse graphics? Where's the logic in that?

# 2 ... they were in Tramiel, I mean uhh, turmoil

Yes, the Tramiels. That explains the lack of logic. :)

Seriously though, why did they buy Atari's home division if they were going to run it so poorly?

7th lutz

08-14-2007, 02:52 PM

2.) Atari had some left over xe computers left. They decided to repackage it as a game system.

The Tramiels didn't want the 7800 to be released. The Tramiels saw the 7800 as an updated 2600 with better graphics with them feeling the 7800 couldn't do nes style games.

It didn't make any sense though. They hurted the 7800 as a result of releasing the xegs.

7th lutz

08-14-2007, 02:55 PM

So Atari released the XEGS a year after the 7800 and the XEGS had worse graphics? Where's the logic in that?

Yes, the Tramiels. That explains the lack of logic. :)

Seriously though, why did they buy Atari's home division if they were going to run it so poorly?
They only cared getting rid of the unsold stock of xe computers.

They wanted the computer part of atari. They were forced to take the video game home game console division since it was included in the sale.

Rob2600

08-14-2007, 03:01 PM

2. Because when the NES started to catch on the U.S., Atari, now under the control of Jack Tramiel, was reluctantly trying to play catch-up to get back into the console market. The 7800 was actually developed in 1984, shelved owing to the market crash of `84, then given a wide release in 1986. The XEGS came out the next year. So a better question might be why the XEGS, clearly inferior to the 7800 (whose inventory, I suspect, Atari mostly only wanted to be rid of at this point), was released as a "successor" to that system, let alone as a competitor to the NES? My guess was that Atari since XE development began in 1985, Atari had a lot of components laying around and this allowed a quicker, cheaper dev cycle for the XEGS. So Atari was able to put a "new" system on the market, sure, but there was no way it was going to be any threat to the NES. When you think about it, all Atari systems between the 400 and the XEGS (including the 5200) are virtually the same thing. So it was a case of 1979 Atari technology going up against 1983 Famicom technology. No contest.

I understand the XEGS was probably easy to manufacture and was compatible with many old games, but the whole situation still doesn't make sense to me.

Why would Atari release two different consoles at almost the same time, especially if it wasn't really going to support either one? Why not just release one console and fully support it?

Rob2600

08-14-2007, 03:16 PM

2.) Atari had some left over xe computers left. They decided to repackage it as a game system. ... They only cared getting rid of the unsold stock of xe computers.

They wanted the computer part of atari. They were forced to take the video game home game console division since it was included in the sale.

I guess the situation makes a bit more sense looking at it from that point of view. If Atari's owners were trying to unload a bunch of parts they weren't interested in, then it'd make sense that they'd try to do it at a profit. Of course, the downside is that customers end up with products that aren't really supported.

The Tramiels saw the 7800 as an updated 2600 with better graphics with them feeling the 7800 couldn't do nes style games.

If they thought the 7800 couldn't compete with the NES, what made them think the weaker XEGS could?

Pantechnicon

08-14-2007, 03:18 PM

I understand the XEGS was probably easy to manufacture and was compatible with many old games, but the whole situation still doesn't make sense to me.

That's alright. When it came to Jack Tramiel, there was never much in the way of "sense" involved.

Why would Atari release two different consoles at almost the same time, especially if it wasn't really going to support either one? Why not just release one console and fully support it?

I reiterate: The Tramiels didn't want to be in the game market, period. They wanted to just get rid of the 7800's taking up inventory space. The XEGS was just a knee-jerk way for them to try and make quick cash in on the market resurgence made possible by the introduction of the NES.

{reprinted from Atari7800.com}
"...the Tramiels were not impressed with the 7800 ProSystem, or anything else the gaming end of Atari had to show them.

The following is a quote from Curt Vendel of the Atari Historical Society: "When Atari was sold to the Tramiels in 1984, the last the thing the Tramiels had on their minds was selling video games. They wanted the Atari name for selling their new computer which they put all their effort into. The Atari 7800 was shelved. Then Nintendo approached Atari back in 1983 to license and sell their Famicom system under the Atari name since Nintendo didn't feel it could compete against the once mighty video game giant. Nintendo was told that Atari was not interested in their 6502 CPU based video game system, also according to Michele Ebertin, former manager of Atari's Consumer Electronics Division "marketing just didn't like the idea of a game system with a controller that didn't have a joystick on it, they hated the Nintendo controllers." Nintendo decided that they would sell their Famicom in the U.S. and called it The "Nintendo Entertainment System" and it was an instant selling success. Atari Corp, seeing the sudden resurgence in the video game market decided it was time to pull the finished 2600jr that Atari, Inc under Warner Comm. had developed in 1983 out of mothballs and take the Atari 7800's which were also completed and sitting around for more then 2 years off the shelf and sell them in 1986. Well, it was too little, too late. Nintendo had the market; lock, stock and barrel. Not to mention Sega with its Master System was also hot in Nintendo's tail, Atari was running third in a race it used to run a far lead in first in the past."...

The Atari 7800 ProSystem was dead on arrival at the toy stores. "We only received one shipment of the 7800 in 1984 and that was it! We didn't get anything for nearly 2 years after that from Atari as far as the 7800 was concerned." says Lance Ringquist of Video 61. What had basically happened here was a case of child abuse. The Tramiels neglected the brainchild of Atari as soon as they had purchased the company. They let this advanced system sit on the shelves for over two years, and the once advanced system had technology that was starting to age.

When the 7800 ProSystem was eventually released in 1986 by Atari under Tramiel control, the once promising system came out the door limping. The Tramiels were a nasty, dank, greedy, and most of all, stingy family who treated Atari like their own personal bank account. They never put any money or thought into anything they did. The first thing they did to the 7800 ProSystem was cancel all the existing add-on technology from the 7800 ProSystem lineup. First to go was the ProLine Keyboard, followed by the High Score Cartridge. These promising accessories were not to be. It truly was such a waste. The nail in the coffin on all of this was the cut of the expansion port on the 7800 units. The expansion port which had been built into the first 5000 units was cut from further production, limiting the 7800 to its self contained technology, and again cutting all possibility of a LaserDisc add on."

7th lutz

08-14-2007, 03:23 PM

I understand the XEGS was probably easy to manufacture and was compatible with many old games, but the whole situation still doesn't make sense to me.

Why would Atari release two different consoles at almost the same time, especially if it wasn't really going to support either one? Why not just release one console and fully support it?

I think you meant 3 systems. Atari was supporting the 2600jr, xegs and the 7800 at the same time. I think you understood about supporting the 2600 since the games were able to be played on an Atari 7800.

The Tramiels didn't use any logic for releasing the xegs. Their hope was not spending a lot of money on the 7800 would help them get a profit from what ever systems they sold. I am think they saw what the were going to the 7800 would work for the xegs.

Rob2600

08-14-2007, 03:36 PM

"The nail in the coffin on all of this was the cut of the expansion port on the 7800 units. The expansion port which had been built into the first 5000 units was cut from further production, limiting the 7800 to its self contained technology, and again cutting all possibility of a LaserDisc add on."

With all due respect, a laserdisc add-on for the Atari 7800 would have been pointless. The thought of streaming stick figures off a gigantic optical disc is hilarious though. :)

-^Cro�Bow^-

08-14-2007, 07:39 PM

The laserdisc add on would have only used the 7800s internal graphics to display score, lives remaining, etc. The rest of the game would have been seen as it was off the laserdisc from the arcades. Also using the 7800s controller to control the game action of course.

Personally, It might have been cool, but I imagine the actual cost of the system had it been released would have been out of reach for most consumers, not to mention that laserdiscs themselves would have been even more expensive and not as sturdy compared to a Cart for selling games on.

Still, who here wouldn't like to play Dragon's Lair with a Proline controller?! Oh..wait...yeah..maybe that isn't such a good idea...

Steve W

08-14-2007, 07:49 PM

Really, the XEGS wasn't really designed as a video game console, it was the Tramiel's way of trying to breathe some life into the Atari 8-bit line by getting Atari computers into stores again in the guise of a game console. Like it's been said before, they didn't want to get into the game industry, they wanted to get a few more 8-bit computer users by using games to draw them in.

I remember buying XEGS games on clearance for $2.50 each at Wal-Mart/Hypermart back in the day. Back then, Wal-Mart was specializing in selling mostly American made products (literally the opposite of them today). I didn't have too much money, so I only picked up a few XEGS and 7800 games. I always regret not buying more.

ubersaurus

08-14-2007, 08:04 PM

cyberfluxor

08-15-2007, 01:51 AM

The other night was when I first discovered atari7800.com but only read up on the 5200 goodies. What is this about the 7800 possibly being used to play laser-disc stuff because it's the first I've heard of it! (Likely because I never researched the full 7800 story of course)

idrougge

08-15-2007, 04:46 PM

1. Does anyone know which Atari console had better graphics capabilities, the 7800 or the XEGS?

The 7800. But at least the XE was more familiar to developers. The XE also had better sound.

2. Why did Atari release these two home game consoles within a year from each other? Why would they chose to compete with themselves?

One word: Tramiel.

3. Why did Atari chose to adapt its 8-bit 65XE computer into the XEGS console? Wouldn't it have made more sense for Atari to adapt its 16-bit ST computer into a console instead?

Well, the ST was a much more expensive architecture than the eight-bitters. There were no other 16-bit consoles at the time, so it could be seen as pointless to release an over-specced, over-priced console at the time, especially since the original ST was also becoming a bit old at the time.

I've never used an Atari ST computer, but judging from screen shots, it appears to have had graphics on par with the Amiga and Sega Genesis.

The ST doesn't have graphics on par with the Amiga and Megadrive, but still rather close. The STe is not bad. And there were lots of rumours around 1989-1990 about a forthcoming ST-based console, though it could very well have been confused with the Panther, which was an entirely different beast.

idrougge

08-15-2007, 04:49 PM

If they thought the 7800 couldn't compete with the NES, what made them think the weaker XEGS could?

At leas the XE had an established base of games which were already released on cartridge, or could be put on cartridge easily. This was around the same time that Commodore made the 64GS and Amstrad the GX4000.

Rob2600

08-16-2007, 10:29 AM

That cheap mentality also hampered the Lynx and Jaguar.

How so? I owned a Lynx several months after it was released and was impressed with its capabilities.

I've never played a Jaguar, so I'm not quite familiar with its limitations. What was cheap about it? Did Atari skimp on RAM?

Aswald

08-16-2007, 01:28 PM

You mention the 7800 and XE, but don't forget that Tramiel-Atari (GRRRR!) was still supporting the 2600, a console from the 1970s!

Unless they were complete and total idiots, there was no way that the Tramiels could have ever believed that any of those three, especially with the way they were handling the 7800, could have matched the NES and SMS. The whole time I owned the 7800, I never once got the impression that they were really serious about it. I admit it- I should have gotten an NES, if anything.

Remember that the Tramiels migrated from Commodore in 1984, and it's clear that they were only interested in computers. Therefore, all three consoles were probably only meant as an extra source of money, because they had it laying around. This may have made sense in the short-term, but it completely shot down their credibility with gamers, which was probably THE reason the Jaguar went nowhere. Who would trust them?

Steve W

08-16-2007, 05:23 PM

How so? I owned a Lynx several months after it was released and was impressed with its capabilities.

I've never played a Jaguar, so I'm not quite familiar with its limitations. What was cheap about it? Did Atari skimp on RAM?

The Lynx was an insanely powerful machine for it's time, it's just that the Tramiels didn't spend too much on game development, for one example. Tales of their penny-pinching have become almost legendary. They needed to ship a few Lynx games overnight for a meeting, but they wouldn't cough up the few bucks to overnight it. One of the Tramiel sons would sit in his office looking over employee's lunchtime restaurant receipts to make sure that nobody tipped over 15%. They cheapened out at every opportunity, and it showed with the shoddy way they marketed and supported consoles like the Lynx and Jaguar. And the Jaguar did skimp on RAM. I remember reading a Slashdot article by John Carmack (Doom, Wolfenstein 3D) about the limited memory in the Jag, and if they had added 'real' RAM (something about "scratchpad memory") they could have tripled it's texture-mapping ability.

idrougge

08-16-2007, 07:33 PM

Remember that the Tramiels migrated from Commodore in 1984, and it's clear that they were only interested in computers. Therefore, all three consoles were probably only meant as an extra source of money, because they had it laying around. This may have made sense in the short-term, but it completely shot down their credibility with gamers, which was probably THE reason the Jaguar went nowhere. Who would trust them?

Because, as we all know, computers can't play games.

idrougge

08-16-2007, 07:36 PM

I remember reading a Slashdot article by John Carmack (Doom, Wolfenstein 3D) about the limited memory in the Jag, and if they had added 'real' RAM (something about "scratchpad memory") they could have tripled it's texture-mapping ability.

For some reason, probaby because I know that Carmack was spoiled with expensive workstations and powerful PCs with lots of RAM, I get the impression that he doesn't really know what he's talking about. Consoles never have enough RAM, it's part of their design since RAM costs money. Carmack is a PC developer, so he's used to having all the RAM he wants, and being able to put in more if he needs it.

Rob2600

08-16-2007, 09:15 PM

The Lynx was an insanely powerful machine for it's time, it's just that the Tramiels didn't spend too much on game development, for one example. Tales of their penny-pinching have become almost legendary.

Okay, now I understand. You're right. This is from an interview with Lx Rudis, the sound designer on many Lynx games:

Q: What were some limitations of the Lynx hardware were you able to overcome?

A: Nothing like the Lynx had ever existed before. Dave Needle helped design the weirdest audio hardware I've ever seen in my entire life: the 'Mikey' chip. He used to drop by my office and laugh at me as I struggled with the system. They wouldn't even budget a hard drive for me - everyone else had these cool HOWDY boards, but I had the rev 0.00009 wirewrap board hooked to an Amiga 500 that I'd taped paper tailfins onto. Occasionally a chip would literally blow up and Howard Delman would have to come cursing into my office and waste an hour or so making my baby work again...

Q: Did Atari always have plans to redesign the Lynx with stereo audio?

A: ...financial reality set in, and they had to scrap the idea.

Q: What is involved with composing a piece of music for the Lynx?

A: ...The real composition work usually happened in the line editor because space was at such a premium that you had to justify every single byte. Worst case was Rampage where I started off with a 'budget' of 3k per song, then 2k per song, then, if I recall correctly, one of those little buggers clocks in at something like 433 bytes...and sounds like it, too.

The entire interview:

http://www.ataritimes.com/article.php?showarticle=282&Search=lx%20rudis

j_factor

08-17-2007, 11:35 PM

The XEGS is more of a tie-in product than a "real" console IMO. Atari was trying different things to keep the XE line alive, because for whatever reason, Tramiel felt that they needed to have a fully supported 8-bit line in addition to their 16-bit line, like Commodore had (although really, Commodore didn't continue to support the C64 because of any strategy, it was only because it was still pretty profitable). Atari saw the XEGS as a way of selling XE's to additional consumers that normally wouldn't buy one.

In a way, the XEGS is what the 5200 should've been.

I'd say that Atari wasn't really competing with themselves with the 7800 and XEGS. The 7800's fate was all but sealed by the time XEGS came out, and Atari knew it. It boggles the mind that 7800 games continued to come out for as long as they did. Besides, XEGS kind of had a different niche, and was never mass marketed as a console alongside NES and SMS.

As for the STGS, it would've been too expensive in 1987, but it would've been a great idea if it had come out around 1990. My guess as to the reason it didn't happen is simply that Atari was like a turkey that had its head cut off, and was just flailing around. Atari didn't do a single thing right after the ST line. Except maybe purchasing the Lynx design from Epyx (great hardware), but then they horribly mishandled that system.

Aswald

08-21-2007, 12:14 PM

Because, as we all know, computers can't play games.

Computers and home consoles are NOT the same things. The latter are designed strictly for games, which is why you have to spend so much more to get a computer with comparable gaming ability. Name a computer you'd only have to spend about $300 for to get as much gaming ability as an X-Box 360.

Rob2600

08-21-2007, 01:03 PM

Rob2600

08-21-2007, 01:22 PM

In a way, the XEGS is what the 5200 should've been.

In that case, which console had better graphics capabilities, the 5200 or the XEGS?

As for the STGS, it would've been too expensive in 1987, but it would've been a great idea if it had come out around 1990. My guess as to the reason it didn't happen is simply that Atari was like a turkey that had its head cut off, and was just flailing around.

Perhaps if Atari had better management throughout the 1980s, it could've saved its reputation, released a console version of the ST in 1990, and competed with Sega and NEC.

Atari didn't do a single thing right after the ST line. Except maybe purchasing the Lynx design from Epyx (great hardware), but then they horribly mishandled that system.

The Atari Lynx is equivalent to the Sega Dreamcast. Both companies ruined their reputations by releasing several pieces of hardware in a row they didn't fully support...Atari in the 1980s and Sega in the 1990s. By the time the Lynx and Dreamcast were released (1989 and 1999), many people didn't want to be bothered, even though both machines were technically impressive.

idrougge

08-21-2007, 02:45 PM

In that case, which console had better graphics capabilities, the 5200 or the XEGS?

They have the same graphics chips, so they're equal, though the XEGS has an advantage due to more memory.

Perhaps if Atari had better management throughout the 1980s, it could've saved its reputation, released a console version of the ST in 1990, and competed with Sega and NEC.

Yes, just like they did with the Lynx and Jaguar. But really, it's part management, part commercial realities. Redeveloping the ST into a console wouldn't have made sense since it was becoming very old around 1990, and by that time, Atari was already readying the Panther, which was a much more powerful console. Then they found the Jaguar, and concentrated on that instead. And in the meantime, they had the Lynx to concentrate on, not to mention the ST series, which was turning around only after 1990. You can't blame the Tramiels for not having visions. You can blame them for being cheap, though.

The ST was a viable gaming platform in that time frame, and was sold in major toy chains in Europe, with the XE series doing well in the newly opened markets in the East.

The Atari Lynx is equivalent to the Sega Dreamcast. Both companies ruined their reputations by releasing several pieces of hardware in a row they didn't fully support...Atari in the 1980s and Sega in the 1990s. By the time the Lynx and Dreamcast were released (1989 and 1999), many people didn't want to be bothered, even though both machines were technically impressive.

I think it was equally a case of bad software when it comes to the Lynx, and the Nintendo. After all, even the Game Gear was not a success, even with Sega behind it.

idrougge

08-21-2007, 02:48 PM

Computers and home consoles are NOT the same things. The latter are designed strictly for games, which is why you have to spend so much more to get a computer with comparable gaming ability. Name a computer you'd only have to spend about $300 for to get as much gaming ability as an X-Box 360.

Actually, there was no console with comparable gaming ability to the ST during its first five years on the market. The ST was the first mass market 16-bit computer, and had "power without the price", as was Atari's slogan back then. Yes, the ST was more expensive than a NES or Master System, not to mention more expensive than the C64, but it was cheaper than an Amiga, and cheaper than the Playstation 3.

Rob2600

08-21-2007, 03:09 PM

They're both the same. In fact, every 8-bit computer basically is, from the 400/800s to the XLs to the XEs.

After spending millions of dollars in R&D developing a follow-up to the VCS, Atari turned around and essentially re-released a stripped-down version of the 400 computer, with a few changes (such as using analog controllers instead of digital, different OS and RF output...).

I am not familiar with Atari computers, but from what I read on wikipedia.org, it seems like the 5200 was a console version of the Atari 400 computer from 1978 and the XEGS was a console version of the Atari 800XL computer from 1983. I assume the major differences between the 400 and 800XL are more RAM and a slightly faster CPU. Is that true?

Aswald

08-21-2007, 03:23 PM

Actually, there was no console with comparable gaming ability to the ST during its first five years on the market. The ST was the first mass market 16-bit computer, and had "power without the price", as was Atari's slogan back then. Yes, the ST was more expensive than a NES or Master System, not to mention more expensive than the C64, but it was cheaper than an Amiga, and cheaper than the Playstation 3.

I assume that the ST and Playstation 3 came out years apart. Are you allowing for the decline of the dollar and inflation? You cannot just go by two numbers.

Another question would be what games did the ST have against the NES or SMS? How well could it stand up to the TurboGrafx-16, Genesis, or Super Nintendo Entertainment System?

One of the biggest problems with the Tramiels was that they bought into that stupid notion that "video games were dead." THIS was the real reason for the crash, and essentially nothing has changed. Baby Boomer marketers sat around making theories about my generation (and later the one after), spending Lord-knows how many hours talking away, but never doing the one absolutely vital thing that Nintendo did- asking US what WE wanted.

Think about it- if video gaming was dead in 1984, why are we discussing Playstation 3s in 2007? Obviously, they were completely wrong; haven't you ever wondered why?

Atari never seemed able to realize that those idiot marketers were wrong, in spite of the immense popularity of the NES and SMS. Somehow, the Tramiels never seemed to believe that any console could make it, so they never really tried. It wasn't that the 7800, the Lynx, or even the Jaguar were pieces of junk- it was just that the Tramiels gave up before even trying, and this was reflected in everything they did.

Note- the one thing I will say in their defense was that old Atari was so reckless with their money, maybe they were afraid of it happening again. But they went too far; to make money, you have to spend money.

Jorpho

08-21-2007, 03:48 PM

icbrkr

08-21-2007, 04:40 PM

The CDTV/CD32 were likewise consoles based off of a 16-bit computer, and they had the benefit of the huge, already-existing Amiga software library - but they still failed. Wouldn't a console based on the ST have failed similarly in the early 90's?

Depends. While the CDTV was definitely a failure, the CD32 was not in the sense that no one bought it, no software was released, etc. The CD32 had the misfortune of being released when Commodore was in its death throes. For a machine that was only out for less than a year (Aug 93 through Aprilish 94), 150 titles isn't bad at all (I'm not sure if Escom brought it back for a short time?). An actual *console* based on the ST might have done well in 1990, not a repackaged Amiga 500 with a CD drive instead of a floppy drive in 1991.

j_factor

08-22-2007, 01:44 AM

Another question would be what games did the ST have against the NES or SMS? How well could it stand up to the TurboGrafx-16, Genesis, or Super Nintendo Entertainment System?

I definitely think the ST would have (and did) held up against Genesis, TG16, and SNES. The ST hardware is quite similar to the Genesis, and the games were there.

But, I think that after 7800, XEGS, and Lynx, Atari wouldn't have had the resources/fortitude to launch another system. For our hypothetical STGS to have a good shot at success, it would've had to have been compatible with regular ST games out of the box. Which means a floppy-based console... hmm.

The CDTV/CD32 were likewise consoles based off of a 16-bit computer, and they had the benefit of the huge, already-existing Amiga software library - but they still failed. Wouldn't a console based on the ST have failed similarly in the early 90's?

CD32 couldn't play Amiga games out of the box. You had to buy separately accessories that were specific to the CD32 (in other words, you can't use computer parts) to give it a floppy drive and keyboard/mouse. Even with those accessories, it becomes (practically) an A1200. One of the big factors that made Amiga decline in popularity was poor backwards compatibility. A lot of games that were designed for the A500 didn't run well on a 1200. This issue could be resolved with a Kickstart switcher, but I'm not sure if those can be used on a CD32.

CD32 wasn't really a failure. It sold quite well in Europe for the time that it was out. Unfortunately, Commodore was going bankrupt, and they also had supply issues that made it hard for them to produce enough units. The system was never really released in the US (the NTSC units that they did make were for the Canadian market).

blue lander

08-22-2007, 08:33 AM

I like the Atari ST, but I don't think it had a library of games that could compete against the likes of Mario and Sonic. And maybe it's just the ST games I've played, but the thing was shit at vertical scrolling. Very choppy.

Rob2600

08-22-2007, 01:45 PM

This page will answer all your technical questions about the 8-bits:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/atari-8-bit/faq/

Thanks for the link. Regarding the 5200, 7800, and XEGS, this is what I've been able to sort out:

Atari 5200
released in 1982, discontinued in 1984
CPU: 1.79 MHz 6502C
RAM: 16 KB
graphics: ANTIC and GTIA
max. resolution: 320x192
colors: 16 out of 256 (256 out of 256 using advanced techniques)
sound: POKEY, 4-channel mono
max. cartridge: 32 KB (more using bank switching)

The Atari 5200 was essentially a console version of the Atari 400 computer, which was released in 1979 and discontinued in 1983, but the 5200 featured Atari's custom 6502C CPU, which was used in Atari's computers from 1982 on. Most Atari 400s featured 8 KB or 16 KB of RAM, but some featured 48 KB.

Atari 7800
released in 1986, discontinued in 1992
CPU: 1.79 MHz 6502C
RAM: 4 KB
graphics: 7.16 MHz MARIA
max. resolution: 320x288
colors: 25 out of 256 (varies depending on resolution)
sound: TIA, 2-channel mono (POKEY chips were used in some cartridges)
max. cartridge: 48 MB/52 KB, sources conflict (more using bank switching)

Development of the Atari 7800 was outsourced to a company called General Computer Corporation. It was test-marketed in 1984, but was not officially released until two years later in 1986.

Atari XEGS
released in 1987, discontinued in 1992
CPU: 1.79 MHz 6502C
RAM: 64 KB
graphics: ANTIC and GTIA
max. resolution: 320x192
colors: 16 out of 256 (varies depending on resolution)
sound: POKEY, 4-channel mono
max. cartridge: ?

The Atari XEGS was essentially a console version of the Atari 65XE computer, which was released in 1985 and discontinued in 1992. The Atari 65XE computer replaced the Atari 800XL computer (1983 to 1985) and was nearly identical, minus the parallel bus interface (PBI).

Very simply put:

The Atari 5200 was essentially 1979 technology (Atari 400).

The Atari 7800 was essentially a combination of 1977 technology (Atari 2600 TIA chip for sound), 1979 technology (Atari 400 CPU), and 1984 technology (MARIA graphics chip).

The Atari XEGS was essentially 1979 technology (Atari 400), but with a 1982 amount of RAM (Atari 1200XL).

All three consoles feature the same CPU from 1982, which was a custom version of the 1.79 MHz 6502 CPU from 1979 (Atari 400 and Atari 800).

The 5200 and XEGS are nearly identical, except the XEGS features four times the amount of RAM.

The 7800 features one-fourth the amount of RAM as the 5200 and one-sixteenth the amount of RAM as the XEGS. The 7800 also features an older, less capable sound chip than the one used in the 5200 and XEGS, but features a more advanced graphics chip.

Perhaps if the 7800 featured the same amount of RAM as the 5200 (16 KB) or the XEGS (64 KB) and the POKEY sound chip, Atari would have been able to seriously compete with the NES and SMS in the late 1980s. If Atari was serious about the home console market at the time (which it wasn't), it should've gone from the 5200 in 1982 to that superior version I just described of the 7800 in 1986, to an affordable 16-bit ST console in 1990.

icbrkr

08-22-2007, 02:04 PM

Perhaps if the 7800 featured the same amount of RAM as the 5200 (16 KB) or the XEGS (64 KB) and the POKEY sound chip, Atari would have been able to seriously compete with the NES and SMS in the late 1980s. If Atari was serious about the home console market at the time (which it wasn't), it should've gone from the 5200 in 1982 to that superior version I just described of the 7800 in 1986, to an affordable 16-bit ST console in 1990.

The NES only had 2K of actual RAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System

I'm not sure if that would have been a factor.

Rob2600

08-22-2007, 02:38 PM

The NES only had 2K of actual RAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System

I'm not sure if that would have been a factor.

The NES actually had something like 2.27 KB of RAM, but yes, good point. The NES also featured a custom 1.79 MHz 6502 CPU, similar to the 5200, 7800, and XEGS, except it was customized by Ricoh instead of Atari. Keep in mind, the NES (Famicom) debuted in 1983, while the 7800 essentially debuted a year later in 1984.

Also keep in mind, the Sega Master System (SG-1000 Mark III) had 24 KB of RAM and debuted in 1985.

With the NES and SMS, each game cartridge could contain extra RAM. I assume the same could be done with the 7800, but does anyone know if any 7800 games actually contained added RAM? I assume none of them did based on what I'm reading about the Tramiels keeping costs as low as possible.

Anyway, if the 7800 and NES have similar CPUs and the 7800 has almost twice as much RAM and a larger color palette as the NES, why do NES games look better than 7800 games overall? Is it because the NES is easier to program? Is it because the NES has a better graphics chip? Is it because of the extra RAM and/or MMC chips used in NES games?

I'm curious...does anyone know which NES game contains the most amount of added RAM?

Aswald

08-22-2007, 04:16 PM

Don't forget that the 5200 may have been rushed out to match the ColecoVision.

While the 7800 may have been "officially" released in 1986, even in the more affluent and much more populated area I used to live in (1980s), we didn't really see it until 1988. And by then, it was too late.

It was those few precious years that made the difference- 1984 to 1986. Even if the 7800 was superior in every way to the NES, it would have made no difference; by then, the NES was THE home console, and it had the arcade licenses people wanted. Third party support? Pretty much the same. Had Atari gotten moving in 1984, they would've soon established those bases here in America, and been much stronger. But, they held themselves up with that moronic notion that "video games were dead."

The really pathetic part of it all is this- had Coleco (assuming they hadn't perished in 1984) and Atari (and maybe the company with the Vectrex?) just stuck with it WITH THEIR EXISTING CONSOLES, the CV and 5200...they might have stuck it out. The 7800 is not really much better than either console. I've owned a ColecoVision since 1982, a 7800 since 1988, and a 5200 since 1997, so I've had quite a bit of time to compare them. Look at Joust for the CV. Is the 7800 version really much better, especially since the CV had superior sound (if it had been released, 100% completed, I never would've gotten a 7800)?

Look at Lord of the Dungeon for the CV- a 1983 BATTERY-BACKED RPG! And it was the first, what would the sequel have offered?

Super Pac-Man and Millipede for the 5200...Pac-Man Jr. Opcode's Pac-Man Collection for the CV would just about match such a thing for the NES.

In other words, the old 5200 and CV both had thunder left in them. When I play Tapper, it's obvious.

Oh, well.

ubersaurus

08-22-2007, 04:32 PM

Aswald

08-22-2007, 04:50 PM

If the 7800 came out in 84 it would have sank. No retail outlets would have given it the time of day, and if they had, the fact it had nothing new to bring to the table among the first wave games that DID come out in 86 would have fucked it over anyway.

Well, it did- Desert Falcon, and some other planned games.

You make a good point about the retail outlets, but that was a "maybe," or even a "probably."

It was an "absolutely guaranteed" if they didn't even try. They could've just offered it to the outlets, initially, only taking a cut of profits of those that did sell (the outlets would've had nothing to lose, then). I understand that Nintendo did something like this in the beginning?

It is ironic that what you said may have been more reason to have stuck it out with the 5200 and CV. It really was a matter of dreadful management.

idrougge

08-22-2007, 05:52 PM

The NES actually had something like 2.27 KB of RAM, but yes, good point. The NES also featured a custom 1.79 MHz 6502 CPU, similar to the 5200, 7800, and XEGS, except it was customized by Ricoh instead of Atari. Keep in mind, the NES (Famicom) debuted in 1983, while the 7800 essentially debuted a year later in 1984.

Even the PC Engine uses a (severely) customised 6502. Contemporary arcade games also used a lot of 6502 processors.

Also keep in mind, the Sega Master System (SG-1000 Mark III) had 24 KB of RAM and debuted in 1985.

By that method of counting, the Colecovision had 17 KB of RAM. In reality, the Master System had 8 KB, and the Coleco 1 KB. The rest was VRAM, which was dedicated for the graphics processor. That VRAM is required by the Texas Instruments video processors which both consoles use. The NES didn't have much separate VRAM, since its video processor could grab all graphics data directly from ROM instead. And for the same reason, the TI 99/4 had 16 KB of VRAM even in 1979, when RAM was really expensive.

Anyway, if the 7800 and NES have similar CPUs and the 7800 has almost twice as much RAM and a larger color palette as the NES, why do NES games look better than 7800 games overall? Is it because the NES is easier to program? Is it because the NES has a better graphics chip? Is it because of the extra RAM and/or MMC chips used in NES games?

Two reasons:
1) Atari didn't have Konami, Capcom, Namco or Nintendo as developers.
2) Personal preferences. If you don't like blocky pixels, you probably won't like Atari graphics.

MMC chips and extra RAM does add something, but it's very much a case of underpaid and less talented developers.

idrougge

08-22-2007, 05:57 PM

But, I think that after 7800, XEGS, and Lynx, Atari wouldn't have had the resources/fortitude to launch another system. For our hypothetical STGS to have a good shot at success, it would've had to have been compatible with regular ST games out of the box. Which means a floppy-based console... hmm.

I forgot to mention that. Unlike the XEGS, a hypothetical STGS wouldn't have had the same immediate synergistic advantage. Atari's 8-bit computers (400, 800, XL, XE) used the same cartridge port and the same cartridges as the XEGS, so the same games could be sold for both formats.

The ST does have a cartridge connector, but it is too crippled to be useful as a medium for games. So an STGS with cartridges would have to use another cartridge port, excluding the obvious advantage of having an already established market of ST users.

idrougge

08-22-2007, 06:11 PM

I assume that the ST and Playstation 3 came out years apart. Are you allowing for the decline of the dollar and inflation? You cannot just go by two numbers.

After the first years on the market, the ST was quite cheap, cheap enough to be bought by 12-year-olds.

Another question would be what games did the ST have against the NES or SMS? How well could it stand up to the TurboGrafx-16, Genesis, or Super Nintendo Entertainment System?

When the ST was released, there was no such thing as a TG16, a Genesis or a SNES. In Europe, where the ST's big market was, the Megadrive was released in 1990 and the SNES in 1992. Five and seven years after the ST. If you wanted to play 16-bit games, you had to have an ST or Amiga.

One of the biggest problems with the Tramiels was that they bought into that stupid notion that "video games were dead." THIS was the real reason for the crash, and essentially nothing has changed. Baby Boomer marketers sat around making theories about my generation (and later the one after), spending Lord-knows how many hours talking away, but never doing the one absolutely vital thing that Nintendo did- asking US what WE wanted.

There was a crash. Atari was losing millions of dollars each week. The 2600 market was oversaturated and retail outlets were dropping consoles. Gamers moved to computers such as the C64 and Atari's own computers. Atari alone, especially not after a big corporate makeover, couldn't have turned that around alone. Computers were more lucrative, it's that simple.

Think about it- if video gaming was dead in 1984, why are we discussing Playstation 3s in 2007? Obviously, they were completely wrong; haven't you ever wondered why?

The video games market was dead in 1984, that is a historical fact. That doesn't mean that it is dead in 2007, because unlike living organisms, markets can revive. You can play all the games you want, but if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo abandoned the market tomorrow, the market is dead regardless of how many games you play.

Atari never seemed able to realize that those idiot marketers were wrong, in spite of the immense popularity of the NES and SMS. Somehow, the Tramiels never seemed to believe that any console could make it, so they never really tried. It wasn't that the 7800, the Lynx, or even the Jaguar were pieces of junk- it was just that the Tramiels gave up before even trying, and this was reflected in everything they did.

As I'm saying, Atari was a computer manufacturer since 1979, and was doing well. Philips made TVs and radios and didn't care about the market which they (through Magnavox) had once created. And Coleco was making whatever it is that Coleco makes. And Mattel was making He-Man toys and Barbie dolls, ignoring the revived market which had already one cost them a lot of money.
You look at Atari from a console perspective, but try to tell that to an ST gamer or someone making music in Cubase.

Note- the one thing I will say in their defense was that old Atari was so reckless with their money, maybe they were afraid of it happening again. But they went too far; to make money, you have to spend money.

I agree, the Tramiels had a problematic relationship with money. But on the other hand, you can't say that Nolan Bushnell has been very successful in the market either.

ubersaurus

08-22-2007, 06:51 PM

Well, it did- Desert Falcon, and some other planned games.

You make a good point about the retail outlets, but that was a "maybe," or even a "probably."

It was an "absolutely guaranteed" if they didn't even try. They could've just offered it to the outlets, initially, only taking a cut of profits of those that did sell (the outlets would've had nothing to lose, then). I understand that Nintendo did something like this in the beginning?

It is ironic that what you said may have been more reason to have stuck it out with the 5200 and CV. It really was a matter of dreadful management.

I don't know. Desert Falcon was distinct(except that it also came out on 2600), but Gato and Fractalus were computer games as well. They had little new.

I also don't think the Atari of 1984, losing money hand over foot, was in any position to offer up money to businesses if the 7800 didn't sell.

I'd say the 7800 would have done better had they actually put some money into it in 86 and started putting out the kinds of games you ended up seeing on it in 89. They squandered any chance they had of improving performance until after the Genesis came out and muscled in on their shelf space.

Wasn't the 5200 more money to produce anyway? I know the controllers were dreadful enough I would have wanted to dump it like a hot potato ;)