Because, as we all know, computers can't play games.Originally Posted by Aswald
Because, as we all know, computers can't play games.
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.
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.ph...rch=lx%20rudis
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.
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.
Interesting stuff, here (COMPLETELY unbiased opinion, hehhehheh):
http://griswaldterrastone.deviantart.com/
Even better: name a computer that costs about $100 that offers as much gaming, graphics, and speed as a GameCube or Xbox!
In that case, which console had better graphics capabilities, the 5200 or the XEGS?
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.
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.
They have the same graphics chips, so they're equal, though the XEGS has an advantage due to more memory.
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.
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.
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 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?
Last edited by Rob2600; 08-21-2007 at 02:11 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.
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.
Interesting stuff, here (COMPLETELY unbiased opinion, hehhehheh):
http://griswaldterrastone.deviantart.com/
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?
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." --Bertrand Russel (attributed)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Last edited by Rob2600; 08-22-2007 at 01:05 PM.
The NES only had 2K of actual RAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintend...ainment_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?
Last edited by Rob2600; 08-22-2007 at 02:09 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.
Interesting stuff, here (COMPLETELY unbiased opinion, hehhehheh):
http://griswaldterrastone.deviantart.com/
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.
Check out the Kleppings!
Make Way For Madness!
"9 is a poor man's 11, and 11 is a Baker's Ten."
Infinite Lives
Posting Permissions
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Similar agreements apply to other advertising or affiliate programs such as those from eBay, Google, etc.
Copyright © 1991 - Present of Digital Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote