The legendary Atari 200
Nick Bensema
computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair 1000.
Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at one-third
of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
Apparently prototypes were sent out to software companies throughout
the southwestern US in 1980 so that they could test and modify their
products for compatibility. It had 4KB of RAM, which was more than
the Vic-20 had, but less than anything it was supposed to be
software-compatible with, but there was an even bigger concern.
Its CTIA chip was a cheaper version that couldn't do the high
320-pixel-wide graphics or text modes. The operating system was
retooled to center around 20-column text in "Graphics 1" mode, using
an underscore cursor and no lowercase or block-drawing characters.
This saves hundreds of bytes of RAM and ROM on its own, and they
cut even more from the ROM by removing all the support for arrow
keys, variable tabs, and other advanced screen editor commands. It
still booted to Memo Pad, and BASIC and PILOT were still supposed
to work. I don't know what it did for games that used hard-coded
display lists; did Pac-Man have blank scores, or merely illegible
ones? I got conflicting reports.
It had two joystick ports instead of four, and its keyboard was
completely flat with a simple white keyboard design printed on it,
matching the Atari 400's except without the unsupported control
keys. I'm not sure whether they skipped out on the serial port
entirely, as prototypes varied, but it definitely supported a line-in
interface for loading cassette programs out of your existing stereo.
But what made it really remarkable was the case. As many of you
are aware, the Atari 400 and 800 were designed with an excessive
amount of shielding, as they were working under stricter FCC
guidelines than when they designed the XL and XE series, and with
more protective parts. The Atari 200 couldn't reach its target
price with expensive metal shielding, so even though the circuit
board itself was tiny, it was surrounded by a several-inches-thick
case made of a lightweight polystyrene, treated with some recycled
metals, and chemical dyes. This supposedly formed the case, the
RF shielding, and the circuit board mountings, in two solid pieces.
No fasteners were needed, as the top half screwed into the bottom
half like the lid of a jar. Indeed, this was how you plugged
anything into the Atari 200, including joysticks and cartridges.
This was reported to be less awkward than it sounds, considering
it weighed very little, despite having a footprint the size of an
Atari 800, and being twice as tall. However well it may have blocked
radio interference, apparently they just couldn't work out a way
to channel heat effectively out of that igloo of a case, and the
case material reacted badly to the buildup. Indeed, all my Atari
200 research started when I was investigating why so many software
companies in Phoenix had fires in 1980.
I've seen two marketing flyers that would have been distributed at
CES and to local vendors if it had launched. In the first one,
it's depicted in a classroom, and children are lining up to use it
and program BASIC. The screen shows large text in three different
colors, as if it's in Graphics 1 text mode. It's on a desk that's
clearly too durable to have belonged to a public school, next to
what I suppose is an Atari 210 disk drive, which would have taken
surplus 8-inch floppy disks. In another, it's in a kitchen, next
to a 40-column plotter and no monitor(!), and a man with an apron
and a necktie has one hand on the keyboard and another hand on a
frying pan, while cradling a telephone under his chin. According
to the ad copy, this was apparently a campaign to have an Atari
device in every room of the house, but I don't know who has room
in their kitchen for an Atari 200. It would be neat to make a
fondue pot out of it, I guess.
I've seen only one prototype photo, a Polaroid taken for an insurance
claim. It shows the bottom half of the case, containing a circuit
board, ports, and grooves to guide joystick cables and such out of
the case, and a giant crack that's definitely not part of the design.
I'm no engineer, so all I can say about the internals is that I
didn't see a serial port in there, but I did see a section of ribbon
cable that looked like it would have connected to the keyboard. It
looks like it's been burnt or melted or something at the halfway
point.
The person who showed me the prototype photo was going to scan it
so that I could get the chips identified, maybe even get MESS drivers
written for it. But he hasn't answered his phone or his door in
weeks, which is too bad, because I need to return his Atari 1600
prototype, as I'm low on money and space and need to rent out the
two bedrooms I'm keeping it in.
--
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
.....................................................http://www.io.com/~nickb
Mark Edwards
> I need to return his Atari 1600
>prototype, as I'm low on money and space and need to rent out the
>two bedrooms I'm keeping it in.
If you need an 8-bit computer to have teh sexxors, ur doin it rong. Srsly.
Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<snip>
>The person who showed me the prototype photo was going to scan it
>so that I could get the chips identified, maybe even get MESS drivers
>written for it. But he hasn't answered his phone or his door in
>weeks, which is too bad, because I need to return his Atari 1600
>prototype, as I'm low on money and space and need to rent out the
>two bedrooms I'm keeping it in.
Ok, I'll bite.
How does one small computer wind up occupying 2 bedrooms?
--
ArarghMail912 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
Mark Edwards
>Ok, I'll bite.
>
>How does one small computer wind up occupying 2 bedrooms?
Duh. Vacuum tubes and patch panels, dude. More, if there's an Atari 212cr
card reader.
jmfbahciv
> On 14 Dec 2009 01:45:11 GMT, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> The person who showed me the prototype photo was going to scan it
>> so that I could get the chips identified, maybe even get MESS drivers
>> written for it. But he hasn't answered his phone or his door in
>> weeks, which is too bad, because I need to return his Atari 1600
>> prototype, as I'm low on money and space and need to rent out the
>> two bedrooms I'm keeping it in.
>
> Ok, I'll bite.
>
> How does one small computer wind up occupying 2 bedrooms?
he hung an RP01 off it and a LP01 with a Calcomp plotter
(those things were huge).
/BAH
Mark
as I'm low on money and space and need to rent out the
> two bedrooms I'm keeping it in.
>
> --
Two words... chinchilla farm.
---
Mark
Jared
> computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair 1000.
> Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
> supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at one-third
> of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
Ran Unix and everything.
Joe Pfeiffer
I'm trying to remember -- did that run Microsoft's short-lived Unix?
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Michael Black
Nobody did, which is likely one reason it never made it to production.
But it's decades later, and some people are apparently interested in
prototypes, those home computers that never were. Back then, the magazine
articles would feature them, and then you'd never hear anything more about
them. Lots of speculation, but somehow they never appeared. Now, they
become sought after items because collectors have collected all the common
stuff, and having some prototype in your collection makes your collection
different from all the rest.
Michael
Michael Black
> Jared <jare...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Dec 13, 8:45 pm, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
>>> I've just learned that Atari was working on a special low-cost Atari
>>> computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair 1000.
>>> Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
>>> supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at one-third
>>> of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
>>
>> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
>>
>> Ran Unix and everything.
>
> I'm trying to remember -- did that run Microsoft's short-lived Unix?
Not "Microsoft's short-lived Unix"; it was Microsoft Xenix (but I
have no idea if that's what it ran).
Michael
Charles Richmond
In reality, it ran Xenix. That's the way Mi$uck spells "Unix".
--
+----------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond |
| |
| plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com |
+----------------------------------------+
Jared
According to what I read on the interwebs, it did run Xenix on the
68000. However, in practice, ours ran TRS-DOS on the Z80.
Bill Garber
"Charles Richmond" <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hg6rqk$phm$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Jared wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 8:45 pm, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
>>> I've just learned that Atari was working on a special low-cost Atari computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair
>>> 1000. Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at
>>> one-third of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
>>
>> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
>>
>> Ran Unix and everything.
>
> In reality, it ran Xenix. That's the way Mi$uck spells "Unix".
This is a good read if you'd rather find out about 'Xenix',
instead of listening to Microsoft haters, not that I like
them all that much myself. 8^)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
Bill
Joe Pfeiffer
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Jared wrote:
>
>> On Dec 13, 8:45�pm, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
>>> I've just learned that Atari was working on a special low-cost Atari
>>> computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair 1000.
>>> Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
>>> supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at one-third
>>> of the price. �I wonder why I've never read about it here.
>>
>> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
>>
>> Ran Unix and everything.
>>
> Nobody did, which is likely one reason it never made it to production.
I could swear I saw one once...
Charles Richmond
ISTM that Xenix was in reality developed by SCO (the Santa Cruiz
Operation), a company that Mi$uck had about a 30% investment in at
one time. I think Mi$uck may still use their ownership in SCO to
sue over the use of Linux.
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Bill Garber wrote:
> > "Charles Richmond" <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:hg6rqk$phm$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Jared wrote:
> >>> On Dec 13, 8:45 pm, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
> >>>> I've just learned that Atari was working on a special low-cost Atari
> >>>> computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair
> >>>> 1000. Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
> >>>> supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at
> >>>> one-third of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
> >>> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
> >>>
> >>> Ran Unix and everything.
> >> In reality, it ran Xenix. That's the way Mi$uck spells "Unix".
> >
> > This is a good read if you'd rather find out about 'Xenix',
> > instead of listening to Microsoft haters, not that I like
> > them all that much myself. 8^)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
> >
>
> ISTM that Xenix was in reality developed by SCO (the Santa Cruiz
> Operation), a company that Mi$uck had about a 30% investment in at
> one time. I think Mi$uck may still use their ownership in SCO to
> sue over the use of Linux.
There ain't no Santa Cruiz!
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Michael Black
I didn't look at the link, so I didn't know what computer it was, and
I only guess now.
There was a TRS-DOS for the Radio Shack 68000 based computers. I can't
remember if that was a stop-gap until Xenix was ready for it, or if
there was some other reasoning.
Michael
Bill Garber
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message news:proto-C997AD....@news.panix.com...
Not only that, but it only SEEMS to him, and he only THINKS that
what he says might be. He provides NO references to what he speaks.
Also, I find that folks who use Microsoft $ucks to refer to them,
are usually just jealous and couldn't write a program to print
"HELLO WORLD" if their lives depended on it. LOL
Bill
Charles Richmond
But you do *not* need a TRS-80 Model 16... to run TRS-DOS...
Charles Richmond
I'm posting from <a.f.c.>, and we do *not* always provide
references. ;-) (What is "Santa Cruiz" gonna bring you for
Christmas???)
I am *not* jealous of Mi$uck, mostly just resentful of their poor
OS products and their unfair business practices.
Michael Black
> Jared wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 8:17 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>> Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Dec 13, 8:45 pm, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
>>>>>> I've just learned that Atari was working on a special low-cost Atari
>>>>>> computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair 1000.
>>>>>> Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
>>>>>> supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at one-third
>>>>>> of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
>>>>> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
>>>>> Ran Unix and everything.
>>>> I'm trying to remember -- did that run Microsoft's short-lived Unix?
>>> Not "Microsoft's short-lived Unix"; it was Microsoft Xenix (but I
>>> have no idea if that's what it ran).
>>
>> According to what I read on the interwebs, it did run Xenix on the
>> 68000. However, in practice, ours ran TRS-DOS on the Z80.
>
> But you do *not* need a TRS-80 Model 16... to run TRS-DOS...
>
You did when it was the 16-bit version.
There was a version of TRS-DOS that ran on the 68000. I can't remember if
it was the plan all along, or if they had to scramble because Xenix was
late.
Michael
Jared
Actually, I was _assuming_ it ran on the Z80. I'm not sure.
I remember SuperCalc and Adventure, and some sort of BASIC and ELIZA
and a word processor. And there was a version of CP/M, but I never did
anything with it; I'm not sure if we had any apps.
Quadibloc
> Ok, I'll bite.
>
> How does one small computer wind up occupying 2 bedrooms?
Well, he did say it was a prototype.
Hence, it could have been on wire-wrapped circuit boards. And it could
just be in two pieces with a lot of other computer junk cluttering
both bedrooms.
John Savard
Eric Chomko
> computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair 1000.
> Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
> supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at one-third
> of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
I used to sell the Atari 400 and 800. The problem with the 400 was the
keyboard, but it was $200 cheaper than the 800. I can't imagine a
cheaper version of the 400. I bet that is why it didn't sell.
>
> Apparently prototypes were sent out to software companies throughout
> the southwestern US in 1980 so that they could test and modify their
> products for compatibility. It had 4KB of RAM, which was more than
> the Vic-20 had, but less than anything it was supposed to be
> software-compatible with, but there was an even bigger concern.
> Its CTIA chip was a cheaper version that couldn't do the high
> 320-pixel-wide graphics or text modes. The operating system was
> retooled to center around 20-column text in "Graphics 1" mode, using
> an underscore cursor and no lowercase or block-drawing characters.
> This saves hundreds of bytes of RAM and ROM on its own, and they
> cut even more from the ROM by removing all the support for arrow
> keys, variable tabs, and other advanced screen editor commands. It
> still booted to Memo Pad, and BASIC and PILOT were still supposed
> to work. I don't know what it did for games that used hard-coded
> display lists; did Pac-Man have blank scores, or merely illegible
> ones? I got conflicting reports.
>
> It had two joystick ports instead of four, and its keyboard was
> completely flat with a simple white keyboard design printed on it,
> matching the Atari 400's except without the unsupported control
> keys.
The 400's keyboard was bad. Nearly as bad as the original Commodore
PET (sold them too!).
> I'm not sure whether they skipped out on the serial port
> entirely, as prototypes varied, but it definitely supported a line-in
> interface for loading cassette programs out of your existing stereo.
Cartridge holder like the 400 and 800?
>
> But what made it really remarkable was the case. As many of you
> are aware, the Atari 400 and 800 were designed with an excessive
> amount of shielding, as they were working under stricter FCC
> guidelines than when they designed the XL and XE series, and with
> more protective parts. The Atari 200 couldn't reach its target
> price with expensive metal shielding, so even though the circuit
> board itself was tiny, it was surrounded by a several-inches-thick
> case made of a lightweight polystyrene, treated with some recycled
> metals, and chemical dyes. This supposedly formed the case, the
> RF shielding, and the circuit board mountings, in two solid pieces.
> No fasteners were needed, as the top half screwed into the bottom
> half like the lid of a jar. Indeed, this was how you plugged
> anything into the Atari 200, including joysticks and cartridges.
> This was reported to be less awkward than it sounds, considering
> it weighed very little, despite having a footprint the size of an
> Atari 800, and being twice as tall. However well it may have blocked
> radio interference, apparently they just couldn't work out a way
> to channel heat effectively out of that igloo of a case, and the
> case material reacted badly to the buildup. Indeed, all my Atari
> 200 research started when I was investigating why so many software
> companies in Phoenix had fires in 1980.
Oops! Does Time-Warner know about this?
> I've seen two marketing flyers that would have been distributed at
> CES and to local vendors if it had launched. In the first one,
> it's depicted in a classroom, and children are lining up to use it
> and program BASIC. The screen shows large text in three different
> colors, as if it's in Graphics 1 text mode. It's on a desk that's
> clearly too durable to have belonged to a public school, next to
> what I suppose is an Atari 210 disk drive, which would have taken
> surplus 8-inch floppy disks. In another, it's in a kitchen, next
> to a 40-column plotter and no monitor(!), and a man with an apron
> and a necktie has one hand on the keyboard and another hand on a
> frying pan, while cradling a telephone under his chin. According
> to the ad copy, this was apparently a campaign to have an Atari
> device in every room of the house, but I don't know who has room
> in their kitchen for an Atari 200. It would be neat to make a
> fondue pot out of it, I guess.
The original Mac was better for that. Look up the fish bowls that they
have been used for.
>
> I've seen only one prototype photo, a Polaroid taken for an insurance
> claim. It shows the bottom half of the case, containing a circuit
> board, ports, and grooves to guide joystick cables and such out of
> the case, and a giant crack that's definitely not part of the design.
> I'm no engineer, so all I can say about the internals is that I
> didn't see a serial port in there, but I did see a section of ribbon
> cable that looked like it would have connected to the keyboard. It
> looks like it's been burnt or melted or something at the halfway
> point.
>
> The person who showed me the prototype photo was going to scan it
> so that I could get the chips identified, maybe even get MESS drivers
> written for it. But he hasn't answered his phone or his door in
> weeks, which is too bad, because I need to return his Atari 1600
> prototype, as I'm low on money and space and need to rent out the
> two bedrooms I'm keeping it in.
Isn't the 1600 the video game, or ius that the 2600?
>
> --
> .............................................................................
> .............................................................................
> .............................................................................
> .....................................................http://www.io.com/~nickb
Eric Chomko
Trash 80-16
Eric Chomko
Reminds me of the Apple III. It existed alright, but was a lousy
system!
Drop it from a foot above the ground to reseat the chips...cmon!
Eric Chomko
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Jared wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 13, 8:45 pm, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
> >>> I've just learned that Atari was working on a special low-cost Atari
> >>> computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair 1000.
> >>> Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
> >>> supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at one-third
> >>> of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
>
> >> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
> >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
>
> >> Ran Unix and everything.
>
> > Nobody did, which is likely one reason it never made it to production.
>
> I could swear I saw one once...
>
I said that of the TI 99/8 too.
Eric Chomko
> >news:hg6rqk$phm$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Jared wrote:
> >>> On Dec 13, 8:45 pm, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
> >>>> I've just learned that Atari was working on a special low-cost Atari computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair
> >>>> 1000. Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at
> >>>> one-third of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
> >>> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
> >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
>
> >>> Ran Unix and everything.
> >> In reality, it ran Xenix. That's the way Mi$uck spells "Unix".
>
> > This is a good read if you'd rather find out about 'Xenix',
> > instead of listening to Microsoft haters, not that I like
> > them all that much myself. 8^)
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
>
> ISTM that Xenix was in reality developed by SCO (the Santa Cruiz
> Operation), a company that Mi$uck had about a 30% investment in at
> one time. I think Mi$uck may still use their ownership in SCO to
> sue over the use of Linux.
Did that work out? Seems to me that Linix is growing and SCO is
shrinking if it still does anything at all.
Eric
Eric Chomko
> In article <hg76qm$5l...@news.eternal-september.org>,> > > "Charles Richmond" <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >news:hg6rqk$phm$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > >> Jared wrote:
> > >>> On Dec 13, 8:45 pm, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
> > >>>> I've just learned that Atari was working on a special low-cost Atari
> > >>>> computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair
> > >>>> 1000. Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
> > >>>> supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at
> > >>>> one-third of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
> > >>> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
> > >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
>
> > >>> Ran Unix and everything.
> > >> In reality, it ran Xenix. That's the way Mi$uck spells "Unix".
>
> > > This is a good read if you'd rather find out about 'Xenix',
> > > instead of listening to Microsoft haters, not that I like
> > > them all that much myself. 8^)
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
>
> > ISTM that Xenix was in reality developed by SCO (the Santa Cruiz
> > Operation), a company that Mi$uck had about a 30% investment in at
> > one time. I think Mi$uck may still use their ownership in SCO to
> > sue over the use of Linux.
>
> There ain't no Santa Cruiz!
>
Yeah, because Capitola is better!
Dr. HotSalt
> I've just learned that Atari was working on a special low-cost Atari
> computer to compete with the Vic-20 and Timex-Sinclair 1000.
Gods, the Little Black Brick. It was my first computer. I built one
with three different keyboards that could be used simultaneously
because I didn't like having to shift-etc. to get the graphics
characters. I wish I still had the thing; it was scary to look at.
> Codenamed "Zelda" and to be released as "The Atari 200", it was
> supposed to be software-compatible with the Atari 400 at one-third
> of the price. I wonder why I've never read about it here.
Nicko, old, boy, when you wrote "here", which of the three froups
you xposted to did you mean?
Or were you just not picky that day?
> ...Indeed, all my Atari
> 200 research started when I was investigating why so many software
> companies in Phoenix had fires in 1980.
As a matter of curiosity, would you happen to know if many of them
were located on/near the then-really-low-rent stretch of Fillmore
Street between 7th Street and 7th Avenue?
I often wondered if the "Fillmore Firebug" had more to do with
accidental fires than, um, sub rosa urban renewal.
Dr. HotSalt
Michael Black
Well no. The Atari being described never made it to market, it was a
prototype. Commodore had all kinds of computers that would get press
in "Compute!" and then never be heard from again.
The Apple III may have been a lousy product (or perhaps a lousy
implementation of a "better" Apple II) but it actually made it
into production and had some level of penetration into the marketplace.
I had an Apple III for a while, well after it came out, and it just
fell into my lap with some other junk. They weren't common, but they
weren't rare at the time.
Michael
Roland Hutchinson
That's a different SCO. It's Caldera that rebadged itself after
acquiring the original SCO's server software and stuff -- the original
SCO continued as Tarentella and eventually sold itself to Sun.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Charles Richmond
NO, thank goodness it did *not* work out. ISTR that Mi$uck was
upset because IBM was offering Linux on IBM's "blade servers". The
lawsuit was Mi$uck's way of slowing that down...
Eric Chomko
More like the Apple Lisa?
>
> The Apple III may have been a lousy product (or perhaps a lousy
> implementation of a "better" Apple II) but it actually made it
> into production and had some level of penetration into the marketplace.
Define some level? Did Apple break even on it?
>
> I had an Apple III for a while, well after it came out, and it just
> fell into my lap with some other junk. They weren't common, but they
> weren't rare at the time.
>
Okay, okay, the Apple III wan't a prototype, it was a failed product.
Walter Bushell
<8f8168df-c02d-4092...@q18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Chomko <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Well no. �The Atari being described never made it to market, it was a
> > prototype. �Commodore had all kinds of computers that would get press
> > in "Compute!" and then never be heard from again.
>
> More like the Apple Lisa?
The Lisa made it to market. For a price they would convert it to an
upscale (at the time) Mac. For a while, Lisa was the development system
for Mac. Until the sex change.
jmfbahciv
> In article
> <8f8168df-c02d-4092...@q18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Chomko <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well no. The Atari being described never made it to market, it was a
>>> prototype. Commodore had all kinds of computers that would get press
>>> in "Compute!" and then never be heard from again.
>> More like the Apple Lisa?
>
> The Lisa made it to market. For a price they would convert it to an
> upscale (at the time) Mac. For a while, Lisa was the development system
> for Mac. Until the sex change.
>
/BAH
Charles Richmond
> In article
> <8f8168df-c02d-4092...@q18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Chomko <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well no. The Atari being described never made it to market, it was a
>>> prototype. Commodore had all kinds of computers that would get press
>>> in "Compute!" and then never be heard from again.
>> More like the Apple Lisa?
>
> The Lisa made it to market. For a price they would convert it to an
> upscale (at the time) Mac. For a while, Lisa was the development system
> for Mac. Until the sex change.
>
Quadibloc
> Indeed, all my Atari
> 200 research started when I was investigating why so many software
> companies in Phoenix had fires in 1980.
That's one way for a computer company to go out of business. Set fires
at all the companies that develop third-party software for your
platform. Way to go, Atari!
I think this just about sets a record in an industry known for the
terribly mistaken decisions made by various companies at one time or
another.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
Yes, and it looked and felt like a real computer! It even had a nice
keyboard.
But it was pretty expensive, and it wasn't so popular as to have lots
of software written even for its principal operating system. So it
died pretty quickly when the IBM PC came out.
I keep looking for a way to give the desktop PC that "real computer"
feel.
John Savard
Scott Lurndal
>On Dec 14, 11:11=A0am, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Eh, why would anyone want one? Now _this_ was a real computer:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/8399025@N07/2275732923
>
>Yes, and it looked and felt like a real computer! It even had a nice
>keyboard.
Actually, _this_ was a real computer:
Nick Spalding
on 19 Dec 2009 00:48:37 GMT:
This was the first I personally owned, used a TV as its screen.
<http://192.197.62.35/people/mcsele/images/OSISuperboardII.jpg>
--
Nick Spalding
Esra Sdrawkcab
wrote:
First business micro I used:
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/superbrain.html
You could even get 'adventure' on it!
--
Nuns! Reverse!