3 ms·

The Atari 800. Beautiful design, but initially overbuilt and too expensive for the market; I suspect two different home gaming machines from the same company al

The Atari 800. Beautiful design, but initially overbuilt and too expensive for the market; I suspect two different home gaming machines from the same company also confused consumers; later, when a lower-cost version was released, Commodore had already started gobbling up market share.

protomyth 8y ago
You might want to actually look at the sales figures for the Atari 800. Atari and Commodore were outselling Apple in their day. Commodore did indeed outsell Atari, but Atari wasn't a failure.
- orionblastar 8y ago
  Atari ST was another computer that failed. It used a DRI CP/M-68 and GEM with TOS with MS-DOS formatted disks. The Amiga outsold it, but the ST had the Magic Sac to run Mac programs as well.
  - icelancer 8y ago
    Atari ST was crushing Amiga for years until Commodore got their stuff together and bifurcated the product line into the Amiga 2000 and Amiga 500 while also getting good games on the system - plus the Video Toaster and other accessories to finally take advantage of the multimedia superiority of the platform. It didn't really matter in either case since IBM and its clones were destroying both of them with Macintosh stealing the non-IBM market share all the same.
  - kabdib 8y ago
    The ST didn't use CP/M-68K (it did during early development, but pivoted to a newly written file system and loader before it shipped). The ST failed because the Tramiels didn't really understand software platforms. They got hardware, but when it came to developing an ecosystem that could support developers over a long period of time they just couldn't compete with the likes of Apple and Microsoft (the ST's software team was 10-12 people, and I don't care how good they were, doing a long-term successful platform just wasn't going to happen with a team that small). Coupled with some predatory business practices, the writing was on the wall. The Magic Sac was more of a curiosity than it was a serious solution to anything. I have a great deal of respect for David Small, but the product was never going to work for the 68020 and up Macs.
- rwallace 8y ago
  Now that's a good question. The Atari 8-bit FAQ says 'Atari had sold 35,000 400/800 computers through 1980' and since it was obviously put together by Atari enthusiasts I wouldn't expect it to shoot low on the estimate. But elsewhere, a figure nearly an order of magnitude higher has been suggested, which would indeed have outsold Apple. Which figure is correct?
  - protomyth 8y ago
    Well, the Atari 8-bit FAQ is just off by a magnitude. http://www.retrocomputing.net/info/siti/total_share.html http://www.retrocomputing.net/info/siti/total_share.html is ok and well sourced but they do skip some models from Atari and Commodore.

protomyth 8y ago

You might want to actually look at the sales figures for the Atari 800. Atari and Commodore were outselling Apple in their day. Commodore did indeed outsell Atari, but Atari wasn't a failure.

orionblastar 8y ago
Atari ST was another computer that failed. It used a DRI CP/M-68 and GEM with TOS with MS-DOS formatted disks. The Amiga outsold it, but the ST had the Magic Sac to run Mac programs as well.
- icelancer 8y ago
  Atari ST was crushing Amiga for years until Commodore got their stuff together and bifurcated the product line into the Amiga 2000 and Amiga 500 while also getting good games on the system - plus the Video Toaster and other accessories to finally take advantage of the multimedia superiority of the platform. It didn't really matter in either case since IBM and its clones were destroying both of them with Macintosh stealing the non-IBM market share all the same.
- kabdib 8y ago
  The ST didn't use CP/M-68K (it did during early development, but pivoted to a newly written file system and loader before it shipped). The ST failed because the Tramiels didn't really understand software platforms. They got hardware, but when it came to developing an ecosystem that could support developers over a long period of time they just couldn't compete with the likes of Apple and Microsoft (the ST's software team was 10-12 people, and I don't care how good they were, doing a long-term successful platform just wasn't going to happen with a team that small). Coupled with some predatory business practices, the writing was on the wall. The Magic Sac was more of a curiosity than it was a serious solution to anything. I have a great deal of respect for David Small, but the product was never going to work for the 68020 and up Macs.
rwallace 8y ago
Now that's a good question. The Atari 8-bit FAQ says 'Atari had sold 35,000 400/800 computers through 1980' and since it was obviously put together by Atari enthusiasts I wouldn't expect it to shoot low on the estimate. But elsewhere, a figure nearly an order of magnitude higher has been suggested, which would indeed have outsold Apple. Which figure is correct?
- protomyth 8y ago
  Well, the Atari 8-bit FAQ is just off by a magnitude. http://www.retrocomputing.net/info/siti/total_share.html http://www.retrocomputing.net/info/siti/total_share.html is ok and well sourced but they do skip some models from Atari and Commodore.