3 ms·

What a ridiculous way yo frame things. Assuming wikipedia is correct, Atari sold 4million units, C64 sold ~17. So I guess Macs are "also-ran" compared to Window

by gernb 4y ago

What a ridiculous way yo frame things. Assuming wikipedia is correct, Atari sold 4million units, C64 sold ~17. So I guess Macs are "also-ran" compared to Windows PCs as Macs have an even lower market share (currently 9%)

aidenn0 4y ago
1. In terms of sales volume, macs are an also-ran. Lenovo, HP, and Dell each ship more laptops than Apple. I'm traveling now, at my Uncle's house with many family members visiting; there are: - 2 Surface Pros - 2 Dell Laptops - 1 HP Laptop - One mac Laptop 2. Apple is clearly positioned as a luxury brand; it's fine to object to calling BMW an also-ran to Toyota or Ford. The Atari 8-bit systems were at least priced mid-ranged, so I'm not sure that applies here. The expansion bus was positioned as easy-to-use, but that's about the only parallel I can think of. 3. There were other 8-bit computers; C64 doesn't make up the entirety of the market; The Apple II sold 5M; the TRS-80 sold 2.4M; Amstrad sold 3M. 4. When the units were sold matters too; there were 8-bit machines being sold along side 32-bit machines, with the 8-bit machine being a budget option. The TRS-80 was not being sold during this later period; it was the best selling computer of the 1970s. This doesn't seem to significantly affect comparisons between the Atari 8-bit line and Commodore or Apple though, as the IIgs and atari 8-bit line both ended in 1992 and the C64 sold relatively few units in 1993.
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  Not disagreeing at all, but amplifying... It seems silly to compare Atari and Commodore in this way. They were both playing in a very immature market that really had no idea what direction it was going in, so their strategies bear little resemblance to today's mature and saturated market. Speaking as someone who lived through the whole thing, there were clear technological benefits to both machines. For example, the C64 had the SID just, bringing vastly superior sound. On the Atari 800 side (which is what I owned), the expansion bus was not just easier to use, but also allowed the floppy drives to outperform those of the Commodore competition. And the design of the Atari BASIC language was superior. C64 did have some better hardware but as I recall you needed to do goofy things like POKE special values into odd memory addresses to use them. By contrast, I recall Atari's combination of COLOR and SETCOLOR commands, which at first seemed baffling but later the realization of how they worked together (and other similar sorts of things) did a lot to help me understand software systems.

by gernb 4y ago

aidenn0 4y ago

1. In terms of sales volume, macs are an also-ran. Lenovo, HP, and Dell each ship more laptops than Apple. I'm traveling now, at my Uncle's house with many family members visiting; there are: - 2 Surface Pros - 2 Dell Laptops - 1 HP Laptop - One mac Laptop 2. Apple is clearly positioned as a luxury brand; it's fine to object to calling BMW an also-ran to Toyota or Ford. The Atari 8-bit systems were at least priced mid-ranged, so I'm not sure that applies here. The expansion bus was positioned as easy-to-use, but that's about the only parallel I can think of. 3. There were other 8-bit computers; C64 doesn't make up the entirety of the market; The Apple II sold 5M; the TRS-80 sold 2.4M; Amstrad sold 3M. 4. When the units were sold matters too; there were 8-bit machines being sold along side 32-bit machines, with the 8-bit machine being a budget option. The TRS-80 was not being sold during this later period; it was the best selling computer of the 1970s. This doesn't seem to significantly affect comparisons between the Atari 8-bit line and Commodore or Apple though, as the IIgs and atari 8-bit line both ended in 1992 and the C64 sold relatively few units in 1993.

CWuestefeld 4y ago
Not disagreeing at all, but amplifying... It seems silly to compare Atari and Commodore in this way. They were both playing in a very immature market that really had no idea what direction it was going in, so their strategies bear little resemblance to today's mature and saturated market. Speaking as someone who lived through the whole thing, there were clear technological benefits to both machines. For example, the C64 had the SID just, bringing vastly superior sound. On the Atari 800 side (which is what I owned), the expansion bus was not just easier to use, but also allowed the floppy drives to outperform those of the Commodore competition. And the design of the Atari BASIC language was superior. C64 did have some better hardware but as I recall you needed to do goofy things like POKE special values into odd memory addresses to use them. By contrast, I recall Atari's combination of COLOR and SETCOLOR commands, which at first seemed baffling but later the realization of how they worked together (and other similar sorts of things) did a lot to help me understand software systems.