3 ms·
I dunno, Tramiel's Atari Corp kept the 8-bit line going for years after the changeover, adding new models. And they even had relative success later in places li
by cmrdporcupine 2y ago
I dunno, Tramiel's Atari Corp kept the 8-bit line going for years after the changeover, adding new models. And they even had relative success later in places like Poland.
One problem is that these kinds of architectures that relied on special custom chips have inevitable obsolescence built in. When your "API" for graphics programming is a custom chipset at a certain clock rate with certain capabilities, it's just not going to scale up past a certain point. You get initial superpowers, but then Moore's law just makes it pointless.
See also: Amiga.
- bluGill 2y agoTramiel arguably mismanaged Atari worse than Warner brothers. Sure Tramiel cared about computers, but his management style was hostile to getting anything done. I agree that the custom chips were a dead end. However the ST line could have beat the mac if management was any good. (as could/should the Amiga, though I was Atari locked at the time and so I didn't pay attention to what they were doing)
- cmrdporcupine 2y agoI mean I agree about Tramiel management. I was an Atari ST user from 86? 87? to 92. But I also think there's just no way Atari Corp could have taken on e.g. Apple regardless of management. They simply didn't have the capital, market penetration, etc. to carve out a segment that big. Apple was already a big deal and although the Macintosh was not really a big success at that point, there was a giant company behind it with top tier talent, and lots of cash.