mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton John) (05/03/91)
Hmmm. I can't believe that in this newsgroup, there are still wrong
answers, or at the least, incorrect ones.
For the most part, the information is alright, but here is another
clarification from someone who has been there from the start.
The Coleen and Candy machines (Atari code names for the 400/800)
came out around 1979.
Here are some facts about the 400.
16k RAM. Not user expandible. Of course you found hacks making
keyboards and expanding one to at least 1Mb.
10k ROM.
Almost all peripherals worked, except it's pretty hard to do any
programming with DOS loaded in the computer. This was more of a
computer if you couldn't afford an 800. And if anyone has 1982
copies of COMPUTE!, you'll see why Atari sold alot of 400s with the
410 Program recorder. 810 disk drives were around $450...
The 800:
Originally shipped with only 16k, the latest version came with a
full boat 48k. Early versions had a slot door with a couple of
catches to keep it shut. Since the last 800s came with 48k, they
screwed them shut.
The slots:
Using 16k RAM boards (I even found these gems at Sears as late as
1987- still at $100 each!) you could plug an assortment of boards
to get the full 48k or so, depending on your budget. For those with
less cash, they had 8k boards.
The Operating System was on a single 10k board, I speculate that
they might make upgrades, and they were to be swapped. Better than
a disk based system, and better than a hard wired in system. Didn't
pan out...
There were various third party products that plugged into a slot,
one so that you had 80 columns among others.
The 400 had one cartridge (8k) slot, the 800 had two. Originally to
accomodate two cart programs (which never materialized) the right
slot was unused with one exception, Monkey Wrench that had among
other things, a monitor. One that might have made a two cart (16k)
program, Microsoft Basic II.
The 1200XL had improvements over the 400/800, but turned into an
interim machine. Some improvements were great, but weren't carried
into the 600/800XLs, and some were dogs.
The 600/800XLs were newer versions of the 400/800, but had a
parallel expansion bus, and the 600XL (16k) could be easily
expanded to 64k with the 1064 cartridge. These machines have
AtariBASIC built in (the infamous Revision B- last ones had Rev. C)
and remnants of the 1200XL OS.
The 65XE and 130XE were the Tramiel Atari versions of the 8 bit
machines, the 65XE had Revision C AtariBASIC, but no Parallel Bus.
The 130XE had 128k bank-switched, and had the parallel bus in a
different configuration.
Maybe this bored you, maybe not. But this is how it was (is).
--
the good guys! Sakura-mendo, CA
Internet: mfolivo@sactoh0.SAC.CA.USnin15b0b@merrimack.edu (05/03/91)
In article <1991May3.070356.21318@sactoh0.sac.ca.us>, mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton John) writes: > > Here are some facts about the 400. > > 16k RAM. Not user expandible. Of course you found hacks making > keyboards and expanding one to at least 1Mb. I beg to differ. I owned an atari 400. I expanded it to 48k with a user expandable 48k ram board from a third party developer (AXLON). -- David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 Bitnet: Sheafer_davi@bentley
portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.094832.21781@merrimack.edu>, nin15b0b@merrimack.edu writes: |> In article <1991May3.070356.21318@sactoh0.sac.ca.us>, |> mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton John) writes: |> > |> > Here are some facts about the 400. |> > |> > 16k RAM. Not user expandible. Of course you found hacks making |> > keyboards and expanding one to at least 1Mb. |> |> I beg to differ. I owned an atari 400. I expanded it to 48k |> with a user |> expandable 48k ram board from a third party developer (AXLON). And if my memory serves me correctly, that same exact board is installed in my Atari 400 at home. BTW, at one point Atari marketed their own 48K expansion kit for the 400. I saw this at B&C Computervisions in Santa Clara, CA a few months ago. m. -- __ \/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics, Inc. portuesi@sgi.com
whoffman@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Walt Hoffman) (05/04/91)
Since this thread has been on Atari history (1400XL, etc.), what ever
happened to the much heralded AtariTel venture? Many people were working
on this, and the press was quite active about talking how this was 'going
to change the way we use the telephone'. But I *never* saw any of the
products. What were they? How were they different?
--
Walt Hoffman -- Jet Propulsion Laboratory
whoffman@jato.jpl.nasa.gov or elroy!jato!whoffman@csvax.caltech.edu
Galileo Orbiter Engineering Team -- Real-Time Analyst
"Jupiter...it's not just a destination, it's an adventure."Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (05/04/91)
Mark Newton John writes: >Hmmm. I can't believe that in this newsgroup, there are still wrong >answers, or at the least, incorrect ones. >For the most part, the information is alright, but here is another >clarification from someone who has been there from the start. ... >Here are some facts about the 400. >16k RAM. Not user expandible. Of course you found hacks making >keyboards and expanding one to at least 1Mb. Not entirely true... since we're questing for the way it was, there were third party expansion boards for the 400 that made upgrading to 32K as easy as unplugging the 16K board, and plugging in the 32K board.. I know, I did it.. and it was easier than upgrading my ST.. There was a third party 48K board I later added which was about as easy to do as the DataFree upgrade board I recently added to my ST.. you had to solder a small template onto the bottom of the 400 motherboard to bring an extra address line to the memory slot.. (I suppose that might qualify as a "hack" since it involved soldering.. the 32K board was a straight plug-in) >Almost all peripherals worked, except it's pretty hard to do any >programming with DOS loaded in the computer. Actually, ALL the peripherals worked, since the 400 and 800 were identical.. with the 32K (or 48K) board installed, there was no problem doing useful programming.. >And if anyone has 1982 >copies of COMPUTE!, you'll see why Atari sold alot of 400s with the >410 Program recorder. 810 disk drives were around $450... Ah... here's a bit of nostalgic trivia... my 810 disk drive cost $550.. about $50 *more* than my entire first 520ST *system*, including the 360K disk drive (with 4 times as much storage)... Eventually, with the 48K memory board, and an 800 keyboard I added in a custom case, my first Atari 400 turned out to be an exceptionally useful machine... Kind of sad to think that I could trade it in today and buy a 1040STe for *less* than the 16K 400 cost me originally... BobR
nin15b0b@merrimack.edu (05/04/91)
In article <1991May4.015411.3642@odin.corp.sgi.com>, portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes: > In article <1991May3.094832.21781@merrimack.edu>, > nin15b0b@merrimack.edu writes: > |> In article <1991May3.070356.21318@sactoh0.sac.ca.us>, > |> mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton John) writes: > |> > > |> > Here are some facts about the 400. > |> > > |> > 16k RAM. Not user expandible. Of course you found hacks making > |> > keyboards and expanding one to at least 1Mb. > |> > |> I beg to differ. I owned an atari 400. I expanded it to 48k > |> with a user > |> expandable 48k ram board from a third party developer (AXLON). > > And if my memory serves me correctly, that same exact board is > installed in my Atari 400 at home. > > BTW, at one point Atari marketed their own 48K expansion kit for the > 400. I saw this at B&C Computervisions in Santa Clara, CA a few > months ago. > > m. > Michael, if thats the board you bought from me, then it is the same kind. -- David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 Bitnet: Sheafer_davi@bentley
andrewh@msb.com (Andrew Huie) (05/04/91)
So far, people have been saying that the Atari 800 first came out with 16K.
Actually, I think this is incorrect because when I first got the machine, it
had 16K, but it also came with a flyer. To wit:
NEW 16K MEMORY FEATURE
(Update to Atari 800 operator's manual)
"This version of the ATARI 800 personal computer system contains an additional
8K of RAM in the form of a single 16K Memory Module. This 16K memory feature
allows 16,384 bytes of user programmable memory, providing you with the
capacity to write and use longer and more sophisticated programs."
Basically, the rest of the sheet told about the contents of the new system
and that the 410 would no longer be shipped with the computer.
Later on, 16K became a bit too small, so we went for a WHOLE 48K! Fancy that!
--
##########################################
# "Aren't you prepared for death?" | #
# "Yes but I didn't think I was going | #
# to die under the command of a ditsy | #Chris_F_Chiesa@cup.portal.com (05/05/91)
Some of the information which has been posted/misposted here in the last few days about how much memory came with the 400 and 800 when they were first marketed, caught my eye because I'd recently been leafing through exactly that section of my copy of the Atari OS User's Manual. Seeing all of this debate, then, makes it sure look like not too many folks out there HAVE the OS User's Manual. I know for sure I've never seen it included among any of the "systems for sale" that have ever crossed this feed. Is this because so few people HAVE it, or because those who do, like myself, would never dream of PARTING with it? Just curious...
bill@mwca.UUCP (Bill Sheppard) (05/07/91)
In article <41991@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: ->Mark Newton John writes: ... ->>Almost all peripherals worked, except it's pretty hard to do any ->>programming with DOS loaded in the computer. ->Actually, ALL the peripherals worked, since the 400 and 800 were identical.. ->with the 32K (or 48K) board installed, there was no problem doing useful ->programming.. Well, except that with the keyboard of the 400 there is a _big_ problem programming - mashed fingertips! :>) -- ############################################################################## # Bill Sheppard -- bills@microware.com -- {uunet,sun}!mcrware!mwca!bill # # Microware Systems Corporation --- OS-9: Seven generations beyond OS/2!! # ######Opinions expressed are my own, though you'd be wise to adopt them!######
portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May4.090016.21788@merrimack.edu>, nin15b0b@merrimack.edu writes: |> In article <1991May4.015411.3642@odin.corp.sgi.com>, |> portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes: |> > And if my memory serves me correctly, that same exact board is |> > installed in my Atari 400 at home. |> Michael, if thats the board you bought from me, then it is the same |> kind. It certainly is. Runs great. m. -- __ \/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics, Inc. portuesi@sgi.com