Atari/Commodore discussion

[Curt @ Atari Museum]

I agree...

  Same with Atari - the design of the Atari 2600, not managements 
handling of it was what made it such a success.     The Atari 800 
computer and it is chip architecture, again, is what made is such an 
incredible computer, management had nothing to do with it, in fact, when 
you look at Warner-Atari handling of the company, they crippled Atari's 
efforts at making the home computers more serious in features, software 
and peripherals, on the video gaming side, more capable designs were 
created, but infighting caused Atari to pull back the reigns for fear 
that the game systems might conflict with the home computers.    Atari 
stupidly went after cost reducing and price lowering their computers 
instead of dropping their low end computer - the Atari 400, making the 
Atari 800 the low end computer and then coming out with a higher end 
system (perhaps 80 columns, more memory and maybe in a different package 
with professional detachable keyboard) and then clearing the low end 
area to allow the video games - even an advanced system, to occupy and 
then there wouldn't have been overlap or conflict.

Its the products, not necessarily the management that make them 
successful for the most part.


Curt



geoffrey oltmans wrote:
> These are good points. I think that a lot of Commodore's successes were despite Tramiels' involvement, rather than because of it. The accounts of the design of the SID and VIC-II in particular seem to point to this, and as you say, he ultimately drove that talent away from the company.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dan Roganti <ragooman at comcast.net>
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 11:59:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Atari/Commodore hybrid, was Re: General religious wars (was Re: Editor religious wars)
>
>
>
> ----- Martin Goldberg  wrote:
>   
>>> Dan Roganti wrote:
>>>
>>> Too bad Atari lost out on this, I think they deserved to build this, but
>>> you know how shifty Tramiel was :)
>>>
>>> =Dan
>>> --
>>> http://www.vintagecomputer.net/ragooman/
>>>
>>>       
>> You must be going by RJ Mical's misinformation.  Jack Tramiel had
>> nothing to do with the Amiga, that was Warner Atari Inc. as Curt
>> mentioned.  
>>     
>
> I'm not referring to any timeline. I was only saying how Tramiel has a reputation ignoring engineering advice. He has a lot of cost cutting tactics as a businessman - some good, but also some bad = such as slashing valuable personal in the engineering staff.  Although I feel Atari lost out, I would shudder to think what Tramiel might have done afterwards to Jay Miner's design just to make it cheaper, that's his MO  ( I know this is hindsight). He may be famous for the early Commodore success, but Commodore was still successful without him--thanks to engineers. If he was so remarkable, how is it that the Atari ST was just a mediocre design ( I know this just another religious war - but open your eyes for a minute). Thankfully, we were privileged to see Jay Miner's achievement as Commodore succeeded without a hatchet job on his design.
>
> =Dan
> http://www.vintagecomputer.net/ragooman/
>
>