Talk:Atari 8-bit computers

message: This article is getting quite long now, and has been for some time:-
===Peripherals section===
As far as peripherals go, "split" perhaps isn't the word I'm looking for. On the contrary, the section only lists the peripheral names, and I think that we need *more* on the peripherals- but not in the main article. 
So, the question is what form this should take. Whilst the C64 people have chosen to create an article for each peripheral(*), I'm not convinced this is the best choice here. I believe that information on closely related items is better served by keeping them in context as a cohesive whole. 
For example, separate articles on the Atari 410, 1010, XC11 and XC12 tape decks are likely to either remain perma-stubs (since there isn't enough unique to each), or end up containing duplicated information (hard to maintain, frustrating to read). In contrast, an article (or article section) detailing how the generic Atari cassette system works, noting the different models, avoids this problem and gives a better overview.
The disc-drive stuff also warrant a separate article (including moving the more detailed information about the DOSs). Although there may (in theory) be more than enough to say about each drive to justify individual articles, we also have to consider the benefits of having all the information in context.
On the other hand, the printers are less closely-related; e.g. the 1020 plotter and 1027 printer are different beasts altogether.
My initial idea was to have a separate "Atari 8-bit peripherals" article, but on reflection, I think that one for each group of peripherals (disk drives, tape drives, etc.) might be better. Any thoughts? Fourohfour 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd like to see the Atari 8-bit computers in articles on their own, somewhat like the  Atari ST article. Thus even more  stuff can be written about them specifically, without ruining this one. I know the 8-bit Atari's werent as succesive as competitive models from Commodore or Sinclair, but even less notable homecomputers have their own articles. I can volunteer to help out, if needed. AndersL 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. I'd be wary of over-splitting; e.g. would the 65XE and 800XE warrant separate articles for essentially the same machine? (Yes, I appreciate that there were differences; but then there were greater differences between (e.g.) the different revisions and PAL/NTSC variants of the 800XL). Fourohfour 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about avoding oversplitting. I think the way they are covered now might be a good way to do a split: Atari 400 and 800 might be redirected into one article named "Atari 400/800" or something, covering both. Atari XL and Atari XE, in their repesctive articles. I did a 400/800 mock up in my sanbox as an example to view, Suggestions? --AndersL 19:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks okay, though I'm not sure that I'd split the peripherals up amongst the different computers. We need to keep (this) main overview article for the whole family. The individual articles should concentrate mainly on details specific to that machine/series. The parent article wouldn't need to cover all the minor points, and the individual-machine articles would refer back to it. Fourohfour 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split-off suggestions 

message: As far as peripherals go, "split" perhaps isn't the word I'm looking for. On the contrary, the section only lists the peripheral names, and I think that we need *more* on the peripherals- but not in the main article. 
So, the question is what form this should take. Whilst the C64 people have chosen to create an article for each peripheral(*), I'm not convinced this is the best choice here. I believe that information on closely related items is better served by keeping them in context as a cohesive whole. 
For example, separate articles on the Atari 410, 1010, XC11 and XC12 tape decks are likely to either remain perma-stubs (since there isn't enough unique to each), or end up containing duplicated information (hard to maintain, frustrating to read). In contrast, an article (or article section) detailing how the generic Atari cassette system works, noting the different models, avoids this problem and gives a better overview.
The disc-drive stuff also warrant a separate article (including moving the more detailed information about the DOSs). Although there may (in theory) be more than enough to say about each drive to justify individual articles, we also have to consider the benefits of having all the information in context.
On the other hand, the printers are less closely-related; e.g. the 1020 plotter and 1027 printer are different beasts altogether.
My initial idea was to have a separate "Atari 8-bit peripherals" article, but on reflection, I think that one for each group of peripherals (disk drives, tape drives, etc.) might be better. Any thoughts? Fourohfour 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd like to see the Atari 8-bit computers in articles on their own, somewhat like the  Atari ST article. Thus even more  stuff can be written about them specifically, without ruining this one. I know the 8-bit Atari's werent as succesive as competitive models from Commodore or Sinclair, but even less notable homecomputers have their own articles. I can volunteer to help out, if needed. AndersL 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. I'd be wary of over-splitting; e.g. would the 65XE and 800XE warrant separate articles for essentially the same machine? (Yes, I appreciate that there were differences; but then there were greater differences between (e.g.) the different revisions and PAL/NTSC variants of the 800XL). Fourohfour 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about avoding oversplitting. I think the way they are covered now might be a good way to do a split: Atari 400 and 800 might be redirected into one article named "Atari 400/800" or something, covering both. Atari XL and Atari XE, in their repesctive articles. I did a 400/800 mock up in my sanbox as an example to view, Suggestions? --AndersL 19:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks okay, though I'm not sure that I'd split the peripherals up amongst the different computers. We need to keep (this) main overview article for the whole family. The individual articles should concentrate mainly on details specific to that machine/series. The parent article wouldn't need to cover all the minor points, and the individual-machine articles would refer back to it. Fourohfour 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peripherals section

message: No-one came up with any opposition, and the article is now far too long. So I've made a start by splitting off the peripherals section into Atari 8-bit computer peripherals and replacing the section here with an abbreviated  version.
As I said before, I also think there is the potential for pages dedicated to the disk drives and cassette drives- but not for individual models; see what I said above about over-splitting into fragmented and/or content-duplicating articles. Fourohfour 16:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split off peripherals section

message: As far as the software-driven modes stuff goes, whilst these are clever and interesting programming techniques, they aren't part of the core Atari spec. It may be preferable to summarise the flexibility of mode-mixing, DLIs and the like, and include a link to a separate, more detailed article containing this information.Fourohfour 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-core information

message: In addition to hiving off most the "peripherals" section to its own article (and abbreviating its entry here), I have done the same with the "software" section.
I deliberately left the "operating system" information here, as I felt that the OS belongs to the "core" article. I also wanted to avoid having three(!) copies of some OS info (in the main article, in Atari 8-bit computer software and in Atari DOS)- I'm very keen to avoid overlap.
The programming languages bit (in full) has been moved to Atari 8-bit computer software, and the corresponding entry in the main article much abbreviated. Please bear in mind that this is now only meant as a brief overview, with the original info intact in the linked "mainarticle"; if anything, it could do with further pruning.
All the same, if you feel that I've been over-zealous with the changes, please let me know! Thanks.
Fourohfour 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split off "software" section

message: I've taken the time to copyedit the first third or so of the article... massive problems with active/passive voice, tense agreement, and general diction.  My major concern with this article is the length and over-abundance of technical information.  As other editors have noted, it really needs to be spli (I would suggest along technical lines).  Obviously a lot of people have put a lot of work and contributed a lot of technical knowledge (original research not withstanding).  I think maybe you guys should look into an Atari workgroup -- it seems like there are lots of areas of overlap; a coordinated effort might both trim the articles and provide a more standardized way of categorizing and cataloging the information.  /Blaxthos 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length and style 

message: "Management identified two sweet spots for the new computers, a low-end version known as Candy, and a higher-end machine known as Colleen (named after two attractive Atari secretaries)." 
Are you talking about marketability, a consumer niche, a technical aspect of the machinery? I have no idea—using colloquialisms or overly familiar speech in Wikipedia has no place, IMO. This is compounded by the fact that the link for "sweet spot" shows three meanings that are not relevant to the apparent use of the phrase in the this sentence. Is there a reason why someone went to the trouble of linking? 24.211.211.161 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly does this mean?

message: As Binary Prefixes only came into vogue circa 1999, and have still not been adopted by industry or users, I would like to nominate usage of SI prefixes in this article.  Every issue of Antic I own uses SI Prefixes, and in fact the Atari manuals, publications, and my trusty de re Atari book all use kB.  In fact, the RAM cart's in my system use SI Prefixes.  Once they start manufacturing Atari RAM memory cart's with Binary Prefixes, we should reference them in this article.  TopaTopa 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Fnagaton 21:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the SI defines prefixes strictly as powers of 10. Furthermore, an uppercase K isn't even defined as a prefix, its meaning remains ambiguous. The IEC notation is unambiguous and recommended by the Manual of Style. Do the old sources mean 1000 or 1024? Femto 23:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Old sources mean 1024. Sarenne 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  The sources and the context of the article define the values used adequately enough for there to be little ambiguity to the exact size used. To try to use the binary prefixes in an article that does not have sources using those terms creates more confusion than any ambiguity. Fnagaton 23:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With binary prefixes, there is no ambiguity and no confusion. The fact that the sources don't use these prefixes doesn't matter. What is important is what the sources mean. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a manual or a documentation. Sarenne 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes you are adding confusion and ambiguity because the terminology used in the sources does matter and the article needs to be consistent with its sources. If you want to use binary prefixes then you must provide sources that use them. Since you have not changed the sources then you are making edits based on style considerations and the MoS states that style considerations must use the style of the first major contributor. Anyway the correct place for this particular issue is the MoS talk page, not here. I've directed you to there a few times already in other articles so please go there to talk. Fnagaton 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, since the MoS clearly states that the use of binary prefixes is recommanded, there's no doubt about the style until you have succeeded in changing the MoS. Your disagreement (or TopaTopa's) is not a doubt about the style to use. I don't want to go to the talk page of MoS to answer your arguments because they have already been discussed a thousand times and i already gave my answers. Sarenne 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again no. The MoS has that clause which overrides the numbers guidelines. Your arguments are actually petitio principii and new persuasive arguments have been presented on that talk page. If you are not prepared to go to the correct talk page then I will take that as meaning you do not want to follow procedure for resolution of this issue or that you have nothing new to add. Either of which means that you do not have a basis to continue to make binary prefix changes. I will therefore continue to follow the MoS where is says to defer to the original style. Fnagaton 17:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guideline you are talking about states that you should defer to original style if there's a doubt about the style to use. If there's a guideline that says what is the recommanded style, there's no doubt. You are following a guideline that you don't understand. BTW, your arguments are not new. Sarenne 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guideline you cite is overruled by the guidelines I have cited, those are the guidelines about differences in style and the guidelines about an article being consistent with its sources. My arguments are new and you claiming otherwise doesn't make it true, especially since you don't want to talk on the proper talk page. You now have two choices, take it to the proper talk page or don't make changes. Fnagaton 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, according to the Binary prefix article "As of 2007 the binary naming convention has not gained widespread use."  Any trip to your local computer store shows that neither industry nor consumers have adopted Binary Prefixes, and I would suggest that this is due to the market confusion that it would cause.  For revisionists to attempt to retroactively alter the source references of computers dating before the Binary Prefix movement only creates the very confusion you're hoping to avoid.  Look, use the Binary Prefix all you want on computers after 1998, and you won't hear a peep out of me -- but the position of revisionism on retro-computing systems is both arrogant and misguided.  I wasn't confused by the SI prefix back then, why would I be now?  Why not focus your energies on Pluto (which as I was taught as a boy, is a planet -- I see no need to unlearn that information)? TopaTopa 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a form of social engineering. No one else uses binary prefixes; neither should we. It's especially absurd to use them for systems of the 8-bit era. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's your opinion. Since MoS has not changed, I'm restoring binary prefixes. Sarenne 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is kind of funny. A capital K has quite unambiguously referred to a multiplier of 1024 in computer contexts for almost half a century already. However, the meaning of B is much more ambiguous (there are some contexts where a byte isn't 8 bits), so why aren't these binary prefix zealots advocating the use of octets (o) or bits instead of bytes? --Viznut 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...could it possibly be because this is the ATARI 8-BIT FAMILY entry?  Have you read the arguments?  Is your question rhetorical?  TopaTopa 02:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The zealots don't need to care whether something is obvious or not. Even if the size of the byte stands in the title of the article, they should be able to advocate the conversion of bytes into octets. However, I'm genuinely surprised that none of these kibibyte advocates ever talks about this issue, so I'm trying to tease them with it :) --Viznut 07:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, guidelines don't really "overrule" each other.  Wikipedia is a community project, and the editors who contribute are expected to consult guidelines when working towards a consensus.  Personally, I believe that binary prefixes in this context only causes more confusion.  Let's keep things contextual in the article, but more importantly let's work towards finding a consensus.  /Blaxthos 07:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of reliable sources for this article do not use binary prefixes so I don't think binary prefxies should be used. If you have any thoughts/opinions then this specific topic is being discussed on the following talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in the sections to do with "binary prefixes". Fnagaton 09:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Luckily the guideline has been changed now and Sarenne who is infamous for making binary prefix changes has been banned. Fnagaton 08:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have requested lifting of the ban. Although the possibility remains that anonymous edit-warring (which was probably Sarenne) could take place, at worst we can still allow registered users to edit. Fourohfour 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, a few other articles have also been unprotected recently and it appears as though the anonymous Tor user (Sarenne) has stopped doing those edits now. It's easy to spot anyway if it does happen, some anonymous user changing lots of articles to use binary prefixes. Fnagaton 10:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume that someone with admin powers can bulk-revert these changes? Fourohfour 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is a bulk revert option for admins. I just revert the individual changes and place some text on the talk page for the IP saying it is a Tor exit node. Eventually an admin does the ban. Fnagaton 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SI Prefixes vs. Binary Prefixes 

message: The article still has a "too long" tag, one that I generally disagree with. However one obvious candidate for snippage is the list of video modes, which really doesn't belong here. But then the OS release versions also seems somewhat out of place at that point.
Suggestions/comments?
Maury 15:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit, sorry, I mean "Graphics capabilities" of course. Maury 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The information belongs there, but it could be made more concise for this article, and possibly put in a table. More detailed info could go elsewhere. I'm wary of creating too many pointless small articles that just split stuff too far and only go into slightly more detail than the parent though. Fourohfour 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually I think they should just be removed and thrown in the trash. This isn't the Atari Hardware Reference Manual, and if someone wants to know it, it can be found in seconds with a Google search. So, and reason not to just remove it outright? Speak now, or forever hold your peace! Maury 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could say that about a lot of things. I agree that this isn't (and wasn't suggesting it should be) the Reference Manual, but an overview of its graphics capabilities isn't out of place. Perhaps an example graphic for each mode might even be useful. Fourohfour 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A summary of the main modes and a small graphical illustration at the same scale for each. Maybe stripped of the more "reference manual" type technical info. Fourohfour 12:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Graphics capabilities 

message: the article currently states:
"Due to the FCC restrictions, the 400/800 couldn't allow slots like those found on the Apple II computers."
Why? Did Apple 'get away with' something? If an explanation is not appropriate for this article, it should at least link to one in the Apple ][ article. --68.13.81.239 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone(s) edited out the info in the article. Atari included a RF modulator which generated TV signals which forced them to shield the machines, preventing slots. Apple did NOT include an RF modulator, so it didn't have to comply with the FCC regs on shielding for a RF device. --Pelladon (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify, expansion slots like those found on Apple II's. Those slots for the 800 were for internal use, like ROM and RAM cards. A few third party products added features like 80 column and extra RAM. Those slots weren't designed for outside connections (like the PC or Apple slots were).Pelladon (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: More specifically, the problem wasn't so much the slots themselves, but how to have those slots talk to external hardware. One of the most common uses of slots in the Apple was to support Centronix and RS-232 ports, which routed cables out the back through holes in the case. Similar holes on the atari would have ruined the faraday cage effect. So you could have a card, but nothing could connect to it, which pretty much made them useless. Not entirely so, as the Austin Franklin 80 Column RGBI Video Board demonstrated, but still a major PITA. Thanks FCC. Maury (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shielding vs. Slots 

message: Hi all
I edited the section some time ago to include this, albeit in different wording, and yet again it has been simply removed. The reason for removal was the same on both occasions - 1st time "it's not 1200XL-specific, the whole family is HD-connectable." and 2nd time "the same can be said for any 8-bit, not just the 1200XL", yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and there is no article for the XL series on its own
The XL series was capable of being connected to external devices such as drives, and one major advantage the XL had over its rivals was the ability to store games and data onto hard drive
Can someone decide where to put it and have the courtesy to chat about it, reword it, or put it in the right place rather than just taking it out. It is an important factor in the XL's advantage over the rest of the competition.
Third time lucky !!
Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement is not true. Most Atari's competitors at the time were HD-connectable, so there's no reason it should be in the article. Even it it were true, you have not provided a source to back it up.--Krótki (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware the Commodore series did not get Hard disks until 1983/84, and the XL series had them in 1982. Seagat made disks earlier, in 1980 but they were not compatible. The Apple series had hard drives available in 1981 for the II but they were not really competition for the atari, as they were not really used for gaming. Anyway it seems you are not really interested in researching these facts--Chaosdruid (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second time this has been taken out 

message: Can't find anything in the source stating this, also consider that according to many sources VIC-20 was the best selling computer in 1982, thus the market leader. --Waskoma (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atari 800&400 market leaders in 1980-82 

message: I'm proposing, at Atari BASIC, to split to a new article Atari 8-bit operating system, since a good half of the article covers (if briefly) the CIO and graphcis subsystems of the OS at a fairly "overview" level, and I can see myself adding others on e.g. the floating point implementation. I realise this has been proposed before (to split stuff out of this main article) but that was before this was all added to the Atari BASIC article. It would probably entail a move of a few bits from this article too if that made sense, and also perhaps afterwards a proposed merger of Turbo BASIC XL and Atari BASIC and other BASICs etc if it made sense (though I've no strong view on that, especially not right now). I should appreciate your views at Talk:Atari BASIC. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon I respect your commitment to these articles and I trust your judgment to know what is best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think the best thing, first, is to copy the graphics discussion out of both this article and Atari BASIC and make a new article, Atari 8-bit graphics, and try to add sources etc etc to that. It can sit in my sandbox while I'm doing it. Once people are happy with it, the relevant sections can then be removed, or vastly condensed, in these articles and redirected to those with . Because of the necessary interaction between the OS and the hardware it may not be appropriate to have this as a stand-alone article (i.e. kinda a "vertical" split down the architecture instead of a "horizontal" one), but we can decide that once we have that, whether to then merge the CIO in (and I guess POKEY later) and move it to Atari 8-bit operating system or "operating system and hardware" or whatever is the best nomenclature. Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon I was wondering if you still had your Atari, and does it still work? I have no idea what happened to my Atari 800 which I had in graduate school. Wondering if there's a place where Ataris still run, where they can be used, and if so, should this be mentioned in the article? Also, somewhat off the track, if editors want some FUN, check out my article Presidential prevarications before it gets deleted -- it's up for deletion and will probably get axed -- but for fun, go to the article and click on links for presidents fibbing and watch with a bowl of crackers. One of Wikipedia's greatest joys! My favorite is: Clinton!!!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split at Atari BASIC 

message: God, I hate to say this, 'cause I love this article! .....but it's got a little fancruft in places, it really does. I think some of it really colors outside the lines as far as being "encyclopedic". Buddpaul (talk)
:Not exactly "funcruft" IMO, but the problem with this article is that it's allowed to run on and on almost entirely without cited references.  Not that I want people just showing in references that never get read by most, but there are just far too many places where I'm asking "how on earth could you possibly know this?".
:By the way, please sign your name with the four tildes (~~~~), not by hand.  You won't get an auto-generated timestamp otherwise.Tgm1024 (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancruft? 

message: Does anyone know if there are any modern clones of the 8-bit Atari that are still in production?173.58.64.64 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern 8-bit clones 

message: I would like to see a compatibility section that shows what is supported between the earlier and later models. For example is the 800XL fully compatible with the 800? Can the 130XE run programs written for the 800?
I believe only the 800 had the two cartridge slots. What specifically cannot be done with later models that are only possible on the 800 with that second slot?
DMahalko (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model cross-compatibility section? 

message: Although the 400/800 had the fully enclosing metal shielding, I believe the 800 had a card-edge connector on the back of the main board, though I do not recall if there was any way to access it externally. (The 400 might also have had it, but I've never seen the 400 series system boards.)
It may be that this card edge connector was included for possible future use in models that had not yet been built, so that for example Atari could have made a "slot extender" plugging onto the back that would allow a new professional model with say 8 or so expansion slots.
DMahalko (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an edge connector on the back of the main board (male, part of the board, not a female socket).  I have no idea, but I always assumed that it was part of a manufacturing diagnostic prior to assembly.Tgm1024 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Atari 800 motherboard bus? 

message: What was the function of the Atari 800 DOS expansion board that installed into one of the slots inside the metal shell? Was there sufficient memory capacity available to include a complete operating system in ROM or EPROM?
Or was it really just more of a "bootstrapper" ROM board, so that when turned on, the 800 would be able to know just enough to find a floppy drive on the SIO bus, query for the disk boot loader, and kick off the rest of the boot from there?
DMahalko (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atari 800 -- DOS expansion board? 

message: While t may not have been the best selling computer line, was not the 8-bit line, more specifically, the 400/800, the longest lasting computer line? most computer line usually have a span of %-7 years before being replaced. Leeroyhim (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest Lasting Computer Line? 

message: From the article:
:To meet stringent FCC requirements, the early machines were completely enclosed in a solid cast aluminum block, which made them physically robust but expensive to produce.
Also, extremely difficult to operate, I would guess.
Is this poorly phrased, or just a bit of whimsy on a regular contributor's part?--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that this has been addressed in several revisions over the years.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A solid aluminum block? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Atari 8-bit family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618072507/http://www.byte.com/art/9509/sec7/art15.htm to http://www.byte.com/art/9509/sec7/art15.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8bits/400800/atari800/a800.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8BITS/1200xl/1200xl.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8BITS/XL/1600xl/1600xl.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8BITS/XL/1600xl/1600xl.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8BITS/400800/ATARI800/A800.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From the Atari 8-bit family page: "the first home computers designed with custom co-processor chips."
The Atari 8-bit family was released in November 1979, and--according to Texas Instruments TI-99/4A--the original TI-99/4 (no "A") model was released in October 1979. The TI has a video system supporting redefined character sets and sprites as well as 3 channel audio. One could make the argument that those chips were designed to be standalone and were also sold separately by TI, which is why they ended up in other systems (e.g., ColecoVision), but they're still coprocesors. I don't want to change the page unless there are definitive sources. Dgpop (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Was the TI-99/4 first?

message: The term is twice used in the article but neither explained nor linked. Wefa (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is "the PCB"? 

message: How come you can normally read about and understand the hardware specifications of Atari 2600, but not e.g. for Atari 800XL, which are buried, thinly smeared through this stream of consciousness this article is? 93.185.29.22 (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Bold! --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a MESS 

message: The very basic this article should have is tech specs for each specific system. I came here trying to find the 800XL RAM size, usually on WP articles there's an info box listing stuff like that, eg. Commodore 64 but here it's not even listed in the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.27.247 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech specs missing 

message: The book given as the source in this edit does not contain any statement about the OS having any official name at all. Where does "your" official name come from?
My suggestion for the OS infobox field is to put there "custom OS / Atari DOS (optionally)", similarly to what the Commodore 64 infobox contains. --Krótki (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I applied the change. Although the computer line was indeed called officially the Atari HCS, the OS itself doesn't seem ever having any official name. --Krótki (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name of OS? 

message: At the end of the origins section, where it says "What Jay did..." Jay has not been introduced, and are we expected to watch a 4-hour youtube video to find out who Jay is?Daltonsatom (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the end of the origins section 

message: Why isn't the RAM and the release date written in the infobox. This is basic information that should be there. Just put the name of the version beside the amount of RAM.
:Because the article covers all models in the 8-bit rage, all of which had differing RAM and release dates.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much RAM? 

message: The main infobox of this article says "CPU: MOS Technology 6502B", which is just plain wrong for the XL/XE series, which used 6502C SALLY. Griggorio2 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: CPU 

message: In the article Atari ST is mentioned as successor. But technically it was designed by another team and had inherited none of the design philosophy of 400/800. Also, the Atari company of 400/800 era and that of ST era - after Tramiel acquisition - was another company in reality.
Technically speaking, I consider the most appropriate candidate for 400/800 successor to be the Amiga platform. Designed by Jay Miner also, using the philosophy of different custom chips for graphics, audio, etc, in a specialized co-processor fashion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.245.121 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor?