27 Jan
2010
27 Jan
'10
11:42 a.m.
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:
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/
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.