Martin Scott Goldberg wrote: The difference being RAM (16K 'non expandable for the 400, 16K expandable to 48K for the 800 (and even 64K via only 3rd party)), keyboard (membrane on the 400, real keyboard on the 800), and 1 cartridge slot on the 400 vs 2 on the 800 (although few cartridges ever exploited the 2nd slot). Other than that they had the same chips, same SIO, same # of joystick ports, etc. Oh... the 400 may not have had an external monitor connector (it has been a while since I used mine, but I know I never used it on a monitor, only a TV)... the 800 definately had one... plus some of the Atari's (can't recall if the 800 did or not) had separate chroma/luma on the monitor port (so, you could build a connection to s-video if you wanted to). My first home computer was a 400 (family couldn't afford the 800)... complete with 410 cassette unit (upgraded to 810 disk drive 6 mos to a year later). Had only 16K... but later went to 32K then 48K. Got a 1050 drive later. Had a Archiver chip in the 810, and a US Doubler in the 1050 (true double density and high speed drive transfers with SpartaDOS and MyDOS). Much later obtained an ATR8000 second hand too. Have fond memories of the 8bits... always wanted an Amiga... but didn't end up with one of those till a few years ago).... I like Jay Miner's work :-) (and Chuck Peddle's too). If your looking for a computer, I'd recommend an 800 with expanded RAM (a 3rd party 48K board is better than 3 Atari 16K modules... and if you end up with 3 Atari 16K modules, I've heard it is a good idea to remove the plastic casings from them for cooling if that has not already been done). After that I'd probably recommend an 800XL (although I have a fondness for 1200XLs too... anyone have one they care to part with) or even a 130XE. If you like the idea of some early 4 player games though... a 400 or 800 is required. -- Curt