I HAD to have a 1200XL in 1983 and I got it. Looking back, I would have probably been better off picking up an 800 (old style) and a disk drive or a C64, disk drive and the works. But I have zero regrets. I learned a lot with my 1200XL. I still have it on display and plan to do all of the ultimate upgrades to it. It deserves no less for being my foundational home computer 40+ years ago. I probably owe my career in engineering to it.
Nice.. thanks for the wrap up. Got some 800 and 600xl's in Australia but not many 1200's. Thanks for sharing a bit of the history and games. Good work. :)
The price war was between the TI 99/4A and the C64. The 1200XL got caught in the cross-fire. It didn't help that the 1200XL's updated OS was incompatible with the 400/800. This incompatbility was carried into the 800XL, but Atari had had the time to develop a loadable compatible OS for the XL series computers that allowed incompatible 400/800 software to work on the newer computers. They were very well built computers which are more likely to be found in working condition than the C64. The C64 gives Adrian Black and other retro channels many opportunities to do repairs.
I'm sure this is true @bryede I've not had any compatibility issues with any software I've tried on my 1200xl. However, it was noted in multiple articles from the time and I even found a page in one of my Antic magazines that commented on it. It was definitely an issue for users back then...my guess is that some really popular program from that time was affected by the compatibility issues otherwise, I don't think anyone would have cared and it wouldn't have caused Atari to offer a "free translation disk" to all Atari 1200xl owners.
@@bryede this was at introduction of the 1200XL when all of the existing software was for the 400/800 and a lot of incompatible software was being found by owners of 400/800's that wanted to move to the latest version of the Atari line. They raised quite a stink at the time and word was spread by user groups. Sales tanked. Since then, software was written for the 600XL/800XL which was backwards compatible to the 1200XL, that's why it appears now that few titles were affected but back in the day it appeared worse than it does now.
@@michaelstoliker971 The interesting thing to me is that I think the 1200XL was really the only one that they released a later ROM for. Floating around is a ROM that boots with the Atari colors flashing plus a little R for the registered trademark that wasn't on the original 1200XLs, and supposedly that one is the most compatible all around. I tried (I should try again) to get the Atarimax 32-in-1 Warp+ installed at some point and couldn't quite get it to work, otherwise I'd be able to play with all the different OS releases... Granted, these days you can slap in an Incognito or U1MB and just switch between the OS versions. There still is something just cool about the 1200XL though. If they had put the PBI on it, and didn't have the SIO voltage issue from the factory, it'd probably be the 'ultimate' Atari 8bit.
That sound test brought back the memories of my 800XL computer. My brother bought it and I bought a 130XE computer. I used the ACTION! cartridge to make games. One game I recreated was Star Castle, it was one of the first vector graphic screen games in arcades. I knew that a vector screen game would not get translated into 8-bit computer, so I made one. The screen is still raster graphics, but the game play was like the arcade version. I also recreated an Asteroids game, so I could change the graphics (I got tired of looking at the same rocks) or game play to suite. Sold all of my 8-bit stuff to get into the 16-bit world with the STE computer.
The computer I lusted after was the 1450XLD, basically a 1200XL with a built-in speech synthesizer, 300-baud modem, and double-sided double-density disk drive. The look of it was awesome! I couldn't dream of affording one, but I wanted it so bad! Atari demo'd the 1400XL (same thing without the disk drive) at one or two trade shows. I read an article talking about what it was like using one, but Atari cancelled them. That was such a downer. :(
Atari's original goal was to go upmarket like the Apple II, selling mostly expensive configurations. The 1200XL was actually the base model of the expanded line. They didn't anticipate the C64 which launched a price war instead.
The biggest mistake Atari made was trying to compete on price with Commodore. You get into a fight like that with a vertically integrated street fighter and you're going to get you ass handed to you. Notice of all the other players (excluding IBM...different beast), Apple was the only one that survived because they wouldn't join the race to the bottom. Apple made LOTS of mistakes, but they were smart on that front.
I settled for an Atari 400 back in September of 1982 and eventually upgraded the memory, but really wanted an 800, however, it was out of reach financially. I recall the 1200XL showing up and I remember the negative reaction from myself and many others for a few reasons. First, was the dropping of 2 of the controller ports. Second, some cartridges from third parties would not PHYSICALLY fit in the cartridge port. Third, was dropping the RIGHT cartridge port. Although it was never used, the promise of it was being 'cancelled'. Fourth, and most importantly, so much software that was written for the 400/800 and broke the rules, (NOT Atari's fault) did not run. The 'translator disk', if I recall, was NOT available for quite a while, maybe even until the 1200XL was discontinued. Finally, the 1200XL did not have any of the slots that the 800 had for add on boards, such as an 80 column card. On the positive, the 1200XL keyboard was AMAZING, the video signal seemed to be better and of course, the styling was more up to date, but didn't match any of the existing peripherals. So, by the time the 800XL debuted, the software houses got their acts together and started making games or patching their games to work with the XL models. The 1200XL was shunned and nobody wanted it until much later when people realized what a diamond in the rough it actually was.
Back in the 80's these things were a major expense for households. Being a new consumer category, a lot of people didn't realise that if the machine didn't sell enough units, the shops would soon stop selling software & accessories.
I bought an 800XL because the C64 looked just like my VIC-20 which I hated. Later I bought a used 800 and then a 130XE. But I never saw a 1200XL and none of my friends had one. I finally got a C64 when I switched to Amiga 500's and I didn't like it compared to the Atari 8-bit computers.
I was a big Atari guy back in the day with an original 800 but it wouldn't have mattered what Atari had released back then they were crippled by the parent company Warner Communication that wanted to be the sole producer of software for their computers and would actively sue companies that tried making games for their products. Even after they lost in court to Activision they wouldn't help outside companies wanting to make games and utilities for the 800 series. so a lot of companies made them for the C64 instead. It always infuriated me trying to find software for the 800-series when plenty was available for the C64.
It's true that when Atari first released the 400/800 in 1979, they kept the technical information proprietary. However, they started releasing technical information on the 8-bits through various publishers from 1981 to 1983. The "bible" of the 8-bit was a book called "De Re Atari," written by the famous video game designer Chris Crawford, published in 1981. Compute! published a series of books on the 8-bit during this period, based on material that Atari provided them; the most important of which was, "Mapping The Atari," publishing a full memory map of system memory locations. My memory is they published two editions, one covering the 400/800, and an expanded edition that covered the 400/800 map, plus XL/XE locations. There was another memory map published back then, along with some books that got into manipulating display lists, from Educational Software, Inc. It's difficult for me to say if, given all that was published, whether Atari still held back any information. I've heard about some legal wrangling between Atari and Activision, but I thought it had to do with alleged patent infringement.
I had both a c64 and an upgraded 400 with 48K and a strike keyboard. I always preferred the Atari. Better graphics, similar sound capabilities, and far more powerful BASIC. The disk drive was more expensive, and the printers were not as capable.
@@AndrewTubbiolo They didn't sell well at the time but they come up on my Ebay watchlists quite often and I've even seen one come up on Marketplace near me. They're always more expensive than the other Atari 8-bits but not too bad.
I do have a simple Commodore project...my C128's SID chip is in the process of failing and needs replacing (I swapped in a known working one and verified). A SIDKick is on the way....
@@powerofvintage9442 Sounds great... as a teen I started my computing discovery with a ZX 81, quickly replaced by a Thomson MO5 (French thing) followed a few years by an Amiga 500... for which I pondered for over 6 months to whether get it or an Atari 520ST... but now I have gone into retro-mid-life-crisis mode and got quite a few of the old machines I used to dream about... an Atari 520STe and 1024STf then some more Thomson (TO8/MO5), then an Oric Atmois... Sony SC-3000, Amstrad CPC464, Apple IIc.... to finish (for now) with a C128 and... and Atari 800XL... these feel great to own and play with... that and watch UA-cam videos such as yours! Keep up the good work! Now I need to track down a Coco at a reasonable price 🙂... not so easy in Europe
Atari always surprised with "interesting" design choices. In this case the angled joystick ports or the deep inside the case cartridge slot, presumeably to make normal sized original Atari cartridges not stick out of the case (like the 800XL). Would have been nice, if you had shown the difference between the 1200XL and 600/800XL silver function keys, as the 1200XL seems to have a lot more of them.
Good point on the function keys....I'm not even sure if any software actually uses the extra ones. That said, I also agree on the "interesting" design choices. Most of those, IMO, resulted in a recognizable and pleasant design language. I do prefer the Atari visual appeal versus most everything else of the time.
Atari thought they were competing with the Apple II, unfortunately they unknowingly lost the higher end war and were relegated to compete with the Commodore and Spectrums. The 1200xl should have had expansion bus slots to compete with Apple, instead it had nothing.
Until the FCC relaxed their requirements, there was no way to offer Apple-style expansion slots while retaining the ability to connect to TVs. Apple got around it by not having an RF output, but Atari felt that TV compatibility was essential.
That should have been Atari's answer to the C64 instead of the 1200XL (I still have my 1200XL). The smart business move would have been burying Commodore with heavily discounted 400 & 800's and went used the 1450XLD to go after the Apple ]['s market. Instead they got into a knife fight with a vertically integrated street fighter on a race to the bottom.
@@chiefshortingbull2958 the problem with discounting the 400's and 800's is that they were too overbuilt and it would have been at a massive loss due to their high costs.
The C64 is much more powerful than the Atari 800 in terms of sprites. However, the Atari 8-bit has much better scrolling support. The C64 provides the bare minimum to perform hardware scrolling, but enough to do it (even though it's much more of a pain than on Atari).
The C64 had a much more powerful sprite engine but that was because it needed to compensate for its low CPU clock. On the other hand Atari with twice the speed can move around software sprites without noticeably performance penalties and with huge graphic benefits. Most modern homebrew games prove just that with their large colorful SW sprites. In addition to that Atari architecture can shift 3d and pseudo 3d graphics really fast elevating the gameplay and its obvious in common ports like Yoomp, Total Eclipse, Stunt car racer ,Fractalus, etc.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 It's not that simple. Although the C64 has a lower clock, it doesn't suffer from DMA cycles like the Atari does. Commodore copied the Apple method of running the CPU slower and letting video have access for half of every cycle. Atari ran the CPU quickly and halted it whenever video data needed to be fetched. The net outcome is that the Atari loses about half the speed during the active screen, but is much faster during Vblank.
I HAD to have a 1200XL in 1983 and I got it. Looking back, I would have probably been better off picking up an 800 (old style) and a disk drive or a C64, disk drive and the works. But I have zero regrets. I learned a lot with my 1200XL. I still have it on display and plan to do all of the ultimate upgrades to it. It deserves no less for being my foundational home computer 40+ years ago. I probably owe my career in engineering to it.
Nice.. thanks for the wrap up. Got some 800 and 600xl's in Australia but not many 1200's. Thanks for sharing a bit of the history and games. Good work. :)
The price war was between the TI 99/4A and the C64. The 1200XL got caught in the cross-fire. It didn't help that the 1200XL's updated OS was incompatible with the 400/800. This incompatbility was carried into the 800XL, but Atari had had the time to develop a loadable compatible OS for the XL series computers that allowed incompatible 400/800 software to work on the newer computers. They were very well built computers which are more likely to be found in working condition than the C64. The C64 gives Adrian Black and other retro channels many opportunities to do repairs.
It's a stretch to say it wasn't compatible. Only a few titles were affected.
I'm sure this is true @bryede I've not had any compatibility issues with any software I've tried on my 1200xl. However, it was noted in multiple articles from the time and I even found a page in one of my Antic magazines that commented on it. It was definitely an issue for users back then...my guess is that some really popular program from that time was affected by the compatibility issues otherwise, I don't think anyone would have cared and it wouldn't have caused Atari to offer a "free translation disk" to all Atari 1200xl owners.
@@bryede this was at introduction of the 1200XL when all of the existing software was for the 400/800 and a lot of incompatible software was being found by owners of 400/800's that wanted to move to the latest version of the Atari line. They raised quite a stink at the time and word was spread by user groups. Sales tanked. Since then, software was written for the 600XL/800XL which was backwards compatible to the 1200XL, that's why it appears now that few titles were affected but back in the day it appeared worse than it does now.
@@michaelstoliker971 The interesting thing to me is that I think the 1200XL was really the only one that they released a later ROM for. Floating around is a ROM that boots with the Atari colors flashing plus a little R for the registered trademark that wasn't on the original 1200XLs, and supposedly that one is the most compatible all around. I tried (I should try again) to get the Atarimax 32-in-1 Warp+ installed at some point and couldn't quite get it to work, otherwise I'd be able to play with all the different OS releases...
Granted, these days you can slap in an Incognito or U1MB and just switch between the OS versions. There still is something just cool about the 1200XL though. If they had put the PBI on it, and didn't have the SIO voltage issue from the factory, it'd probably be the 'ultimate' Atari 8bit.
That sound test brought back the memories of my 800XL computer. My brother bought it and I bought a 130XE computer. I used the ACTION! cartridge to make games. One game I recreated was Star Castle, it was one of the first vector graphic screen games in arcades. I knew that a vector screen game would not get translated into 8-bit computer, so I made one. The screen is still raster graphics, but the game play was like the arcade version. I also recreated an Asteroids game, so I could change the graphics (I got tired of looking at the same rocks) or game play to suite. Sold all of my 8-bit stuff to get into the 16-bit world with the STE computer.
The computer I lusted after was the 1450XLD, basically a 1200XL with a built-in speech synthesizer, 300-baud modem, and double-sided double-density disk drive. The look of it was awesome! I couldn't dream of affording one, but I wanted it so bad! Atari demo'd the 1400XL (same thing without the disk drive) at one or two trade shows. I read an article talking about what it was like using one, but Atari cancelled them. That was such a downer. :(
My 800xl will always have a special place in my heart as it's what I learned to program on..my friend had a 1200xl I thought it looked cool.
Atari's original goal was to go upmarket like the Apple II, selling mostly expensive configurations. The 1200XL was actually the base model of the expanded line. They didn't anticipate the C64 which launched a price war instead.
I had an Atari 400 and 800xl growing up. I still have the 800xl. My best friend had the 1200xl, I remember it well.
Jack Tramiel's ruthless drive to vertical integration and constant pressure to lower prices gave Atari a really hard time.
Same when he took over Atari.
Commodore also had a chip fabrication plant, which Atari had not.
@@ShamrockParticle Yep hence the "vertical integration".
The biggest mistake Atari made was trying to compete on price with Commodore. You get into a fight like that with a vertically integrated street fighter and you're going to get you ass handed to you. Notice of all the other players (excluding IBM...different beast), Apple was the only one that survived because they wouldn't join the race to the bottom. Apple made LOTS of mistakes, but they were smart on that front.
I settled for an Atari 400 back in September of 1982 and eventually upgraded the memory, but really wanted an 800, however, it was out of reach financially. I recall the 1200XL showing up and I remember the negative reaction from myself and many others for a few reasons. First, was the dropping of 2 of the controller ports. Second, some cartridges from third parties would not PHYSICALLY fit in the cartridge port. Third, was dropping the RIGHT cartridge port. Although it was never used, the promise of it was being 'cancelled'. Fourth, and most importantly, so much software that was written for the 400/800 and broke the rules, (NOT Atari's fault) did not run. The 'translator disk', if I recall, was NOT available for quite a while, maybe even until the 1200XL was discontinued. Finally, the 1200XL did not have any of the slots that the 800 had for add on boards, such as an 80 column card. On the positive, the 1200XL keyboard was AMAZING, the video signal seemed to be better and of course, the styling was more up to date, but didn't match any of the existing peripherals. So, by the time the 800XL debuted, the software houses got their acts together and started making games or patching their games to work with the XL models. The 1200XL was shunned and nobody wanted it until much later when people realized what a diamond in the rough it actually was.
Ah, very cool! Nice to see a lesser known model in all its glory! And nice inclusion of Ultima III in all its garish Atari colors 😅
Back in the 80's these things were a major expense for households. Being a new consumer category, a lot of people didn't realise that if the machine didn't sell enough units, the shops would soon stop selling software & accessories.
I bought an 800XL because the C64 looked just like my VIC-20 which I hated. Later I bought a used 800 and then a 130XE. But I never saw a 1200XL and none of my friends had one. I finally got a C64 when I switched to Amiga 500's and I didn't like it compared to the Atari 8-bit computers.
Atari PCBs always had beautiful layouts.
Very neat and tidy
Damn. $899 in 1983 equates to $2,849 in 2024. Insane!
More expensive than buying a used car in many instances.....
I was a big Atari guy back in the day with an original 800 but it wouldn't have mattered what Atari had released back then they were crippled by the parent company Warner Communication that wanted to be the sole producer of software for their computers and would actively sue companies that tried making games for their products. Even after they lost in court to Activision they wouldn't help outside companies wanting to make games and utilities for the 800 series. so a lot of companies made them for the C64 instead. It always infuriated me trying to find software for the 800-series when plenty was available for the C64.
It's true that when Atari first released the 400/800 in 1979, they kept the technical information proprietary. However, they started releasing technical information on the 8-bits through various publishers from 1981 to 1983. The "bible" of the 8-bit was a book called "De Re Atari," written by the famous video game designer Chris Crawford, published in 1981. Compute! published a series of books on the 8-bit during this period, based on material that Atari provided them; the most important of which was, "Mapping The Atari," publishing a full memory map of system memory locations. My memory is they published two editions, one covering the 400/800, and an expanded edition that covered the 400/800 map, plus XL/XE locations. There was another memory map published back then, along with some books that got into manipulating display lists, from Educational Software, Inc.
It's difficult for me to say if, given all that was published, whether Atari still held back any information.
I've heard about some legal wrangling between Atari and Activision, but I thought it had to do with alleged patent infringement.
I had both a c64 and an upgraded 400 with 48K and a strike keyboard. I always preferred the Atari. Better graphics, similar sound capabilities, and far more powerful BASIC. The disk drive was more expensive, and the printers were not as capable.
The 1200XL had the BEST keyboard of any 8-bit computer... :)
This is weird. I was just thinking about getting a 1200XL the other day.
It's amazing to think that 41 years later you can assume that there are enough 1200XLs out there for you to buy when you want to buy one.
@@AndrewTubbiolo They didn't sell well at the time but they come up on my Ebay watchlists quite often and I've even seen one come up on Marketplace near me. They're always more expensive than the other Atari 8-bits but not too bad.
The Apple ][ series was way more expensive than the C64 and the Atari 8-bit series, yet it was still successful.
I remember in '83-84 working in a place that sold C64s for $99, much cheaper than Atari and other comparable systems of the day.
The 800xl's eventually got to a similar price, but it was too little too late.
@@powerofvintage9442 The margin was 2-3% They basically gave them away hoping to make it up on the peripherals.
Atari, are you keeping up with the Commodore? Because the Commodore is keeping up with you! 😊
I do have a simple Commodore project...my C128's SID chip is in the process of failing and needs replacing (I swapped in a known working one and verified).
A SIDKick is on the way....
@@powerofvintage9442 Sounds great... as a teen I started my computing discovery with a ZX 81, quickly replaced by a Thomson MO5 (French thing) followed a few years by an Amiga 500... for which I pondered for over 6 months to whether get it or an Atari 520ST... but now I have gone into retro-mid-life-crisis mode and got quite a few of the old machines I used to dream about... an Atari 520STe and 1024STf then some more Thomson (TO8/MO5), then an Oric Atmois... Sony SC-3000, Amstrad CPC464, Apple IIc.... to finish (for now) with a C128 and... and Atari 800XL... these feel great to own and play with... that and watch UA-cam videos such as yours! Keep up the good work!
Now I need to track down a Coco at a reasonable price 🙂... not so easy in Europe
no the red headed step child is the 1400 xld!
The 1400 XLD is probably more like the child that never made it past a "twinkle" in the parent's eyes....
@@powerofvintage9442 Yeah, you can't count machines that didn't ship.
Atari always surprised with "interesting" design choices. In this case the angled joystick ports or the deep inside the case cartridge slot, presumeably to make normal sized original Atari cartridges not stick out of the case (like the 800XL).
Would have been nice, if you had shown the difference between the 1200XL and 600/800XL silver function keys, as the 1200XL seems to have a lot more of them.
Good point on the function keys....I'm not even sure if any software actually uses the extra ones. That said, I also agree on the "interesting" design choices. Most of those, IMO, resulted in a recognizable and pleasant design language. I do prefer the Atari visual appeal versus most everything else of the time.
Yes price killed the early Atari 8-bit systems, but it did have a faster CPU and better palette over the C64.
In my book the Atari 800 was superior to the commodore except for multi colored sprites. Atari 800 also came out 11/1979 versus 08/1982.
Atari thought they were competing with the Apple II, unfortunately they unknowingly lost the higher end war and were relegated to compete with the Commodore and Spectrums.
The 1200xl should have had expansion bus slots to compete with Apple, instead it had nothing.
Until the FCC relaxed their requirements, there was no way to offer Apple-style expansion slots while retaining the ability to connect to TVs. Apple got around it by not having an RF output, but Atari felt that TV compatibility was essential.
1450XLD
Yep, the Atari computer "child" that was talked about, prototyped, and even had literature built up about it....but was never "born"
That should have been Atari's answer to the C64 instead of the 1200XL (I still have my 1200XL). The smart business move would have been burying Commodore with heavily discounted 400 & 800's and went used the 1450XLD to go after the Apple ]['s market. Instead they got into a knife fight with a vertically integrated street fighter on a race to the bottom.
@@chiefshortingbull2958 the problem with discounting the 400's and 800's is that they were too overbuilt and it would have been at a massive loss due to their high costs.
The C64 is much more powerful than the Atari 800 in terms of sprites. However, the Atari 8-bit has much better scrolling support. The C64 provides the bare minimum to perform hardware scrolling, but enough to do it (even though it's much more of a pain than on Atari).
The C64 had a much more powerful sprite engine but that was because it needed to compensate for its low CPU clock. On the other hand Atari with twice the speed can move around software sprites without noticeably performance penalties and with huge graphic benefits. Most modern homebrew games prove just that with their large colorful SW sprites. In addition to that Atari architecture can shift 3d and pseudo 3d graphics really fast elevating the gameplay and its obvious in common ports like Yoomp, Total Eclipse, Stunt car racer ,Fractalus, etc.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 It's not that simple. Although the C64 has a lower clock, it doesn't suffer from DMA cycles like the Atari does. Commodore copied the Apple method of running the CPU slower and letting video have access for half of every cycle. Atari ran the CPU quickly and halted it whenever video data needed to be fetched. The net outcome is that the Atari loses about half the speed during the active screen, but is much faster during Vblank.