Vic20 vs. Atari400 vs. TI99/4A vs. TRS80

[Empa Kendo]

I remember using the following commercial as a decision guide when I decided to purchase my Vic20, which had a pseudo-serious comparison between the Vic20, the Atari400, the TI99/4a and the TRS80:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sporifice/ ... 7/sizes/l/

Obviously some of the facts have been "prepped up" a bit, such as choosing criteria such as:
- Total Memory (ROM&RAM)
- Programmable Function Keys
- Graphic Symbols on Keyboard
etc.

After having stumbled upon a TI99/4a forum stating that the machine had suffered from a too closed and constrained ecosystem (ie. nearly no third party software, little documentation) and very slow BASIC I was wondering how a comparison in hindsight would look.

As I hardly know the other machines: do any Denial members have experience with the other computers? What would today's verdict look like?

With my limited experience with the TI and the Atari (programming a friend's TI in Basic and drooling over Shamus on the Atari) here is my take:

The Vic20 was a better choice than the TI and the Atari as it had:
- a vibrant ecosystem with loads of documentation, magazines, games and 3rd party developers
- a decent and fairly cheap set of peripherals, somewhat compatible to the C64 (1541 for example)
- architectural compatibility with the PET/CBM range of machines, thus increasing the possible ecosystem. In principle you could connect a 4040 dual-drive floppy to the the Vic..
- a common, whilst dated BASIC
- a good keyboard.
- many games, ranging from appalling to excellent

Thoughts?

[PaulQ]

I think the keyboard went a long way; that, and the cheap yet amazingly reliable peripherals (in contrast to the other two systems). Specifically, the Datasette and the Vicmodem.

My friend had a TI-99/4A, and I thought it a loathsome thing to use; the keyboard was made smaller enough to be irritating. For what a system cost, I honestly felt the Vic 20 was a better value.

[ral-clan]

The TI/99 was much more powerful though, wasn't it? I read somewhere it was almost 16-bit or something (in some way). I've only briefly tested the TI/99 keyboard, but it didn't seem as bad as the advert makes out (half size?).

Those other computers had 32 to 40 column displays, which was a big advantage over the VIC.

I love way they make the programmable function keys sound like a big feature on the VIC.

Overall, I love the VIC. But I don't know if it was a better computer than the others in the list...I prefer it, but it did have its failings where the others could do better.

For instance, did any of those other computers have graphic sprites? That would be a big advantage, to be certain.

[channelmaniac]

The TI-99/4a was a crippled system.

16 bit CPU and only 128 bits of fast memory (128 x 16bit). There was glue logic used to connect the 8 bit video and I/O subsystem to the CPU and the 16K of DRAM had to be accessed THROUGH the VDP chip. It wasn't available directly to the CPU.

It also had agonizingly slow GROM chips (serial ROMs) used for a lot of the BASIC routines.

In reality, to say it was a crippled system was a vast understatement.

[Empa Kendo]

The TI/99 was much more powerful though, wasn't it? I read somewhere it was almost 16-bit or something (in some way). I've only briefly tested the TI/99 keyboard, but it didn't seem as bad as the advert makes out (half size?).

..
For instance, did any of those other computers have graphic sprites? That would be a big advantage, to be certain.

The Atari 400 had sprites, which is why the games tended to look better on the Atari than on the Vic20. And the 400 was compatible to the Atari 800, i.e. the 800 could also play the 400 cartridges. So far the only serious downside I could see was the keyboard plus the lack of extendibility of the 400 (only one cartridge port and no multicart expansion board). The Atari was also based on the 6502 thus being a "mainstream" PC of its day.

According to the TI99/4a forums it also had sprites. However something had to be wrong with it if it was slow despite the 16bit processor (probably from TI?). Although I do not think that "performance limitations" were the real cause of its failure. Given some of the ludicrous limitations the Vic20 has (changing video memory addresses depending on memory configuration, 22 columns..) which were "dealt with and overcome" by the ecosystem thanks to prolific documentation, I think the lack of information and TI's disclosure policy killed this machine.

[pitcalco]

I had borrowed a friend's TI99 for a few weeks to see how I liked it. I thought it was a very neat toy, but just that - a toy. It had some cool gimmicks like speech synthesis and the like, but programming it was not nearly as handy as the VIC or the Atari for that matter.

What really got me was that the computer itself was quite small, but any peripherals had to be hooked up to this enormous, boxy thing that looked and sounded like a space heater. Extremely large cartridges had to be placed inside this box. I suppose it is all a matter of taste, but having been use to both Commodore and Atari, as well as Apple II at the time, I think the Texas Instruments was rather a step backward.

[hawk]

My first computer was an Atari 400 16k with standard membrane keyboard. At the time, i preferred it over the VIC-20, as it had a better text/character size/aspect ratio. I have never been able to come to terms with the squashed characters of the VIC. Also, the VIC's colours always looks washed-out when compared to the Atari 400's.

Back then I knew nothing about the differences between the graphics chips, and I certainly didn't know anything about machine language. I preferred being able to program graphics and sound from basic rather than having to poke memory locations.

The bugbears I had to live with though, were the membrane keyboard, which hindered the speed of typing, and a lack of information or community. No-one else I knew had an Atari until they weren't worth having any more. Also, everything for the Atari was more expensive. As such, I only ever had a tape drive, which was more unreliable than the commodore's, due to the encoding technique used, and method implemented. (I have since learnt how to improve this.)

Atari BASIC's lack of string arrays hindered my attempts at converting adventure games from one platform to another.

Having played with both systems in modern times, I think that the Atari's graphics (and probably sound) are far superior, the GTIA chip making it very easy to setup complex raster effects...mixing graphics modes, splitting sprites, adding additional colours. The Atari's ability to select colours from a wider palette also contributed, but it couldn't have a different colour per character.

These days I enjoy the limitations of the VIC's graphics...it presents a certain challenge.

The Atari's consistent memory map is also an advantage...no re-arranging things, just because you add more RAM. (I didn't know that back then.)

But the games on the Atari all turned out to be more expensive than I could afford, so I only ever got one commercial game. As such I used Type-In's a lot.

Another problem that the Atari had was requiring additional memory to run DOS. It didn't have the built-in kernel commands like the Commodore machines. As such, you required a 24k machine to have a disk drive.

The Atari's protocol for peripheral devices was very good, but not having intelligent devices left no room to speed up transfers.

I still play with both machines now...I got into VIC's to see what they were like. I guess these days, I'm more influenced by the communities around the machines.

Anyway, that's my take on a comparison.

[Mikam73]

Vic20 was my first computer, but schoolmate had TI-99/4A. Its only TI-99/4A that I have ever seen at Finland, before I got my own from Switcherland.

I think TI-99/4A is pretty cool machine of its age. Speech for that age machine is amazing, sure it needs add on cartridge, but many games and education programs do support speech expander.

Robotic Liberation is still only speaking demo that I have seen at Vic. (And its second part). I have two speech cartridges for Vic, but havent seen any software support for those.

Here is some TI-99/4A gamecartridges:
http://www.videogamehouse.net/gamemain.html

[PaulQ]

Also, everything for the Atari was more expensive.

I believe this was the case across all of the competing systems, and contributed greatly to the Vic's success. It's something that's easy to overlook when looking back, but in 1982 the Vicmodem was $110. The modem for the Atari 400 was $399.95, and $450 for the TI 99/4A. I think we all know how important the modem was (and still is) in the community that surrounds a platform.

I also think that the Commodore 64's instant success helped the Vic a lot. The price of the Vic dropped even more, and it gave people who couldn't afford a Commodore 64 a "Safe" low-end computer to start with. Safe with respects to the investment; that the hardware purchased for the Vic could later be used on a C64 when it came time to upgrade. It built confidence in the brand that TI couldn't deliver.

[ral-clan]

The wide Commodore user community offered more than knowledge dissemination as an incentive to buy a VIC. It also offered a large source of people to copy games from, both pirated and legal.

This can't be underestimated as a boost to Commodore sales. I know that with both the VIC-20 and the Commodore 64, one of my points of persuasion in begging my parents for a computer was that they wouldn't have to buy games as I could copy lots from all my friends.

This was very important to many 11 year olds with no money to buy games, and the desire to own many games! There was no way they were going to ask their parents for a TI99/4A or Atari computer when they didn't know anyone to pirate games from for those platforms!

I even remember salespeople telling parents about this advantage (hey - anything to sell a computer).

That's certainly a VIC advantage you wouldn't see mentioned in any official advertisements.

You don't see the fact that the VIC has only one joystick port mentioned in the above comparison chart, do you?

I just had a look at some of the TI99/4A game screen shots (and animated gifs) online. Now that I've seen them, I'd have to say that I'm surprised Commodore even risked comparing the VIC-20 to the TI99/4A. The TI's games look amazing...to me, the same quality as the ColecoVision, which was the gold standard for home arcade conversions in the early 1980s. Just take a look at Donkey Kong for the TI99/4A:

http://www.videogamehouse.net/donkeykong.html

all of the other AtariSoft games for the TI99 are of the same high quality:

http://www.videogamehouse.net/mspacman.html

The VIC-20 version of Donkey Kong was an accomplishement, but graphically, it doesn't hold a candle to the TI99/4A version, which would have had me drooling in 1983! It's almost identical to the ColecoVision port, and very close to the arcade original. It also could have given the C64 port a run for its money. Of course, the VIC version was the only home version to have ALL four screens of the arcade original!

[PaulQ]

The wide Commodore user community offered more than knowledge dissemination as an incentive to buy a VIC. It also offered a large source of people to copy games from, both pirated and legal.

Ah, yes. The same reason why audio cassette tapes and tape decks took over the market in the 80's. We liked to share music and video games. Anyone willing to embrace this aspect of the human community made it big, and anyone who didn't lost, no matter how technically superior the product.

[Mayhem]

Of course, the VIC version was the only home version to have ALL four screens of the arcade original!

The later Ocean version on the C64 also has all four screens... but yeah the Vic20 version was the first.

[Mikam73]

Of course, the VIC version was the only home version to have ALL four screens of the arcade original!

The later Ocean version on the C64 also has all four screens... but yeah the Vic20 version was the first.

I suppose that there was Colecovision version that had all screens too. That there was two Colecovision versions out.

[oracle_jedi]

I just had a look at some of the TI99/4A game screen shots (and animated gifs) online. Now that I've seen them, I'd have to say that I'm surprised Commodore even risked comparing the VIC-20 to the TI99/4A. The TI's games look amazing...to me, the same quality as the ColecoVision, which was the gold standard for home arcade conversions in the early 1980s. Just take a look at Donkey Kong for the TI99/4A:

http://www.videogamehouse.net/donkeykong.html

all of the other AtariSoft games for the TI99 are of the same high quality:

http://www.videogamehouse.net/mspacman.html

True, but that's also part of the irony of the TI-99/4A.

TI's insistence on a closed architecture kept out alot of software development. The lack of PEEK and POKE commands from TI BASIC meant that machine language games on tape were not possible.

TI Extended BASIC and the Mini Memory cartridge went some way to address those problems, but the TI still suffered from a lack of quality software. There was no Arcadia, Matrix or Perils of Willy for the TI.

Atarisoft did port a lot of their games to the TI, and on the whole managed an excellent standard in quality. In fact much of the porting work was done by Romox. But Atari by-passed TI's GROM licensing and so when TI re-designed the console for the North American market in early 1983, TI reworked the ROM to disable Atarisoft games.

Could you imagine Commodore re-working the VIC or 64 ROM to stop the best games for the system from working? Can you imagine dropping $$$ on a TI computer plus a couple of Atarisoft games only to find they would not work - because TI had deliberately disabled them in ROM?

The official TI ROM games were a mixed bag. The Imagic titles were good but many of the TI ROM games - A-MAZE-ING, Hunt the Wumpus, Zero Zap, Blasto etc were simple slow games that would have been sold as a compilation tape on any other platform.

I believe the TI was the better engineered system, but TI seemed determined to undermine their own product in the marketplace.

[Empa Kendo]

My first computer was an Atari 400 16k with standard membrane keyboard...
Back then I knew nothing about the differences between the graphics chips, and I certainly didn't know anything about machine language. I preferred being able to program graphics and sound from basic rather than having to poke memory locations.

The bugbears I had to live with though, were the membrane keyboard, which hindered the speed of typing, and a lack of information or community....

Having played with both systems in modern times, I think that the Atari's graphics (and probably sound) are far superior...

The Atari's consistent memory map is also an advantage...no re-arranging things, just because you add more RAM. (I didn't know that back then.)

Another problem that the Atari had was requiring additional memory to run DOS. It didn't have the built-in kernel commands like the Commodore machines. As such, you required a 24k machine to have a disk drive...

Great set of detailed information - this helps grasp how it would have been to own an Atari400. The Atari was a serious contender for my sorely saved paper route money at the time. Yet somehow it seemed more expensive - especially as some of the features were only available via the Atari800.

In particular I find the programming differences interesting. Whilst the VIC Poke/Peek Basic had been often ridiculed, it helped ease my way into machine code and deeper areas. I also liked the total "openess" of the computer: loads of memory maps, tricks, how-to's floating around.

The Commodore DOS on the floppy drive ROM also was a good idea in its time (and 170K per floppy was more than the Atari's 88K).

Nevertheless, if the following games are anything to go by, it was a vastly superior games machine:

http://atarihq.com/reviews/atari8/index.html

Were they standard cartridges for the Atari400? Floppy disks for a 48K Atari800 would be a different league from the {Atari400, Vic20, TRS80} and make the comparison unfair.