Atari 130ST and 260ST

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Mark Newton-Jo » Fri, 27 Nov 1992 03:37:53



Another comment on an Atari "200", yes, in Europe there was a
260ST. In 1983-84 before the ST line was released, Atari had a
center pull-out in the Atari magazines back then introducing the
130 and 260STs with 128k and 256k respectively.

Remember, these were the days that memory was expensive, and the
largest home machines were 64k-128k. IBM PC were originally 64k and
used tape drives, and the Apple Macintosh was a 128k machine.

So Atari prototyped the 130 and 260STs, with a disk based OS (TOS
1.0)

Also in the pull-out, Atari showed screen shots of the original GEM
desktop, that was changed when the 520ST was released.

If anyone would like a photocopy of the pull-out, let me know.

--
#############################################################
# Scaramento Public Access UNIX     sactoh0.SAC.CA.US       #  
#  (916) 649-0161, 722-6516 & 722-5068    E-Mail & USENET   #
################## default .signature file ##################

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Ewald Seibe » Sat, 28 Nov 1992 19:36:02



|> Another comment on an Atari "200", yes, in Europe there was a
|> 260ST.
RIGHT
|> In 1983-84 before the ST line was released, Atari had a
WRONG ... In '83 ATARI was at WarrenerBros.   the first STs were developed
from 6'84 to 12'84

|> center pull-out in the Atari magazines back then introducing the
|> 130 and 260STs with 128k and 256k respect
NO the 260ST had 512K

|> So Atari prototyped the 130 and 260STs, with a disk based OS (TOS
|> 1.0)
   The 260ST had TOS 1.0 in ROMs!!

--
==============================================================================

Ewald Seibert, Herschelstr.1 8070 Ingolstadt,  0841-86480

    Dont't blame ATARI for things, the GURU told you from the ARABIAN NIGHTS (*
==============================================================================

(*  = Maerchen aus 1001 Nacht

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Sander Sto » Sat, 28 Nov 1992 21:56:37


Well, I had a 260ST. The only difference with the 520, if I remember
correctly, was that the drive and the keyboard were sold separately.
It had 512K standard, as did the 520.

There is no 130ST, this is a 130XL, which is basically more of a
high-end 8 bitter. It did have sort of an ST casing, though. And
frankly, the graphics and sound were not too bad at all, compared to
an ST.

Sander SToks

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Herbert Ruessi » Sat, 28 Nov 1992 23:04:32



Quote:>Another comment on an Atari "200", yes, in Europe there was a
>260ST.

There was indeed, there still are even.  I still use my original 260 ST
(dated September '85, if I remember correctly) and original monochrome
monitor.  It has survived two ROM upgrades (to 1.0 and 1.4) and one RAM
upgrade (to 2.5 Meg), one self-built TV-signal modulator and several
MMUs. Oh, before I forget, the single-sided diskdrive is still with me,
but I no longer use it.

Quote:>So Atari prototyped the 130 and 260STs, with a disk based OS (TOS >1.0)

I don't know about the 130.  But not only was the 260 prototyped with a
disk-based OS, it was sold with a diskbased OS, version 1.0.  I still
got the disks, and the original two ROM-chips.  But, it was no fun
having only .5 Meg and using some 195 K for the OS.  So I bought TOS 1.0
on the six ROMs and stuck 'm in.

I really can't remember the difference between the 260 and the 520.  Was
it that the 520 had TOS in ROM (.5 Meg - OS = .25 Meg?)? Was it that the
520 came with a double sided disk-drive?

--

Voice : +31 30 53 6369                  |         OTS/STT, Trans 10
Fax   : +31 30 53 6000                  |         NL-3512 JK Utrecht
  ** felix noctu exponendus **          |         The Netherlands
  ** quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur **

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Jarle Brinchma » Sun, 29 Nov 1992 00:00:17


|>>So Atari prototyped the 130 and 260STs, with a disk based OS (TOS >1.0)
|>
|>I don't know about the 130.  But not only was the 260 prototyped with a
|>disk-based OS, it was sold with a diskbased OS, version 1.0.  I still
|>got the disks, and the original two ROM-chips.  But, it was no fun
|>having only .5 Meg and using some 195 K for the OS.  So I bought TOS 1.0
|>on the six ROMs and stuck 'm in.
|>
|>I really can't remember the difference between the 260 and the 520.  Was
|>it that the 520 had TOS in ROM (.5 Meg - OS = .25 Meg?)? Was it that the
|>520 came with a double sided disk-drive?
|>
|>--

NOO! Well, I have my good'n'old 520 ST, which I bought Summer 1986, but then
it had been out a while in Norway. It came with .5 Meg, TOS on _disk_ and with
a single sided drive.

But as far as I've heard (another rumour :-), the 260 and 130 were initially
designed with 128 and 256 Kb, but then Atari changed it's mind. I even
heard that some 260 with 256 Kb were sold in Germany before the upgrade to
520 came. Can anyone fill out or rule out anything of this ?

                        Jarle.

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by well.. » Sun, 29 Nov 1992 07:22:44



>Well, I had a 260ST. The only difference with the 520, if I remember
>correctly, was that the drive and the keyboard were sold separately.
>It had 512K standard, as did the 520.

>There is no 130ST, this is a 130XL, which is basically more of a
>high-end 8 bitter. It did have sort of an ST casing, though. And
>frankly, the graphics and sound were not too bad at all, compared to
>an ST.

>Sander SToks


Nope, there *was* a 130ST.  But it was basically a beta-release of the machine.
This was *really* primitive, it didn't even have enough base-RAM to run
TOS without a RAM upgrade!!  Upgrading it to 256k let you run programs of
about 50k in length!!  

It was a pretty sad machine - why Atari even *thought* of releasing such a
thing is beyond me.  Although it never (along with the 260ST) made it onto
the commercial market!

TOS 1.0, 128k of RAM, external disk drive, no RF-Modulator (but no one actually
*uses* them right 8-)  What a great machine... *NOT*!

Although, compared to the 800XL, it was an improvement!  (Ahhh... Those were
great little computers those things!!  Great games like Dropzone,
Biffdrop, Montezuma's Revenge, Jet Set Willy....  A lot of which have never
been duplicated on 16/32-bit machines.  (There are rumours about a
ST version of Jet Set Willy, which'd be worth looking out for, very simple,
and very wierd game!)

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Rick_Michael_Cort.. » Tue, 01 Dec 1992 18:13:44


All this reminicing about old computers got me thinking about the
"Rumored 64 bit Atari Game Machine" My bet is if this thing ever sees
the light of day it well just be two SLOW 68000s in a box. I really
believe it may come out since Atari Sunnyvale has been advertising in
the paper for 68000 assembly language programmers. Despite the success
Atari is still having in the game field (34% of all Atari sales) they will
probably just use it as a dumping ground for parts that were bought/intended
for ST production, but left over when sales of that machince dropped off.
We'll see when it comes out *IF* it has the same part numbers on the chips,
uses 256k DRAMs, & no surface mount parts. Not that there's anything wrong
with two 68000s in a box running at 8 mHz. It'd compare favorably with the
other stuff it's competing against. & there are a lot of M/L programmers
 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Bill Marc » Fri, 04 Dec 1992 16:25:06



>Well, I had a 260ST. The only difference with the 520, if I remember
>correctly, was that the drive and the keyboard were sold separately.
>It had 512K standard, as did the 520.

Interesting.  The first 520STs sold in the US had 512K, TOS in RAM, and no
internal drive.  When they added the built-in floppy drive, they changed the
name to 520STFM.  Maybe Atari planned to make a 256K machine, had a few
thousand "260ST" cases made, then decided that 256K really wasn't enough RAM.


 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Markus Pristovs » Fri, 04 Dec 1992 20:23:37


Hello,

by the way, TOS need at minimum 512kB RAM, if you load it from disk. TOS is
loaded in the upper 256kB and copies itself in the lower 256kB. So with the
TOS Atari first realesed to the public, such a computer would be impossible.

Bye, Markus

email:

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Ralf Czekal » Mon, 30 Nov 1992 21:33:00


m>Another comment on an Atari "200", yes, in Europe there was a
m>260ST. In 1983-84 before the ST line was released, Atari had a
m>center pull-out in the Atari magazines back then introducing the
m>130 and 260STs with 128k and 256k respectively.

There has never been a 256kByte ST named 260ST. When I got that 260ST in
winter 1985 it had 512k, disk-boot-ROMs like the 520ST but was available as a
nonbundle. It would be impossible to work on these 256k machines when you must
even load a disk-TOS and then install the 128k(4*32k) Screenbuffer. When you
add this you get 192+128 = 320kByte. So it would be even impossible to boot
the system completely - the same thing as in a 1Meg Falcon030 in 64k-HiCol.

On the CeBIT 1985 - oh it's so long ago - some of the Atari-crow annonced a
ST-version with 256k, but they never released it, because it would not
opperate.

And the 130ST you mentioned, was a Atari 130XE/XL - a 6502-based Atari as a
follow of the 800XL - shown on that '85 CeBIT too.

Tschau Ralf

Internet:                         MausNet:

                                  (private, no binaries/UUEs)

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Bill Marc » Fri, 04 Dec 1992 16:25:06



>Well, I had a 260ST. The only difference with the 520, if I remember
>correctly, was that the drive and the keyboard were sold separately.
>It had 512K standard, as did the 520.

Interesting.  The first 520STs sold in the US had 512K, TOS in RAM, and no
internal drive.  When they added the built-in floppy drive, they changed the
name to 520STFM.  Maybe Atari planned to make a 256K machine, had a few
thousand "260ST" cases made, then decided that 256K really wasn't enough RAM.


 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Bob_BobR_Rete.. » Fri, 04 Dec 1992 11:07:04


Strange how the word "Atari" seems to affect a lot of people's memories..

OK.. here's how it WAS...

Creative Computing magazine, March 1985..

Cover, in a box at the bottom:  "Atari 130ST: Macintosh Successor?"

Page 59:  "Atari Strikes Back"...

"With six promising computers that could re-shape the industry"

(Lotsa "blue sky" stuff about how Tramiel and sons are gonna take over
the computer market")

"The 130ST and 520ST"

"Perhaps the biggest news among Atari's planned introductions is it's
"blue line" of computers, called the ST (for Sam Tramiel?) series.
Characterized by a blue logo, they constitute nothing less than Atari's
"Manhatten Project". It may be fair to posit that if the Macintosh was
the A-Bomb of microcomputing, the Tramiels intend to unleash the fury of
the H-Bomb. ...

Like the Macintosh, the 130ST is a 128K micro based on the MP 68000
processor. (Dum de do... lots of ST specs here.. you all know them
already..)

"As for our own observations, we find Atari's new strategy very interesting.
It includes something to aggravate almost everyone currently in the
microcomputer business...

"Naturally dramatic introductions like this will be greeted with
skepticism. Commodore under Jack Tramiel was notorious for announcing
products that never made it to retailers' shelves,  but Atari's Kerr
claimed the 65XE was in production as this was written (mid December,
1984) and that the 130ST would be in production by the time you read
this...

"If all (or indeed most) of this is true, the Tramiels will have once
again wrested the destiny of consumer microcomputers and molded it for
many months to come."

Deja vu, eh..?

BobR

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Markus Pristovs » Fri, 04 Dec 1992 20:23:37


Hello,

by the way, TOS need at minimum 512kB RAM, if you load it from disk. TOS is
loaded in the upper 256kB and copies itself in the lower 256kB. So with the
TOS Atari first realesed to the public, such a computer would be impossible.

Bye, Markus

email:

 
 
 

Atari 130ST and 260ST

Post by Thomas VanNess Leavi » Tue, 08 Dec 1992 10:56:56


I have a book called "Introducing the Atari ST" which mentions the 130
and 260...

Thom