Payton Byrd wrote:
On Apr 15, 2:19 pm, "Ensor" <none@localhost> wrote:Hi, > Apple, in contrast, published *everything* needed to make >software, plug-in cards, and even more computers! So, you're saying that the Atari Technical manuals I have not 6 feet away from me are figments of my imagination? :-) True they weren't shipped with the machine, but had to be bought seperately, but they contain full schematics, operating system listings etc.... By the time of the XL/XE series machines Atari had stopped publishing such manuals, but then again so had Apple etc. TTFN - Pete.Actually, Atari jealously guarded the secrets of the chipset in the 400/800 until it was obvious that the system would only survive with 3rd party software support. By then it was too late. Even the Atari Assembler cartridge comes with horrible documentation that doesn't even scratch the surface of what you need to create usable software.
Right company, right action, wrong product. It was the 2600 that Atari kept secret. John Harris cleared this up a while back along with several other errors that were perpetuated/started by the book Hackers.
I can't recall the exact time line but I think it was within ~6 weeks of getting his hands on a 800 when the technical reference became available to him. It was probably fairly late considering the birth of the Atari computer was sorta 1979, sometime around 1980 or 1981 I think. There were a few problems with the tech ref, I think it listed OS rev A vs. B and I'm not sure if it is the CTIA or the later GTIA chip. De Re Atari was copyright 1981.
*BUT* all this does make sense to me on at least one level: Atari patented the custom chips. What happens in the patent process is if you or someone else releases the information in the patent before it is granted, the application is denied. The ANTIC creators, Jay Miner Et Al, were granted the patent in 1981.
Rick