what is the deal with 80s computer keyboards

I hear social media video blogger repeat over and over that there was not a keyboard standard in the 70s and 80s for home computers. This unfortunately is true - kinda. There were really two loose standards. How do I know? First, I own quite a few computers from the 80s. It was IBM PC that broke the simi-standard and then redefined the overall standard by "winning" the PC wars.

So what was the standard layout before IBM changed it all?

First there is What I call Standard I - This was used by majority of the early 70-80s home computers

1) QWERTY keyboard like most type-writters

2) Specific characters associated with SHIFT and numbers

(Photo of a Commodore 64 keyboard)


(Photo of a Tandy CoCo 2 keyboard)

(Photo of an Atari 130XE keyboard)

Above the 1=!, 2=", 3=#, 4=$, 5=%, 6=&, 7=', 8=(, 9=)

Who adhered to this Standard I:
- Amstrad
- Apple I and II
- Atari (400, 800, 800XL, 130XE,  ect) - *Mostly*
- Commodore (PET, Vic 20, C64)

- Dragon (32 and 64 computers)
- Tandy (Model 1, Model 2, Model 3, Model 4, Coco, CoCo2, CoCo3 and others)

Probably others were included.

Anyone that does retro programming on these systems knows it is an adjustment finding the quote above the '2' key.

Atari put a '@' with the 8 and shifted the '(' and ')' over one place.

Where did these companies come up with this format. Many decades of typewriters before them. This was much of their layout.

Standard II
Who did not use Standard I, but the Standard II? 

- Later Apple computers and Macintosh. 

- Later Atari computers (ST line), 

- Later Commodores (Amiga line), 

- all IBM computers and most compatibles like Tandy 1000 line. 

- Coleco Adam

- All Texas Instrument computers.  

IBM came up with this design, which may have influenced later keyboard's such as the Apple IIe's/Macintosh, the Commodore Amigas and Atari STs.

With the Apple IIe, Apple changed some keys around like the 2 key to be associated with @ like the IBM.

Texas Instruments TI-99/4A keyboard

What is the Standard II number line layout?

1=!, 2=@, 3=#, 4=$, 5=%, 6=^, 7=, 8=*, 9=(, 0=)

Somehow people were swayed into believing the IBM PC was superior to the computers of the late 80s.  Really was not true, but perception often wins.   As PC clones became the norm, so did this keyboard layout.

80s BASIC

I'm currently reprogramming a game I did before called Seven/Eleven. The game looked a little dull so I'm remaking all the interfaces. This made me realize how much I enjoy some 80s BASICs over others.

Here is a list of my Favorite 80's BASICs that I use fairly regular, from favorite to least favorite.

1 TI-99 Extended BASIC

2 TI-99 BASIC

3 Tandy Extended Color BASIC 2.0

4 Tandy Extended Color BASIC 1.1

5 Tandy BASIC

6 Commodore BASIC V2

7 Atari BASIC

8 AppleSoft II BASIC

I should note that my first exposure to Tandy BASIC and Apple II BASIC was mostly as a teenager through public schools.

Why TI at the top? Most control in the easiest way. I really think if most companies and found someone better than Microsoft to develop their BASIC language, they could have been much better. What I like about Tandy and Commodore is that what ever they lack in BASIC features, they are quite hackable. It is possible to get to modes the physical computer could do that were not addressed in the BASIC environment.  Really, that is why Microsoft had the PEEK and POKE commands because there was so much they did not know how to translate into BASIC usefully.  And the way Microsoft used their graphics modes were so over complicated and stupid.  Really just limiting.  For the most part, programmers that understood the hardware capabilities and used assembler/machine language were really able to make the most of these computers.

It is not like TI-99 Extended BASIC was perfect as there were feature that were not addressed until the late 80s and early 90s with Super Extended BASIC by third party developers - but by that time most of the world had moved on from TI-99.  TI-99 popularity now is just mainly from people that remember fondly how much they enjoyed using TI-99 in the late 70s and early 80s.

Sadly the two most fun computers  TI and Tandy were the two most physically limiting computers.  TI-only made a 32K memory expansion for their computer that was shipped out with 16k.  TI also made their computers slower than need be by running code in video memory.  Tandy did not provide a dedicated 3 voice or better sound chip and a video processing chip that only handled 9 colors on both the CoCo 1 and 2. 

TI did make up in other areas though.  Best built in sprite capabilities, 16-bit processor, and S-Video output.  Tandy did make up for it with the easiest, but powerful, graphics and music programming commands. With some hacking past Microsoft's made limitations, graphically Tandy could put out some nice graphics with only 9 colors. 

Bad Apple on 80 computers!!!!

Bad Apple!

Each of these videos of computer renders keeps getting better.  

Really surprised how bad the C64 version is.

Impressed with what could be done with the Atari 2600
Animation is smooth, although not surprising blocky.

Best of these old computers is the TI-99/4a

Atari 2600
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko9ZA50X71

C64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsDy-4L6-tQ

Atari 8-bit computer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjNm04oCdYc

zx spectrum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd5iEeIe7L0

TI-99/4A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx__aAdm4wQ

Original video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtutLA63Cp8

Some system photos from this weekend.

Atari 800

Atari 800XL, Atari 130XE, Atari XEGS

Magnavox Odyssey 2

Texas Instruments TI-99/4A

Bally Computer System Videocade

comparison of 80s computers with BASIC

I have completed the simple version of the slot machine for the C64. But while programming this, I have learned that although it was the #1 selling computer of all time, it really was not as good as the computers that came out at the time. I have started documenting these short comings of the C64 BASIC.

First lets talk about variables. C64 could only have 2 character variables. I was stumped by this. This is a horrible flaw.

Here is a very simple demo with Atari XE computer and the TI-99/4A





Very simple and what one would expect. Here is the same code on the C64.

See what is going on here? All three variables are the same on the C64


So, if I make three variables; SB1, SB2, and SB3... to the C64, they are all the same variable - SB.
I can't believe this was OK for back in 1984. But in all fairness, Apple II computers had the same issue.

That said, I always hated programming on the Apple II back in the day and I don't remember this issue either.

The next issue was the limitation of the CHR$(X) that could be used on a single print line. this could be quite helpful with old BASIC. More than 5 on the C64, and the line would not PRINT. Luckily there is a work around for this. End that line with a ";" and then continue with another PRINT statement .

Above is a screen shot of Atari 8-bit computer showing that it can string along beyond what the C64 can.

My third beef with the C64 BASIC is that you can not add remarks on a DATA statement.  I'm pretty sure any other command that I found you can, but not on the DATA.  This is the one statement that could really use such a feature.

120 DATA 00,255,255,14,14,28,56,56

work around is just adding a REM on the line above.  But the whole idea of adding one cat'ed on the end is to make useful notes for each line that might need a comment. 

In all fairness the TI-99/4A will not allow REM at the end of the line

Updating code

I'm currently working on two areas for the DDD project. I'm plugging along on the Linux, Windows, and MacOS software. These are becoming a very complicated software. Because of this, a lot of documentation is being created to for planning the code.

Secondly, I'm looking at making the Atari and C64 dice app look better. It is not that both system are not capable, they definitely are. It is just how the two companies chose to do graphics. The TI-99 is just easier and more flexible to do graphics with. A lot of the concepts are the same, but working with binary to hexadecimal is easier than the conversions of binary to decimal. And TI-99's ability to intermix text and graphics make a project like this easier. Below is calculating one line of graphics on Atari and C64.

So for the C64 I would have to POKE 127 at certain location in video.

For the same graphic line created on the TI-99, the value you would use would be 7F based on this chart

Worse yet, I don't know of a method of intermixing text and graphic like is default with the TI-99.  so each dice outcome has to be drawn.  Even with Windows and Linux, if I needed to, I could place text on the graphic.

New site dedicated to DDD

This is a little update. As I continue writing software for D&D with the Dragons, Druids, and Dice project - I have created a dedicated web page for this project. 

https://mrgibson.com/dragons-druids-n-dice.php

Here I'm sharing code, screen shots, executables. 

My development for the C64 has be sparce as there are some pretty good development platforms for most systems, but not so much for the C64.  For physical hardware, I'm using a "TheC64" and there is not another real way for me to write and test the software easily.  

For the really old platforms, the TI-99 looks the best and mainly I understand development on it the most.

For Linux, Windows, and MacOS - I'm finding myself using tool sets that I have written before to perform many different types of tasks.  Really, by far, Linux is the easiest platform to develop with. 

Dragons, Druids, and Dice 1.2 for the TI-99/4A

I finalized Dragons, Druids, and Dice 1.2 for the TI-99/4A (March 15, 2025). I will put out the Atari XL/XE version next (March 16, 2025).


Here is a screen shot from the TI-99 version of 1.2



Screen shot of the Atari version of 1.2

Preview screenshots of Dragons, Druids, and Dice 1.1

Just posting some progress screen shots of Dragons, Druids, and Dice 1.1 shown on TI-99/4A 

Screen shot of Atari 800XL

Simple D&D dice roller for C64, Atari XL, and TI-99/4A (Ver 1.0)

I only tested this code with the C64, Atari XL and TI-99/4a (standard basic).
This will likely work on more platforms with little or no modifications
See the note on the bottom for the TI-99/4A.

Atari 800XL output

TI-99/4A output

Code for C64 AND ATARI

10 PRINT "DRAGON AND DICE"
20 PRINT "A) ROLL 4D"
30 PRINT "B) ROLL 6D"
40 PRINT "C) ROLL 8D"
50 PRINT "D) ROLL 10D"
60 PRINT "E) ROLL 12D"
70 PRINT "F) ROLL 20D"
80 PRINT "G) ROLL FOUR 6D"
85 PRINT "Z) QUIT"
90 INPUT A$
100 IF A$="A" THEN 200
110 IF A$="B" THEN 300
120 IF A$="C" THEN 400
130 IF A$="D" THEN 500
140 IF A$="E" THEN 600
150 IF A$="F" THEN 700
160 IF A$="G" THEN 800
170 IF A$="Z" THEN 1000
180 PRINT "----"
190 GOTO 10
200 D=INT(1+4*RND(1))
210 PRINT "YOU ROLLED A "
220 PRINT D
230 PRINT "WITH 4D"
240 PRINT "--"
250 GOTO 10
300 D=INT(1+6*RND(1))
310 PRINT "YOU ROLLED A "
320 PRINT D
330 PRINT "WITH 6D"
340 PRINT "--"
350 GOTO 10
400 D=INT(1+8*RND(1))
410 PRINT "YOU ROLLED A "
420 PRINT D
430 PRINT "WITH 8D"
440 PRINT "--"
450 GOTO 10
500 D=INT(1+10*RND(1))
510 PRINT "YOU ROLLED A "
520 PRINT D
530 PRINT "WITH 10D"
540 PRINT "--"
550 GOTO 10
600 D=INT(1+12*RND(1))
610 PRINT "YOU ROLLED A "
620 PRINT D
630 PRINT "WITH 12D"
640 PRINT "--"
650 GOTO 10
700 D=INT(1+20*RND(1))
710 PRINT "YOU ROLLED A "
720 PRINT D
730 PRINT "WITH 20D"
740 PRINT "--"
750 GOTO 10
800 D1=INT(1+6*RND(1))
802 D2=INT(1+6*RND(1))
804 D3=INT(1+6*RND(1))
806 D4=INT(1+6*RND(1))
810 PRINT "YOU ROLLED A "
820 PRINT D1;" ";D2;" ";D3;" ";D4
830 PRINT "WITH FOUR 6D"
840 PRINT "--  --  --  --"
850 GOTO 10
1000 END

For the TI-99/4A computer, change the randomize calls with this format: 

D=INT(1+4*RND)
D=INT(1+6*RND)

Ball Bounce - Saturday BASIC coding Exercise

Here is my Saturday programming exercise. 

X is the ball's X position
DX is the ball's X direction
Y is the ball's Y position
DY is the ball's Y direction

Positioning the ball on Atari computer
170 POSITION X,Y
175 PRINT CHR$(20)

Character 20 being the ball.

Positioning the ball on C64
170 POKE 1024 + X + 40*Y,81

81 being the ball.

Positioning the ball on TI-99
170 CALL HCHAR(Y,X,81)

Positioning the cross on the Apple II
161 PLOT X, Y
162 PLOT X-1,Y+1
163 PLOT X,Y+1
164 PLOT X+1,Y+1
165 PLOT X,Y+2

The TI uses Y,X coordinates where C64 and Apple use X,Y coordinates.

Atari and C64 both have predefined ball characters.  TI-99 and Apple does not.
I'm using character 81 as the ball on C64  - 20 on Atari
I'm rewriting character 81 and drawing it as a ball on the TI.
There is no simple middle ground with the Apple when doing graphic.
I simply slapped 5 blocks together with the plot command in low res
graphics.

Using TI-99 Extended BASIC, I could have shortened up the TI-99
code a lot, but wanted the code to work with both versions of 
BASIC.

For that matter, I could have shortened up all the BASIC code by
CATing code on the same lines, but I'm not a fan of that.  Too 
much and the code stops being easily readable.

I have been programming the far majority of my life.  
I still feel the same about these 4 platforms of the 80s.
TI-99 Extended #1, Atari 2nd, C64 3rd, and Apple II still sucks.



On to the Code!!

The Atari Code First

100 REM CLEAR SCREEN
110 PRINT CHR$(125)
120 GRAPHICS 0 : POKE 752,1
140 X = 1 
145 Y = 1
150 DX = 1 
155 DY = 1
160 REM DISPLAY BALL
170 POSITION X,Y
175 PRINT CHR$(20)
180 REM LINE 190 SLOW CODE DOWN
190 FOR T = 1 TO 50 
195 NEXT T
200 POSITION X,Y
205 PRINT " "
210 X = X + DX
220 IF X <= 0 THEN DX=-DX
225 IF X >= 34 THEN DX=-DX 
230 Y = Y + DY
240 IF Y <= 0 THEN DY=-DY
245 IF Y >= 22 THEN DY=-DY 
250 GOTO 160

The C64 BALL BOUNCE code!

100 REM CLEAR SCREEN
110 PRINT "{CLR/HOME}"
120 REM BG L-GREEN AND YELLOW BORDER
130 POKE 53280,7 
135 POKE 53281,13
140 X = 1 
145 Y = 1
150 DX = 1 
155 DY = 1
160 REM DISPLAY BALL
170 POKE 1024 + X + 40*Y,81
180 REM LINE 190 SLOW CODE DOWN
190 FOR T = 1 TO 30 
195 NEXT
200 POKE 1024 + X + 40*Y,32
210 X = X + DX
220 IF X <= 0 OR X >= 39 THEN DX = -DX 
230 Y = Y + DY
240 IF Y <= 0 OR Y >= 24 THEN DY = -DY 
250 GOTO 160

The TI-99 BALL BOUNCE code!

100 CALL CLEAR
110 CALL SCREEN(4)
120 CALL CHAR(81,"3C7EFFFFFFFF7E3C")
140 X = 1 
145 Y = 1
150 DX = 1 
155 DY = 1
160 REM DISPLAY BALL
170 CALL HCHAR(Y,X,81)
180 REM LINE 190 SLOW CODE 
190 FOR T = 1 TO 30 
195 NEXT T
200 CALL HCHAR(Y,X,32)
210 X = X + DX
220 IF X < 2 THEN 300
225 IF X > 31 THEN 300 
230 Y = Y + DY
240 IF Y < 2 THEN 320
245 IF Y > 23 THEN 320 
250 GOTO 160
300 DX =-DX
310 GOTO 160
320 DY =-DY
330 GOTO 160

Apple II PLUS BOUNCE code! 
It is fairly difficult in GR or HGR to make a ball.

100 REM CLEAR SCREEN
120 GR
140 X = 17 
145 Y = 5
150 DX = 1 
155 DY = 1
160 COLOR = 6
161 PLOT X, Y
162 PLOT X-1,Y+1
163 PLOT X,Y+1
164 PLOT X+1,Y+1
165 PLOT X,Y+2
180 REM LINE 190 SLOW CODE DOWN
190 FOR T = 1 TO 30 
195 NEXT T
200 COLOR = 0
201 PLOT X, Y
202 PLOT X-1,Y+1
203 PLOT X,Y+1
204 PLOT X+1,Y+1
205 PLOT X,Y+2
210 X = X + DX
220 IF X <= 2 OR X >= 37 THEN DX = -DX 
230 Y = Y + DY
240 IF Y <= 2 OR Y >= 37 THEN DY = -DY 
250 GOTO 160

Really, Atari does the best job. TI-99 is the easiest to program. Apple II is the "worsteth" of the four.

Hello World Examples from different 80's platforms

Programming in the 80's, every platform had to be differnt.

Odyssey2 Computer Intro! Assembler has multiple ways of 
displaying Hello World, here is one.

00 6B LDV.B.00  ;Load display register B with position 00
01 00
02 60 LDV.0.00  ;load register 0 with NULL
03 00
04 6C LDV.C.12  ;Load data space register C with step 12
05 12
06 09 MOV       ;Move data space to accumulator
07 30 BEQ.0.24  ;If NULL goto end
08 24
09 0B OTA       ;Display accumulator
10 12 GTO.06    ;go back to move at step 06   
11 06
12 1D           ;H  Start of data space
13 12           ;E
14 0E           ;L
15 0E           ;L
16 17           ;O
17 0C           ;space
18 11           ;W 
19 17           ;O
20 13           ;R
21 0E           ;L
22 1A           ;D
23 00           ;NULL  end of string
24 00 NOP       ;No opperation, just a place to land

TI-99/4 and TI-99/4A BASIC

10 CALL CLEAR
20 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"


ATARI 8-bit (400/800/800XL/130XE) BASIC

10 PRINT CHR$(125)
20 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"

Commodore VIC 20 BASIC

10 PRINT "{CLRSCN}"
20 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"

Commodore 64 BASIC

10 PRINT CHR$(147)
20 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"

IBM AT GW-BASIC

10 CLS
20 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"

More on 80s math processing.

I can see why Atari was so frustrated in the 80s. They were making better 8-bit and 16-bit computers than IBM and Apple for a whole lot less.



How were they better? First lets look at simple number storage in memory.

Here is IBM with a 16-bit Intel processor with Microsoft's GW-BASIC. This would have been standard with the 8086, 286, 386 processors.






With IBM, there are two interesting things going on. First, only 8 places after the decimal point is stored for processing and display.  Secondly, even in the code, the hard coded numbers past the 17th spot are cut off.

Next, I tried with the TI-99/4A. I had gotten some pretty good responses with math on this computer. The TI-99 has a 16-bit TMS9900 CPU also (the first home computer to ever to be 16-bit)




>LIST                         

 100 TEST=.123456789123456789 

 200 PRINT TEST               
>RUN                          

  .1234567891                 

  ** DONE **                  

The TI-99/4A has neither problem the IBM has.  All numbers are stored and the TI-99 display 10 digits behind the decimal.

With Atari's 8-bit MOSS 6802 CPU, we get a little bit better response than the IBM, but not much.
The better is we get 9 decimal places to work with instead of IBM's 8. Unfortunately, the hard coded value also get's changed:





100 TEST=.1234567891123456789    
200 PRINT TEST                   
RUN                              

0.123456789                      

                                 

READY                            

LIST                             

100 TEST=0.123456789             

200 PRINT TEST                   

                                 

READY                            

One additional decimal place (9) and the 0 before the decimal.

I would love to see how the Atari ST 520 , Apple Mac, or the Apple IIe stacked up against these three.

But back to the TI-99/4A.  Why did it do better than the 16 bit intel IBM computers and the 8-bit Atari computers?

Key points about the TI-99/4A's math capabilities:

First, it had an advanced (for it's time) 16-bit CPU for processing. Unlike most other home computers at the time which were 8-bit, the TI-99/4A's 16-bit processor allowed for more complex calculations with greater precision. But it still beat the x86 (that was also a 16-bit CPU).  

Although I would love to, I have not compared the TI-99/4A to computers that used the 6800 CPU.

But the TI-99/4A had another trick, The TI-99 computers had a dedicated floating-point unit. The TI-99/4A had a dedicated hardware component for handling floating-point operations, which significantly improved the speed and accuracy of mathematical calculations. 

Optimized floating-point format:

The way the TI-99/4A represented floating-point numbers internally was specifically designed for efficiency, further enhancing its mathematical performance. 

Program a SS and Compare BASICs (and stuff)

I have changed my mind.  My next project is going to be a multiplatform spreadsheet in BASIC.  This would not be the first time I have programmed a spreadsheet, but the last time I programmed it in C for Windows and Linux.  This time it will see how well I can make a SS for older computers like Atari 800, TI-99/4A, and old DOS computers.

First to see what I am dealing with, I did a math accuracy test:

100 PRINT ATN(5)
RUN

TI-99/4A TI BASIC         displays 1.373400767
Atari 400/800/800XL/130XE displays 1.37340076
IBM PC GW-BASIC/PC-BASIC  displays 1.373401



My guess is Microsoft purposely chose this accuracy level to promote paid products.

The cable I purchased has worked really well. still factory sealed, from 1979! Just opened it, looks, feels, and smells like brand new! I dumped a hundred TI-99/4A WAV files on my virtual tape drive and it is great!

So another successful experiment with my TI-99/4A 

BASIC Manuals

Now that I have both my Atari Computer and My Texas Instruments Computer hooked up to the KVM system, I plan on doing even more programming on them this winter.



So this weekend, I started writing two BASIC programming manuals, one for each system.

For the TI-99/4A
http://mrgibson.com/TI/Basic.php

For the Atari 800/800XL/800XE
http://mrgibson.com/atari/atari_basic.php

I got a lot done with both manuals, and have a lot of useful information, but neither completed.

As soon as I have my PEB completed for my TI-99/4A, I plan on loading a lot of BASIC games on my website in both BASIC text and WAV file audio.

My next programming project will be to complete that slots program for the Atari computers.

Star Trek stuff...

Today's game pickup! 

 

This got me thinking, a Star Trek program from scratch would be a great coding project.

Do something a little different [coding]

I'm going to do something a little differnt and hopefully fun. I'm going to program a software slot machine, and hopefully a good one. Not only that, but I'm going to create 3 diffent code bases: one application for the Atari 8 Bit platform in Atari Basic, one application for the TI-99/4A 16 bit platform in TI-Standard Basic, and lastly one for the Microsoft/Intel 32 Bit platform in Microsoft Basic. As I Develop the notes, logic flow, bits of source code, graphic design, I will post the material on this blog. Eventually posting links to code.

Of course whatever I finalize, finish (or not finish), I will share as open source to share freely. I have already started this process first in my head, now in notepad. Hopefully, I will share material soon.

Ranking Atari Arcade ports - Donkey Kong

Donkey Kong for 2600 receives 3.5 out of 5 stars

Only two levels of the four were included as only a 4k cartridge was made by Coleco. 

The game has primitive graphics and the system was capable of better graphics.  Really, I can let most of the graphics slide, but the Donkey Kong ape is given no effort at all. 

Despite the horribly drawn ape, the game play does stay fairly true.  The game feels like Donkey Kong.

Several unofficial modern versions of 2600 Donkey Kong have show what this game could have been - and it is a whole lot more than this.  But expectations were much lower for the 2600 when this was released.

Donkey Kong was not made for the Atari 5200  

Donkey Kong for the Atari 8-bit systems receives 4 out of 5 stars

The 8 bit version of Donkey Kong is a huge improvement over the 2600.  The game looks very much more like the arcade version and this has all 4 level screens.  Many more details are added from the arcade version.  Noticeable is the fact that there is one less of the platform girder beams (6 instead of 7) and Donkey Kong is on the right side instead of the left - even the 2600 got those two details correct.

On the other hand, the sound is really good and there are the cut scenes.  This version tries to stay true in many ways.

Donkey Kong for the Atari 7800 receives 4 out of 5 stars

This version adds all the visual details the Atari 8-bit couldn't like the barrel detail as they roll down ladders and characters that most closely resemble the arcade.  Also has the same amount of girder beams as the arcade version.  So why does the 7800 only get 4 out of 5 stars also?  There are only 3 level screens instead of 4 and the sound is sub par to other versions.   

Conclusion.  All three games are great and a lot of fun, but I would rather play the Atari 8-bit or 7800 over the 2600.

In 2018, Playsoft re-released Donkey Kong for the 8-bit Atari computers.  This version improved the graphics greatly - I think making this the one to get for the 8-bit and helping edge out the 7800 version.

[Image credit indieretronews.com]

 

At the geek store

Finally picked myself up a keypad for Atari Systems.  I have been wanting one of these for some time. $10 felt like a fair price for one in good condition.  I was also looking at an Atari 800.  Didn't get it as I could not get a view of the mother board and was not sure what year and batch it was made.  Likely the $200 asking price was fair, but hard to justify.

I did manage to get this phot from the board from underneath 

 

simple question

Here is a simple question that leads to speculation; Why is Yars Recharged not available on the Atari console when all the other Recharged game are?  Yars Recharged is the latest game that came out in August 2022.