Why I'm getting drawn into this I don't know, I guess because I hate people spouting crap as gospel. Anyway...
Quote: "a) The Tex Break has been a law in the UK since the early 60s to govern that companies contracted to produce the hardware for Universities were charged less. It was an encouragement motive, so that companies that produce for educational purposes."
This is NOT the tax break that Sony was trying to use. They were trying to claim back money (£6.60 per console) from IMPORT TAX duties, because they claimed the PS2 was a digital processing unit rather than just a console. The case went to the European Court of Justice and they lost. You can read the entire case report on-line if you wish, it isn't hard to find.
Infact the US publish all of their tax laws on-line too, every single one. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all and provide a link to the one that applied to Atari in the 1970's!
Quote: "Atari ST, base unit was the Falcon. The Falcon's base unit was the 2600, and the 2600 in turn is based on the 2200 ('82)."
Mother of God.
*bangs head on wall*
The ST was based on the Atari Falcon? Excuse me while I pick myself up from the floor.
The Falcon (I have two of these machines ok?) features a DSP chip, a Motorola 68030 processor and loads of other hardware that NEVER EVEN EXISTED, even in development blueprint form, back when the ST was designed.
The Falcon was based on a combination of the STE and the Mega range, but then they added a load more stuff in there. I used to run the official Atari Falcon Owners Group and had close links with Atari at the time (infact I still do, via NVIDIA which is wher Darryl Still now works).
To assume the ST (or the Falcon) was based off the 2600 is like saying the Gamecube is based on a Game-and-Watch. You're missing a whole era of Atari computers in-between! Not to mention their entire post-2600 console range and their very very popular 8-bit range of computers. Could it be that the ST was based on one of their 8-bit computers? Well.. asthetically it was, but even then the circuit board design is utterly different, the 68000 processor was brand spanking new and most the hardware around it also.
But hey, what do I know? I was only living this every single day while you were floating around in your Daddies sperm pouch
Quote: "Now if that site posted is to be believed, the 2200 is actually in turn based on the VCS 2600."
Which wouldn't really make sense - because it's the wrong way around. The 2600 was based on 2200 designs, which in turn are based on 2000 designs (codename VAL).
Quote: "Atari marketed the VCS 2600 as a computer (no doubt FOR the tax break)"
I'll grant you the first part - Atari did indeed market the 2600 as VIDEO computer system. Not a "computer", a "video computer system" - because let's not forget what "computer" means here, the 2600 was certainly a computational device. But then so were calculators back then - do you class them as "computers" too? Did they receive this magical tax break? By the mid 1980's even Washing Machines had motorola processors in them - I wonder if they were sold as computers too?
Quote: "what I said was correct that a Kit *was* made in order to create it into a fully functional computer"
But never SOLD - a tax clause/break like the one stipulated cannot apply to something that isn't even in retail.
The only tax break Atari ever got was this:
http://www.atariage.com/software_page.html?SoftwareLabelID=553 
Quote: "The sheer fact it is there means it could be converted to a computer."
You hit the nail right on the head - it could be CONVERTED to a traditional computer, which implies it wasn't before the kit was added. Not that anyone ever got the chance mind you.
Quote: "As for Pong, a Single Game; Perhaps Multiple modes, but you cannot alter what games are available on it... it's game set was the exact same from the day it went on sale til the day it was replaced on the market. That makes it an Arcade Machine by pure definition."
As there is no pure definition of "arcade machine" this is your personal suggestion only. The whole phrase "arcade machine" implies, the machine was created for use in
arcades, no? Pong was not - it was based on an arcade design, certainly, but for home consumption. That in my book makes it a home console. Arcade machines are .. well.. machines you see in arcades. This really isn't very complicated. Look at the Neo Geo - 100% arcade machine circuitry, etc - yet anyone with an ounce of sense would call it a console. Where's the difference?
Cheers,
Rich
"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde
