Jump to content

Talk:Amiga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NatAmi

[edit]

I'm sure folks know that the NatAmi article recently fell at AFD, I have cut that article way down in length and added it to the hardware section here. Please double check this for accuracy. The key issue is that we lack sufficient reliable sources to document this project in an article of its own. I recognize that there is a lot of information on various forums about the project, but we do not use those as sources except in very limited cases. It would be helpful to find one external link that we can point to with a list of links to the various sources of information that do exist, but which do not meet WP's RS guidelines. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natami merge

[edit]
Done : clear consensus to merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedurally proposing a merger of Natami in line with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 27. Courcelles 09:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone have sourcing of US DoD use of the Amiga?

[edit]

I remember using an Amiga 3000, with laserdisc data set, for TOW missile training some years ago, but cannot find sources to reference the use.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some civil service computer programmers used home machines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.135.25 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peripherals, Networking and Trivia

[edit]

This article needs streamlined. There is still a lot of shit here, particularly in the sections about peripherals, networking (both of which belong in other articles) and notable historic uses (trivia). Unless anyone is going to rework these soon I am quite tempted to remove most of that content. Crb136 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes by Realamigaman

[edit]

I reverted these "changes" back. His edits speak for themselves. I expect edit war from his side. Really sad someone vandalises article about nearly dead computer platform.Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Realamigaman seems to use new name "AmigaOne"... Pavlor (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As much as "RealAmigaMan" is probably only in it for trolling and petty vandalism, there is a point that AmigaONE and Amiga are not the same brand and shouldn't be treated as such. Recommend moving AmigaONE off this page and linking it via AmigaOS only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.99.231 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As AmigaOne is brand created by Amiga.Inc for "rebirth of the Amiga desktop platform" it for sure belongs to general article about Amiga. Why remove this part of Amiga history?Pavlor (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not removal - a link onwards to separate AmigaOne content would be preferable. It is a part of Amiga history indeed, but more a footnote than anything of great relevance. I personally get the feeling that there's more of a little self-aggrandisement about the AmigaOne stuff, but even if the reader doesn't share that opinion, there must eventually come the point where the document is too long for continued contemporary additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.248.178.170 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are 15 instances of "AmigaOne" in the article, not single one in the introduction. Most are in small "AmigaOS 4 systems" section (which is logical). I don´t think we really have "AmigaOne abundance problem" here. What specific sentences you have in mind?Pavlor (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga serial transfer speed

[edit]

Could someone with editing rights please make a change to the serial port specifications listing in this Wikipedia Amiga article?

Currently it lists it as greater than or equal to 115 Kbps (in the table listing communication interfaces used).

However, it would be nice to inform people of what this port was actually capable on the Amiga -- especially compared to the initial serial chip on the IBM PC and even compared to the UART that followed on later PCs.

The AMIGA Hardware Reference Manual (Third Edition) lists the AMIGA's serial UART performance as follows:

"This UART is programmable for any rate from 110 to over 1,000,000 bits per second."

(page 255) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.240.6 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But on the next same book says: "With a cable of a reasonable length, the maximum reliable rate is on the order of 150,000-250,000 bits per second. Maximum rates will vary between machines. At these high rate it is not possible to handle the overhead of interrupts."
Maximal real life speed is also limited by CPU. People on EAB reported maximal achieved speed comparable with 115 Kbps value.Pavlor (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amiga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga by Commodore, ACube and A-Eon?

[edit]

Some unregistred editor did probably good-faith edits and changed wording in introduction, stating Amiga computers were produced not only by Commodore, but also by Eyetech and A-eon. I reverted this change from these reasons:

1. Current consensus is not to mix original Amiga models and later AmigaOne computers.

2. Although AmigaOne exists for 15 years, its impact on computer world is not (even remotely) comparable to Amiga. We shall not give undue weight to later developements.

3. AmigaOne (like other similar efforts) already has its place in introduction.

Your opinions?Pavlor (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see great damage in having "[...] (and later ACube and A-Eon) [...]", as long as only machines that directly descend from Amiga's IP are included. --LjL (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then we shouldn´t forget Amiga Mini form CommodoreUSA...Pavlor (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommodoreUSA is Commodore, isn't it? LjL (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Commodore that released Amiga in 1985, then not. It was new company that got license to Commodore/Amiga IP in 2011/2012, Amiga Mini was Core i7 based computer runing Linux distribution called "CommodoreOS". I don´t object the inclusion of these products to Amiga article introduction, though these are even less relevant than AmigaOne. Giving too much weight to recent/current events would not serve well Amiga article. However, if more editors don´t see this as problem, I will gladly do necessary edits.Pavlor (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My question is whether the mere inclusion of "(and later ...)" in parenthesis is really giving too much weight. LjL (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look at my discussion in above "Recent changes by Realamigaman" section, some editors see even current representation of AmigaOne as excessive. That is why I´m probably so overcautious in this regard. We should wait for other opinions and then make final decision. As I wrote, I see no problem in such rewording, but I suggest to wait for more input.Pavlor (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the current version. The non-Commodore manufacturers are mere footnotes in the Amiga's history and are more notable for being part of a long string of attempts to revive the platform rather than achieving any measurable impact on their own. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article rather than be exhaustively complete, and the bulk of this article is about the Commodore era, not the rest. The lead should reflect that, and it can do so by discussing later manufacturers near the end, where that discussion is now. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the article should mainly concentrate on the original Commodore Amiga, and only mention later attempts at reintroducing the platform in passing. None of them have been nearly as notable as the original platform. Some even seem to be cash-in efforts that consist of little more than slapping an "Amiga" sticker on a generic Wintel PC. JIP | Talk 08:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I toned down (and corrected) some AmigaOne informations in the article. I think our consensus remains to leave AmigaOne share in the article as it is.Pavlor (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga - the Jurassic computer

[edit]

Someone recently added a long piece of text glorifying the Amiga as "the Jurassic computer", responsible for the CGI effects in Jurassic Park, but it was later reverted. I'm going to add it back, but heavily shortened, and with none of the glorifying, just mentioning that the Amiga as used for the CGI effects. But this will probably have to wait until after Christmas. JIP | Talk 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tramiel and loan

[edit]

I delete sentence "Tramiel provided a $500,000 loan to keep the company running, with the proviso that failure to pay it back in one month would leave Atari owning the technology.[10]" since there is no mention of Jack name in reference http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/08/a-history-of-the-amiga-part-3/3/ from link: "CEO Dave Morse gave presentations to a number of companies, including Sony, Hewlett-Packard, Philips, Apple, and Silicon Graphics, but the only interested suitor was Atari, who lent the struggling company $500,000 as part of a set of painful buyout negotiations. According to the contract, Amiga had to pay back the $500,000 by the end of June or Atari would own all of their technology." Atari Inc. (predate Jack Tramiels Atari Corp.) lend money, not Jack. More about this topic you can find in book "Business is Fun" by Marty Goldberg and Curt Vendel with original contract. If someone have time it would be nice to have complete topic covered here on wikipedia. Link to "Business is Fun" book with story about Jack Tramiel, Atari Inc and Amiga: https://books.google.rs/books?id=3FwGMtRafrAC&pg=PA746&lpg=PA746&dq=Marty+Goldberg+and+Curt+Vendel+amiga+atari+contract+business+is+fun&source=bl&ots=1lqmZjSsm6&sig=SJykhw-Z76j_2QoVUakauEzRGL0&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=loan&f=false from page 743 --Calimero (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Amiga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Amiga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amiga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amiga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amiga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video game console in infobox

[edit]

Dgpop removed "video game console" from the infobox, because No support in the article for this being a video game console, other than early prototypes. However, the article clearly says: Commodore's last Amiga offering before filing for bankruptcy was an attempt to capture a portion of the highly competitive 1990s console market with the Amiga CD32 (1993), a 32-bit CD-ROM games console. (section Models and variants/Commodore Amiga/4th paragraph) - so I reverted that edit. Then Zac67 reverted my revert claiming Not consistent with lede.. I would like to return "video game console" back to infobox. Your opinion? Pavlor (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While "video game console" isn't completely wrong, it's not completely right either. The Amiga was initially conceived as a video game system but this changed during development. Only at the very end a marketing attempt as a gaming system was made (the CDTV was targeted at another market). If this were to be reflected in the info box it would require an appropriate mention in the lede – in my opinion, it's fine as it is, with the CD32 mentioned in the third paragraph. Of course, this is open to discussion here, pending consent. --Zac67 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Video game console" was added into infobox by IP in August 2017 [1], so it was there for some time. I think disputed removal requires new consensus, not return to prior state. Pavlor (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by an anonymous user in August 2017 with a reason of "The CD32 is a gaming console." That's correct, and the Amiga CD32 page already calls that system a "Home video game console" in the info box, but this is the page about the Amiga personal computer. Dgpop (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about the entire Amiga platform. Sure, most models were personal computers, but Commodore entered also other markets with CDTV (not even called Amiga back then) and CD32. It is obvious the infobox is more of a burden than help for this article, as we can argue for eternity what belongs there and what not (eg. Commodore was not the only manufacturer). However, I fear removing it would start another theater of the Great Infobox War... If we must have an infobox, it should offer correct and complete overview of Amiga computers. Pavlor (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga sold sold by Commodore from 1985 to 1996 in the lead

[edit]

Complainer - whom I respectfully invite to this discussion - changed wording in the lead from "is a family of personal computers sold by Commodore starting in 1985" to "Amiga is a family of personal computers sold by Commodore from 1985 to 1996". Note Commodore went bankrupt in 1994 and Amiga computers were sold later by Escom/Amiga Technologies (including the new A4000T/060 model), there were also other "would to be successor" products to the original Amiga line: eg. dAmiga (development computer for Amiga DE; 2000), AmigaOne (since 2002; this one is sold even now) or Amiga Mini (2011/2012). Not even counting these later models, it is obvious Commodore did not sell Amiga computers until 1996, so the new proposed wording is misleading at best. I propose to return to the old (and stable) wording. Your opinion? Pavlor (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I therefore propose to change it to "[...] sold by Commodore from 1985 to 1994 and by Escom from 1994 to 1996"; as for the would be successors, there is a simple logic, here: if they are Amigas for the purpose of this article, which, at present, they count, otherwise, they are not germane to the subject of this discussion. I know absolutely nothing about dAmiga or Amiga Mini, systems so obscure that you'll look in vain for hours on google for "damiga" but AmigaOne is simply a Tower PC running an OS which is to the original Amiga OS what Windows 10 is to OS2, i.e., borrowing some feature but not actually derived from it. All in all, saying Amiga is still sold because of that is like saying that druids still exist because of these guys: they would very much like us to believe so, but name dropping doth not a continuity make. complainer 09:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don´t forget QuickPak (sold A4000T until 1997...). I reworded lead to: "The Amiga is a family of personal computers introduced by Commodore in 1985." (I think this solves your main complaint) Well, OS4 actually is derived from OS3 (some parts changed only little since the Commodore era - eg. PCMCIA RAM card editor is the same as in the OS3.1 release, IconEdit is still 68k application with next to no change from OS3.5/3.9, same for ARexx etc.). Sure, there is new ExecSG and eyecandy here and there, but the old legacy is still visible. I would rather compare OS4/OS3 relation to Windows 95/Windows 3.1 (source code continuity, some technological and UI improvement). Pavlor (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Amiga CD32's role in Commodore's bankruptcy.

[edit]

The article states in the lead "Commodore ultimately went bankrupt in April 1994 after the Amiga CD32 model failed in the marketplace.". I not so sure that is a completely accurate statement. First, the CD32 did see some success in Europe but was hamstrung by Commodore's lack of finances which meant that a large number of CD32 consoles where being held up in the Philippines, where they where manufactured, awaiting payment. Secondly, Commodore had intended to release the console in the U.S. but a patent lawsuit by Cad Track had resulted in an injunction preventing Commodore from importing any hardware into the U.S. until Commodore paid patent royalty to owed to them. Because Commodore was bleeding cash by this point they could not pay the royalty owed and thus where never able to get the CD32 to the U.S. market before they went bankrupt. Thus, I don't think it's fair to say the CD32 "failed" and that why Commodore went bankrupt but rather that a several factors contributed to it's bankruptcy. As stated in the Amiga CD32 article: "Ultimately, Commodore was not able to meet demand for new units because of component supply problems. Sales of the CD32 in Europe were not enough to save Commodore, and the bankruptcy of Commodore International in April 1994 caused the CD32 to be discontinued only eight months after its debut." So the reality was that the CD32 wasn't totally a failure just not enough of a success (partly due to lack of ability to meet demand due to supply problems) to stave off bankruptcy. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction defective

[edit]

The third sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section is defective. "The A3000, introduced in 1990, started the second generation of Amiga systems...". This should be the A2000 introduced in 1987. The article for the A3000 states that it was the start of the third generation of Amigas.

Somebody needs to fix this. I am not an Amiga person so maybe there is something going on here that I don't get. So somebody who knows Amigas needs to look at this. But to me this looks wrong. Wikkileaker (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All these generation things are quite arbitrary. You may find RS for 3 major Amiga generations (OCS/ECS/AGA), but also for A500/2000 as a next generation following A1000. Both articles were written by diferent editors, which explains this inconsistency. What is "right"? Hard to say... I prefer two generation classification (16 bit vs full 32 bit systems), but my view is cerainly in minority (RS-wise). We may try to reach some consensus for consistency accross the Amiga Wikipedia articles, but this would require input form several editors. Pavlor (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the articles are written currently, there is a direct contradiction between this article and the A3000 article. Here the A3000 is second-gen, in the A3000 article it is stated as being third-gen. Nothing arbitrary there. To me, the A2000 seems a distinct departure from the previous Amigas (expansion slots, drive bays) and so warrants billing as second-gen. Anyway, I'm a TRS-80 guy so I'm not too bothered by it, except to the extent that as I browse WP I don't expect to encounter such stark contradictions. I am going to leave the matter at that, for you Amiga fellows to sort out. Just letting you know... Wikkileaker (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding @Pavlor: here – since there were no official generations, arbitrary lines were drawn by different people: between OCS, ECS, AGA; between 16 and 32-bit CPUs; between small and big box machines; ... To me, the generations are marked by the major chipset generations, so the A3000 was the first for the second, ECS generation. I consider the A500 and the A2000(-B!) as belonging to the OCS generation, even if cost reduced and somewhat improved. But mileage varies. --Zac67 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no standard among RSes about generations, then they are simply the next model in the Amiga series. And generational verbiage should be rewritten to that. — Smuckola(talk) 19:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed "generations" from the article lead, feel free to revert/rewrite. I also rewrote lead of the A3000 and A1200 articles. Pavlor (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irix

[edit]

Amiga actually was inspired by Irix. This should be in the article. A modern day "Amiga" would be BSD based, and the Odenix Trade PatchClass, addresses Amiga-like userbases wishes of an indie economy also.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR3gmLVjHS5A702wo4bol_Q

Indeed the amiga is much part of what later became "EDM".

Reliable source supporting such a claim would certainly help (youtube channel is not - in most cases - a RS we are looking for). As of a modern day "Amiga", there are several factions warring over the Amiga legacy, why not another one...Pavlor (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph about not releasing hardware documentation

[edit]
There are so many problems and questions, I'm going to start with quoting the entire paragraph here.

"The problem was somewhat exacerbated by Commodore's initial decision to release documentation relating not only to the OS's underlying software routines,[citation needed] but also to the hardware itself, enabling intrepid programmers who had developed their skills on the Commodore 64 to POKE the hardware directly, as was done on the older platform. While the decision to release the documentation was a popular one and allowed the creation of fast, sophisticated sound and graphics routines in games and demos, it also contributed to system instability[citation needed]as some programmers lacked the expertise to program at this level. For this reason, when the new AGA chipset was released, Commodore declined to release low-level documentation in an attempt to force developers into using the approved software routines.[citation needed]"

It should be easy to find sources for both the initial decision to release hardware documentation, and the second decision not to with the AGA chipset. And I find it easy to believe Amiga management used the excuse about inexperienced programmers causing instability, that's a classic "we must protect customers from themselves". I think whoever said this; the CEO or others, should be named. Because while I find it easy believe they used the excuse, I don't believe it's real. If amateurs writing games and demos fail, the responsibility is on them. If there were large or important commercial failures, maybe Commodore might have concerns about the Amiga's reputation, but that doesn't seem to be the case. And we now have nearly three decades of projects transitioning to Open Source, (less time with Open Hardware, but still) and the vast majority of times, openness improves the experiences of users, hobbyists, and pros. To quote Eric Raymond, "Many eyes make all bugs shallow." (notice he says "shallow", not "perfect"!) Granted I have my own bias here and would prefer an expose-style paragraph on this one of many bad decisions by management, but even if editors want to keep the slant: the decision was justified (certainly as-is, the author seems to buy into the company line), citations are a must. I'd like to see credit where its due and blame where is belongs, and this section makes the episode seem like a collective or perhaps anonymous decision. "Mistakes were made..." I don't know if I'll have time to research this, but I intend to delete it if no one updates it. I'm really tired of decade-old {citation needed}s on Wikipedia articles. I intend to sit or get off the pot!

Tumacama (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember the AAA documentation right, this developed chipset retained only hardware ECS compatibility and its developers assumed software will use AA features via OS services (and so work on AAA). I may browse old magazines for an useable reference. There is also AA supplement documentation (delivered with AA computers) which (I think) mentions this OS over hardware thing (primary source of course). Pavlor (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FPGA section?

[edit]

With the release of things like the Vampire and Mist should we add a section on the FPGAs under Legacy?--EggsHam (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FPGA (Minimig) is currently covered under "Amiga hardware clones" subsection. I think this could be a right place for other notable FPGA efforts (with proper sub-subsections, if needed). Pavlor (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There have been other recent movements to update the Amiga using not just things like FPGA but also creating new hardware for existing Amigas such as seen here. https://hackaday.com/2023/01/21/an-unexpected-amiga-network-interface/
I am wondering if we should create a new section just dedicated to Amiga modding or something. EggsHam (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? There may be an issue with sources (most Amiga modding etc. is covered by blogs and similar pages, not the RS we are looking for), but if you find suitable coverage in reliable sources, be bold and start a new section (or subsection). We may reorder/rewrite that later. Pavlor (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schwartz

[edit]

Eric Schwartz was involved making furry animations on the Amiga. Can this be on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:A9E2:31EA:715E:AB2C (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update sales figures from 4.85 to 4.91

[edit]

An investigation has decided that the Amiga series of computers found an additional 54 thousand sales after 1993 and before Commodores bankruptcy in 1994. The count also includes sales from Escom. I'll update the sales figures and use the source that XboxAhoy used in their investigation, the official Commodore annual report, though there needs to be additional sources, namely an archive of the exact newspaper used to describe Escom's sales from 1994 to 1996, which I believe may be added. Vanillyn (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the initial people just adding the Youtube video as a source, don't know if it fits in the original research policy to do all this analysis, though? If it was just the percentages I would understand, but the synthesis of multiple sources, mix of approximation methods, and discrediting the email source (for example) based on further research seems like more than trivial math. For example, he relies on what is essentially a guess for an unrecorded quarter of the last year, I think.
Maybe we can take the more straightforward elements of the analysis and cite the paper for those, and then just be explicit about not describing the parts that need the more complicated analysis? Mrfoogles (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:OR policy is pretty clear: if XboxAhoy did the edit, it might be considered original research, but an independent editor coming along and adding this as a secondary source is perfectly allowable. The video is a clear discussion on the background, a discussion of the viability of the currently presented numbers, and a direct read of the numbers produced by Commodore primary sources.
The discussion of a secondary source states:
  • thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally one step removed
  • analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources
and the official policy is "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." (emphasis mine)
The article isn't making the sythesis, the cited source is.
By all rules, the video is a valid secondary source: It derives an analysis and estimate from primary sources (Commodore's shareholder reports) and a handful of other sources that may be secondary, but which make up support for the synthetic portion of the estimate. If anything, it gives us a clearer interpretation of numbers than others have, breaking the Commodore sales apart from the ESCOM sales based on primary sources.
If I were to have a specific wording of how this number was presented, I would have a short blurb about sales numbers ("It's uncertain exactly how many were sold. Estimates vary from x.xx to y.yy, with the most likely number being 4.91M total sales, 4.86M from Commodore themselves and a further 54 thousand sales post-bankruptcy by German manufacturer Escom AG."
The sidebar can have a breakdown (4.86M pre-1994, 54K post-1994). Indrora (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a secondary source, but that’s not the issue. The policy says Wikipedia can make new claims only if they have been published in a “reliable” secondary source. This video is self-published and therefore not a reliable source according to the guidelines. Therefore, we cannot use it as a citation.
I.e. according to the guidelines, Wikipedia shouldn’t cite a YouTube video from a personal channel. Maybe we can say “[Estimates vary and] the analysis of a Youtuber who newly obtained the [documents] gives the number 4.91 million.” But that’s still pushing it a little when the policy basically says, “don’t cite self-published sources unless they are published experts” (by this policy)
I know that by policy if we cite any source, it is not original research; I was talking about how to include it without citing the source (because it is unreliable) without it being original research. One of the main issues with the “argue that because it is basic math it is not original research even though I cannot cite the source because it is unreliable” approach is that he makes an assumption on the relative sales numbers between quarters to fill in a hole in his data, which impacts that 54 million figure at the end of the quote you gave. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on this is rather clear. The YouTube video is a self-published source, which can only be used "when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Even if doubts about the previously presented figures exist, the solution is to highlight that uncertainty, rather than replace the numbers by those provided by another poor (in Wikipedia terms) source. I have removed the citation to the YouTube video and modified the infobox claim to be significantly less precise, with a comment to see this talk page before modifying the infobox. Ljleppan (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, but wouldn't the original source for the 5,29 claim be also a self-published source? Seems to me like a personal website by one person about the Amiga, so also self-published. VistingReader (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All low quality sources. Unless the author of said SPS is a renowned subject matter expert, these aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. There are only few sources inside the Amiga bubble one can consider as reliable (in Wikipedia sense) - eg. Amiga Future magazine, or amiga-news.de. Even fewer reliable sources outside of the Amiga bubble (eg. Ars technica) would go into that detail (exact number of computers sold). If no reliable source covers this information, then it is probably undue for inclusion into the article. Pavlor (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGA blunder as the last straw

[edit]

I came across this old comment on /. by Amiga OS developer Randell Jesup, that tells an interesting and revealing story: the AGA chips' manufacturing was outsourced to HP, but Mehdi Ali failed to reserve fab time for the '93 holidays. Ultimately HP was all booked and could only deliver a fraction of the AGAs that Commodore wanted. Then the wise Ali decided to produce their usual holiday numbers anyway, but since they could only make that many units of the Amiga 1200, the rest would be Amiga 600. Of course the obsolete 600 didn't fly off the shelves, Commodore was stuck with a massive amount of unsellable inventory, and from there they were financially doomed. -- 2804:D4B:79C3:C300:6DD1:328E:244C:2F16 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was some sort of a common knowledge even back in the 1990s, interesting anyway. However, forum posts are next to impossible to qualify as reliable sources (even if the poster was verifiable, it would be only a primary source). Maybe some Amiga magazines cover this story in a more useable way (from RS POV). Pavlor (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amiga&oldid=1260360441"