Talk:Commodore USA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Added CommodoreUSA and official CommodoreOS support forum is now defunct with no support and no communication. --Rastavox (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable examples of fraud Notable examples include attacking competition, use of AROS Kickstart instead original ones, as well as rebranding Mint under CommodoreOS name. Also, there is no support for free version of CommodoreOS, product properties and product specs have several times changed from announcements, contrary to their website past models page, they are not related to Commodore or Amiga models of the past and they produce their VIC, C64x and Amiga models by changing cases with same hardware and by mixing low end and high end series and inventing new names. More or less, its 2x priced same hardware repaced in different cases, with different stickers and or engravement. Its expensive as high end PC or Mac and bundled with beta OS that should be free (MINT). Rastavox (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Rastavox (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Model Round Up[edit]

Pheonix - This was one if the initial models announced when CUSA first started. This later became the first Vic Pro.

Iviticus - This again was an early model that was intended for release. This was canceled (

Amigo - This was yet another announced ( system but was never shown or released.

C64x - Released and shown a lot. This has seen several revisions including standard, pro, extreme and supreme. Including a barebones system, just the case, and now announced clear and black cases ( which were renounced by Barry. Gurrent model comes with an i7 processor.

Vic Slim - Initially two versions of the slim were produced. A pro version, this was the pheonix, and a less powerful black slim version. The silver (pheonix) vic was replaced by the current slim and the original slim was dropped completely. It has had a couple of hardware revisions. These computers are pre-built computers. However CUSA has access to the "barebones" case. At time of writing a "clearence" barebones (the old slim model) is available with a Atom D525 1.8GHz processor where as the current barebones comes with Intel Atom D2700 2.13GHz.

Vic Mini - This was origionally the same case as the Amiga Mini ( but in black and no laser etched Amiga sign. However this was replaced with the current Mini which is a rebadged ZOTAC ZBOX Giga ID70 Plus ( No barebone is available as this is a simple rebadge with the same specs. It is priced at $999.

Amiga Mini - Current model is either a Streacom F4 or Wesena Minit ITX2 ( It has a laser etched Amiga sign on the front along with stick on Commodore branding. Initially only available in silver it was revised when the Vic Mini was replaced with the Zotac box. Now you can get it in black or sliver also with or without Amiga branding. Initially only one hardware setup was available which was an i7 with 16gb ram. Only the HDD was cusomizable and these were a traditional 1tb HDD, 300gb SDD or 600gb SDD. it was described as the sportscar of the computer world. However these were revised after numerous complaints about pricing ($2740) to include i3 and i5 processors and RAM selection. All systems include NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 430 GPU with 1GB DDR3. These have been linked to Zotac motherboards. A barebones model is available in both black or silver and with or without etching. hints of yet another hardware revision has been mentioned also (

Amiga Mio - this was recently announced ( in Barry's big update. However it's been revealed that it actually the current Vic Mini ( This change in name is to apparently make it easier identify and place it in the current product linup and is now the entry CUSA Amiga. No news on pricing has been announced.

Amiga 1000x - Hinted at a while back in a news article on ( this box, which was a photoshopped image from an original Amiga 100 box, was shown around several sites. It turned out to be a Wesena E5 ( case and Iton Bluetooth keyboard (Read my post However a recent update from barry shows a pre-prdouction case with etched Amiga logo ( Initially though several possible cases have been shown over the last year and a half including Kama T series and Origen S series. Pricing has been hinted at starting from $2495 ( No specs have been announced.

Amiga 2000x and 3000x - Several possible cases have been shown over the last year and a half including Kama T series and Origen S series. No other news has been mentioned other than they could be expensive.

Amiga 500x - This was initially suspected to be the current Vic pro. However no further info came from this. Seems to be a dead project.

Now I lost my original list with all this on. So I had to piece it together from my own posts and what I could remember. If anyone can remember anything else then please let me know and we could update this. Rastavox (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of AmigaOS dispute[edit],_Inc CommodoreUSA Amiga line is direct result. I will write a chapter later. Rastavox (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC


Expanded controversy to real issues, as well as appeal and history.

Feel free to discuss the edit.

Rastavox (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because of multiple issues. Please do not mix original research and personal opinions. I have removed some data not verifiable from external source like C64 sales numbers. Retro trend section was removed due to its irrelevance. Xorxos (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Which issues? Currently this is product advert,not a WIki article. There is reasonable criticism. Rastavox (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Note of deletition of Amiga PC from products[edit]

Even it was their first announced product, its not out yet as of Feb 2012. When its out and specs are known it will be OK. Defenetely will not be AIO as originally promised (no new case developed).

Amiga PC[edit]

A product line (coming in late 2011), of Amiga branded x86 desktop and all-in-one computers based upon the Intel i7 chipset with emulation of the old Amiga systems built-in.[1][2]

Real criticism thread

Please send suggestions, materials and add comments Thanks44Rastavox (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. And I deleted the information ("coming in late 2011") and specific types of computers. In-Correct (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

OK but info on both AIO and built in Amiga emulation is wrong. Rastavox (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

All the mistakes of C=USA[edit]

Real criticism Feel free to quote in criticism section Rastavox (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Joke website that summs all the criticism[edit] Sinclair UK wasn't founded by Controlly Delman in September of 2011, with the express purpose of making a pointless web site dedicated to the famous Commodore USA. We are Commodore and AMIGA fanatics, just like many of you. We ask ourselves what could have been, and we are appalled by Commodore USA. Commodore isn't back, and we're not going to fall for it. 1TB hard disk and a blue ray reader with no eject button but be careful, it will probably over heat, we have no idea how to cool a modern PC Quote: Available for pre-order soon as we only have a render we stole of another site so far. Quote: with impact resistant key caps that have been stress tested to withstand more than a million key strokes, just don't spill anything on it. Quote: don't be fooled by similar specification computers from big manufactures for less money, they don't have a Sinclair badge and don't run Sinclair OS only regular Ubuntu without the bits we removed and changed a bit and you will have to download your own emulators for those, we save you the time. Quote: More details will be released as we dream them up, we may decide that they're HTPCs that look like microwaves. Quote: and this is seemingly the proof despite the fact that it's clearly not what we claim. Quote: All the computers we sell come with a version of Ubuntu and Canonical can be contacted for software support since we don't know how it works Quote: To create the authentic sinclair experience, Sinclair OS is based on Ubuntu with the graphical user interface removed and only the text console for input, we have also changed the colour scheme to black on white just like the old machines — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

False representation[edit]

At one point of time there was a net rumor that [url=]this design[/url] has been moved to their [url=]future models page[/url] which is quite strange, as it is "wanna be" page without any probablity (but at least is not at their front page faking like with previous ones) and beside having the "overall design" copyrighters its not known if any is in "probability of production".

(considering that even this page is hidden within the site map, while direct link to future models lead to [url=]CUSA Amigas page[/url]

What, however is most contraversial to I&I is missleading people that they are continuation of [url=]Commodore[/url], [url=]Amiga[/url] and [url=]their history[/url]

Exactly what should be called "missleading and false representation"

Instead of just saying that they are new company Commodore USA with Commodore USA 64x Commodore USA Amiga 1000 etc. they pressume e.g. their Amiga 1000 will be "fastest Amiga ever" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


I keep seeing people tag this page saying that it may not meet WP:Notability. However, these users are making no effort to talk about the situation here on the talk page, and a simple Google News search should be all you need to see that this topic is getting A LOT of coverage. Illinois2011 (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

15 mentions in google news, mostly just copied press releases. Wikipedia is not intended to be an advertisement platform for enterprises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I folowed the google news link, and I only got about 3 results. (The rest were the same but in different languages) ....

I don't think that this article should be deleted but if it ends up like that, then the information should be merged with Commodore International. Please keep it seperate from information about Intel Processors, as Commodore Holding Company releases Intel processors (AND with Windows as OS and Windows Keyboards)

In-Correct (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC) If these computers made by Commodore USA are featured in the consumer electronics shows and things like that... then that means there should be enough news and information to establish notability. the future.

In-Correct (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Something else to think about... A-EON Technology is a legitimate company, and yet it does not have its own article in Wikipedia. I am unable to create the article with all the standards needed, and also I wouldn't be able to add to the Commodore USA article either. So if a company does not, at present, have "what it needs" to be able to have its own Wikipedia article, why should another similar company???? In-Correct (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That A-eon havent established any notability yet. Their AmigaOne project did and is featured in Wikipedia (it could be disputed, though). Commodore USA got the name and the history making it somewhat more notable but unless there is nothing more to write about it I would suggest merging Commodore USA to another article. Xorxos (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Could it be possible for both AmigaOne X1000 and Commodore USA to get Current Event tags on them? In-Correct (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Google News does seem to be turning up less and less results. When I created the article, there were pages and pages on this subject. However, if you do some poking around, most of the major news outlets in the US have mentioned something about this company. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNET, and others all have articles on Commodore USA. Just try to look around for a bit before you make your judgement. Illinois2011 (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


First of all, it is not incarnation or reincarnation but rebranding and retro exploit. CUSA has nothing to do with Commodore International.

Also, some notable examples of spamming, threatening etc. should be included as well abuse of original Commodore Amiga naming without proper licence (licence is just for All In One computers)

More to come.

Being on CNN in news, just means heaving money, not much. They just resend the info someone posted, it can be propaganda or advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on some of those things. Technically C=USA is an independent 3rd party, but I wouldn't say that they have nothing to do with Commodore International. I would consider Commodore International to be the "boss" of C=USA, because I read the news article that they have requested that somebody to help relaunch C= and they have given permission to C=USA to do so with that PC64.

Adding criticism to this article: Yes, I remember when Barry Altman apparently threatened some critic on OS News. There has been a lot of news that can be used as criticism for this Wiki Article. And somebody else said that this isn't an advertising website. lol. So that means that there should be controversy and criticism to be added to this article!! C=USA has been very strategic to do everything controversial to get everybody's attention...and to get publicity.

Rebranding: It is a lot more than rebranding. Their computers have a C= keyboard, instead of a Microsoft one. Commodore International has ONLY Microsoft Keyboards, and also Microsoft Windows on them!!

Retro Exploit: Somewhat with the PC=64, as it retains the vintage design beautifully. It really does, but at the same time it is Intel processor. C=64 originally used its own hardware, but I understand that this is "expensive" for start-up companies to include completely revised and unique hardware for its first release of its products. (but C=USA has again and again said that they "don't want to 'reinvent the wheel'")


Certainly for the Amigas that they are going to release. Amigas have been around during the Motorola and PPC times.... they are known for their use of POWER hardware. The Amigas that C=USA wants to release is X86, and Intel Processors!! C=USA says that they "don't like PPC enough to 'throw money at it'". Why don't they do so in the future?! And why not fund even more development for AROS?! I really believe that Linux isn't the answer (but it is a convienent one!!) because it isn't a microkernal operating system. I understand that software and hardware in recent years has become focused on greed instead of actual development and so the only things people know about is "cheap" hardware, but POWER hardware is still here (on both a few computers and everywhere on video game consoles) and microkernels are still here also, and it needs a small amount of development. Paralleling what Apple has done in the last decade isn't really that strategic. Despite all the commercials about The Macintosh, "Mac Vs. PC", Intel Processors, ....people have gotten tired of the low quality bloatware systems malfunctioning, and more people will continue to do so. TRUE competition is offering something completely unique that nobody else offers. ("The best Intel hardware" is still not the same thing!!) Instead of C=USA saying "we have the best Intel hardware", they should develop PPC and AROS/AmigaOS/MorphOS and have that available in product lines, and then say something like "Tired of your computer's problems? We have something better and something that nobody else has around."

....especially if they are going to call some of their products, "Amigas". Otherwise they should call them "Amiga PC"s if they are X86-Based. I know that Apple doesn't call their PCs, "Macintosh PC"s, but at the same time... The Amiga Clones aren't going to go away...the AmigaOne X1000 is also in development. They have POWER Hardware, and so by C=USA calling something an Amiga, which IMO, isn't...then they are causing confusion if they don't call their x86 Amigas, "Amiga PC"s.

C=USA is a good company, but they are dismissing some of Commodore's and all of Amiga's originality much too quickly. Commodore and Amiga has always been ahead of their time, but keeping All Of their originality is NOT, "being stuck in the past."

AND BTW... "Reinventing The Wheel", is more along the lines of creating something to compete with USB, SATA, and other types of connections. LOL. And they don't have to keep their original C=64 ports...just the main hardware (durable hardware) and software and (microkernel) Operating system.

I will try to add criticism. I recommend others add criticism. And they can add even more details in every category of this article... they can even add all the "vaporware" upcoming products. I would type in the article tonight, but I have been doing a lot of gardening recently, and so I don't know when I would get around to typing.

In-Correct (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Something else: You also appear to be right about the "without proper license". I read something that Leo said about C=USA are still in discussions with The Big Bosses (my words, not his) about things. Apparently they can't have Commodore OS look and feel like workbench, which is why they aren't making it look and feel like Workbench. In-Correct (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This page has no information and serves no purpose. For a company this just lofty goals and talks about all they have done/will do, they have nothing to show for it. This is nothing more than a "hi, I'm here" self promotion likely for search ranking. Delete! (Defrisselle (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

This is absolutely not self-promotion. I started this article and have absolutely no connection to the company. It was just something that I thought was interesting and it was getting a lot of press at the time. If you'd like to do some research to make the article better, you are more than welcome. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's "self" promotion, with totally subjective phrases like "It's a very nice looking nettop" it can hardly be considered encyclopaedic, and certainly reads like promotional material. And I suspect Wikipedia aren't a fan of having their pages used for promotional purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that that phrase was promotional in nature and I removed it. I encourage you to look at the original version written by me. The article has been edited quite a few times without increasing in length or content. There's no doubt that it could use some improvement, but just because articles need work doesn't make them un-notable.Illinois2011 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


I am going to expand this article, and at the same time make it look a lot less self-promotion-eeey. All of you other people can add the references. In-Correct (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I am adding the references myself. Feel free to add more. This is fun!! I hope they are good references. But at the same time, I am still not good at the references. There might be better ones out there, and perhaps slightly better places in the C=USA article to put the references, BUT ALSO ... lol... I don't to add the titles at the footnotes section of the article. Right now, it ONLY has links...and not the titles or any anything else lol. If that makes any sense. In-Correct (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep the template. Some, if not all, of those other templates should be added also. Shouldn't PC64 be added to the "List Of Commodore Microcomputers" template???? In-Correct (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is beginning to get promotional again. I am editing accordingly. My edits are in no way cynical attacks against C=USA, simply because I tried to mske it sound promotional. The expression "Linux-Like" is in NO way cynical, and some of the computers being Rebadged IS notable and not a vicious attack. Other computers are rebadged also? Then this fact should be included in their articls also. (This is true even with cars, as the Eagle car company conisted of many rebranded Mitsubishis, and Dodge has rebranded Mercedes-Benz) In-Correct (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am going to add an "Answer To Controversy" subsection because this is Wikipedia, not The Better Business Bureau. This is not a reputation repair service and we can't have sentences that cancel each other out. In-Correct (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


I am disputing the statement "...unhappy with the new direction the company is going with its products because it is using x86 processors and not the original Amiga chipset. CUSA has however publicly stated this is an unrealistic assessment of the realities of running a modern computer company, where most of the parts required are expensive to research and are now mostly developed by third party companies". because of the phrases "new direction the company is going with its products" and "modern computer company ... third party companies"


the first statement is clearly promotional in its wording. "modern computer company" is yet another opinion, both promoting C=USA itself, and also x86. All computer companies that are making computers today can be considered modern, whether or not they are using x86. C=USA ITSELF is a third party company, and also a start up company. It makes much more sense to say start up company instead of "modern computer company".

"new direction...the company is going" What company?! C=USA? Because the other companies Commodore International, Commodore Gaming, and Amiga, Inc. Xpedia have all used x86 and Windows (making them literally PC Clones) ....this means that Commodore USA's "New" direction is not that new, as the other related companies have done so long before C=USA.

In-Correct (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am also disputing Fashion & Style, The Retro Look paragraph. It would seem better as an introduction or mission statement type of paragraph.

In-Correct (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The mention rebadged systems, the vaporware, and all controversy is entirely notable. In-Correct (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for revising the article, IP User. I doubt I could have done better. I still think that my original edits which were nullified by MiddleMan77 or whoever...are still notable, and I am going to see about adding mine back in.

In-Correct (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC) but first more research. I know that the facts are available everywhere. In-Correct (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Middleman_77 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I would like to dispute the neutrality of the edits provided by user In-Correct. While I agree with some of the points he has made regarding the vaporware (this did happen), certain other points (or at least wording) had put CUSA into a rather negative view. For example the controversy regarding the photos is based upon speculation upon a number of forum discussions and as such talk, puts CUSA in a negative light. It is not neutral at all (which is what we should be achieving here in Wiki for clarity). Mr Altman and his team did indeed provide the 'exclusive' images of the factory for CUSA customers, but following the discovery of the photos coming from the Fujitsu factory, he publicly stated the images were provided to him by his Chinese supplier in good faith. <>. Basically this was due to human error. The case goes if his supplier had misinterpreted his idea of 'good generic photos' of the factory and were/or deliberately altered them instead of providing him 'actual production photos of the C64x' who is to blame? Also, why would Mr Altman provide photos of the already published Fujitsu factory knowing it would harm his company? It makes no sense. Hence I dispute the clarity of the some of the changes made by user In-Correct, and have added my own observations to the issue. User:Middleman_77 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true, I try to be as neutral as possible. I actually like what C=USA is doing (not everything in detail, but they are certainly doing much more effort than compared to what C=Gaming, C=International, and Amiga Inc.'s product lines are)

But there shouldn't be any arguement that C=USA has gotten attention from controversial (viewed by many as controversial) decisions.

When I added the Controversy section, it was at the request of other Wiki editors and I agree with them... and I have been in fact annoyed with promotional wording edits from several users over the past several months. Before C=USA article was created, the edits were applied to C=International's article.

I also created the Controversy section, because this will help establish notability for C=USA.

I also helped expand the rest of the article. If my intention was to establish a negative POV on C=USA, I would have only created the controversy section.

  • The obtaining license from licensees that can't grant permission to others is notable.
  • The Rebadging is notable; It has been mentioned by columnists working for PC websites. "Barry's Back Kids! In addition to slapping Commodore stickers...etc." I am not sure which website it is, but it is included in the references for another point. I am not sure how to work the references function better. But I will go back and try to add the same reference to different points.
  • The Chilling Effects threat to OS News is notable. Source? OS News!! ;) I included both the threat and the retraction as sources.
  • The allegations against the photo usage is notable. It is in fact criticism and controversy. Its only sources are message boards? The speculation can be viewed as criticism against C=USA, and in the message board they quoted a message from Barry, where he is addressing numerous controversies, specifically the Marko Hirv image use. (Though he did not explain why the wired mouse in the drawing is now a wireless one!!) I did not even know about the Factory images controversy until reading it here. Somebody else added that to the article.

"Why would Mr. Altman do this; It does not make sense?" Though this is me only speculating, and I will kindly leave out of the article lol,

....It could very well be methods to obtain publicity for C=. A lot of these controversies could be intentional. When I first created the Controversy section, I said words to the effect of "C= has obtained publicity etc. by..." instead of "has been criticized". And ... whether or not these are intentional, the methods are certainly working. I believe the results (such as the Fujitsu Factory photos) are positive for C=USA, not harmful. So I don't think he is harming his company. Especially since their first batch of C64x has been sold out.

  • And the different hardware chipsets and operating system is all notable, and has obtained criticism. As far as I know and have learned... C= product line by C=USA are not as criticized (I was surprised to find a column criticizing C64x's different hardware) as much as the Amiga desktop PC product line by C=USA, especially the identical naming of their Amiga product line to already existing computers.

that is all notable criticicm...perhaps I should only put it in the Controversy section. As for the short description, (and that the time, pretty much contained NPOV facts) in the product sections, that is because I did not add all the specs until I found sources for them.

And I do (and will continue to do) various searches of C=USA and then I include it in Wikipedia article, much of which I did not know about prior to researching. The Controversies of C=USA definitely make C=USA notable on Wikipedia. I will try to make my wording as neutral as possible. I thought I already was doing a good job at making it neutral? Also, this article is still not complete, making the controversies stand out as NPOV. I apologize...and at the same time, I believe the controversy and criticism of C=USA helps makes it notable for Wikipedia. (and at the same time, more people seem to be aware of the existence of C= and amiga than ever before)

Thank you for reading.

In-Correct (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations too, I actually enjoyed reading them In-Correct! I think it is fair to say if we can all maintain such neutrality in our editing, we can all contribute to this page in a constructive manner (without getting into any particular disputes).

But I do think the 'controversy' for CUSA is very much down to the fact that a 'small' number of Commodore enthusiasts are unhappy with the direction CUSA is going because it 'seems' to go against their original roots (as C= used to compete with x86 PCS in the past and created their own boards). I simply see this as a case of changing times, or evolution of business, that CUSA is forced to go this route. Because if CUSA doesn't do it, it will die off anyway as a brand. It is all simply a case of logic and common sense with the way it is currently heading (using the most popular common platform ie. x86). It is no different to when Apple changed their Mac architecture from PowerPC to the popular Intel x86, or when 3D Realms changed their Duke Nukem Forever games engine from Quake to Unreal. It is simply due to economics and other factors (as well as business) that such decisions are made.

User:Middleman_77 12:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

--By Christopher A: I changed my "Fashion & Style" section to "Marketing Strategies," after reading your assessment that the label didn't fit very well. Also, I already plan to make changes to the sales figures paragraph, as soon as I get a reply from the company in response to my inquiry as to their current sales figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.altnau (talkcontribs) 20:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


I reverted the last edit by because I considered it was not fair. We should let reader create their opinion what is the current Amiga history. Also, the original source gave valuable information why hardware custom chip compatibility was not used. To be fair none of other new Amigas (except Minimig/Natami) are truly Amiga compatible. Xorxos (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Untrue, MorphOS, AROS and AmigaOS 4 are OS sucessors. Games that bang the OCS/AGA chipset all require same UAE emulation that will be used for Commodore USA Amigas. Problem with controversy is that company is taking all Amiga history as its background while actualy participated none and uses exact Commoodre Amiga names of models (Commodore Amiga 1000,2000,3000,4000) as already existing, and yes, sometimes stil used computers without real evidence of licence to do so (read their original news still present at the website Amiga name was obtained for all in one computer while these will be desktop computers). Second part is that CommodoreOS is not really a new OS, but a Linux with emulation box and is only OS without any clear specs or information. It will not "address the CUSA shortcomings" just provide a legal emulation box (ullusion) everyone could set up on Linux on Windows with $20 Amiga Forever or AmiKit free software package and AmigaOS 3.5/3.9 CD

In short: Commodore USA has nothing to do with Commodore or Amiga brands but exploit desire and licence purchase, their most worth asset that they charge heavily when compared x86 specs to any PC brand. So not too much room for praises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is POV and has no place either in the article or on this talk page. I don't know what it is about the Amiga brand that seems to attract this kind of criticism (e.g., we don't have people endlessly pointing out how today's Apple's products don't use the same technology as 20 years ago, even though they also clearly benefit from awareness of brands that have been around for years too), but this article should not be a place to grind an axe. I've tried to trim down the undue weight given to the "controversy" section, but I feel it could still do with a better balance on the coverage (hopefully it will be better if and when products are shipping for review). Mdwh (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Look its POV that company that emerged 2010 claims products from 1985. Git it? They cannot produce new COmmodore 64 or Amiga because they have nothing to do with them.

Amiga Mini is unavalibale on You tube and revies, and I challenge its real existance and sale, Fund me a proof that is not a copy past news but a real review Rastavox (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Top of page vandalism removed[edit]

Text by Franko008 was placed at the very top of the page, and not under any specific section. The comment should have been placed under Notability if at all considering the comment did not contribute to the discussion. I have removed this, but left the offending comment here.

"How on earth is this garbage allowed on Wiki !!!
These products are in no way, shape or form even related to the original & real Amiga, C64 or Commodore products not one bit of information here regarding sales, or units shipped or produced are in any way accurate and not one shred of evidence has been produced to back up any of these so called calims.
This CUSA nonsense should be removed from Wiki immediately as it has not one shred of it's content based on verifiable facts.
Franko008 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)"

Saijm (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

looks like vandalism, but taking a closer look to company products and way company represents itselt, guy is right. Therefore an advert tag has been placed to top of article. Needs real improvement based on user experience and real Amiga community criticism. --Rastavox (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


I just noticed this. Sometimes it takes a while to notice the obvious. This company has no official logo. While its name is "Commodore USA, LLC." There is no matching logo. It simply uses the official "Commodore" and "Amiga" Logos. Even the picture of that office only says "Commodore" and not Commodore USA! Do they ever publish themselves as "Commodore USA"?! I think one of their facilities says "Commodore USA". Even this article's company logo says Commodore! In-Correct (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Barry Altman is deceased, and left behind a large debt. This Commodore affiliated business never made enough money. I am going to do research verifying that the company is no longer operating. Or perhaps I will wait to see if their websites close. (but this could not mean anything. Commodore World's website is still active with a "See You There" message. But I am quite certain they are dead.) In Correct (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please remove website link on this page[edit]

[[Category:Answered requested edits|]]

dear wikipedia,

i'm the owner of site, please we ask to delete and remove the website link (on the right box of the page near the word "website") on the page:

because it's wrong and we actually aren't resellers of Commodore Usa.

please let me know about that

thanks (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the link has been removed! cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 07:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)