Talk:Atari Lynx

interview with the designer

Here's a bit about the Lynx from the book 'High Score', it might contain information useful to the article:

"There were three guys-Dave Morse, Dave Needle and me. Dave Morse's son said one day 'Dad, you should take that Amiga idea and do something small that you can hold in your hand.' So we went to a restaurant and did some drawings on napkins to see what it would look like. We stole the napkins. We decided we should start a company, but then we found Epyx, which was a cool company and decided to throw our lot in with them. We became part of Epyx and completed the design. But due to reasons out of our control Epyx had spent too much money on other things and dipped into our project. They didn't have enough money to market it. The Lynx was done. It was in a phase where the hardware and tools were done and people were developing software for it. But it would die without marketing. Then we found out Atari wanted to acquire it, but Needle and I had a bad impression of Atari at the time. If the stories we'd heard were true, they were not pleasant people to do business with. So when Epyx announced that they were making a deal with Atari, we didn't want to have anything to do with it. We said we'd quit if they went with Atari. And they said they were going with Atari. So we quit.

The next time we were free to meet, we went to another restaurant and began drawing the 3DO system on napkins. We stole those napkins, too." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.67.17 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Connection and compatibility

Is the Lynx definitely able to be attached to the Jaguar? Not sure i've heard of that before, thats all! Kevo00 22:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, but what they mean by that was, there were a ComLynx pins on the communications port on the back of the jaguar. Games were planned that would have taken advantage of it (think lynx as a tricorder in a certain space adventure series...) but nothing came to fruitition. --69.156.1.161 07:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I would say the most innovative thing about the Lynx was the ability to daisy chain them for network games (I believe it could network 8 or 12 systems). Also, I think it's debatable if Chip's Challenge is the Lynx's most famous game. There were several arcade games ported to the system such as Stun Runner, Klaxx, Hard Drivin, APB, and Steel Tallons.

Yes, I'm surprised the daisy-chaining isn't mentionned yet, given that I've always assumed it is what inspired the system's name (as in "links"). Perhaps someone could track down some details of exactly how many could be connected in one go (and did many games make use of this ability, I wonder?). - IMSoP 23:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the name came from Lynx/'links' in reference to the ability to link up consoles - I think some of the original magazine ads for the Lynx referred to the ability to 'Lynx-up' [sic]. I might check this out and see if I can add some info and a link. 203.167.158.180 12:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Duncan

Removed the Chip's Challenge nonsense because most of the arcade ports were more famous than it. Also reworked the tech specs. --drew1718 01:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advertising contract?

Atari signs seven million dollar advertising contract for the Lynx with
Hal Rinney & Partners.  Plans called for a new nationwide campaign to
begin in April 1992.

anyone have details on this? --Pelladon 19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Atari Lynx in films

Can someone add that the Lynx II was in "Child's Play 3" 142.162.49.69

Maybe, I have seen the Lynx in a few other films, I don't think it's worth a mention. Govvy 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• It was also in Terminator 2 as well to my recollection (not sure if it was classic or Lynx II). They were using it to crack a PIN number :-)

MerlinYoda 05:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't an Atari Lynx, that was an Amstrad laptop that cracked the number in Terminator 2, anyway if you're interested at the beginning of If Looks Could Kill - Teen Agent when they were in the kitchen discussing his future, before sending him to France, the younger brother was playing on a Lynx 2. But as I said again, I don't think it's worth mentioning when they used the Lynx as a prop in films. Govvy 10:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was an Atari Portfolio used in the movie. --67.142.130.28 00:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement

I was looking at trying to improve the article, so I thought I post a few idea's. The few things I could see, some pictures of the internal workings of the Lynx, maybe a technical map in the specifications section. A few more references, maybe a section in the external links of old reviews from the web. Govvy 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the claim in the article that "Lynx was very prone to damage. Buttons and connections would not take a lot of strain from gamers and were nowhere near as durable as the GameBoy." As an owner of both a Lynx and a Gameboy, I'd have to say that this claim - at least in my experience - is completely false! Posted by 200.65.125.96 02:45, 29 May 2007 (Please sign your posts ~~~~)

It did have problems with the buttons on the Lynx II, in England, the tech team would constantly get a high number of returns, to fix an issue with button lodging, often tiny bits broke off and ended up lodged in the Lynx. The other problem was that the female power connector very often had to be resoldered back onto the board because it became loose. Those were the two main problems. The first Lynx was certainly more solid and durable, but that at times had returns to fix the power socket also. Govvy 09:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction Request

{{editprotected}}There is an issue of improper word usage in the second sentence of the article. Rather than reading, "The Lynx had the privilege of being the world's first handheld[...]," it would be more fitting to read, "The Lynx holds the distinction of being[...]"JehovahMilton 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ☺ 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MORE EXACT DATE OF LYNX II

LYNX SAYS 1989 SEPTEMBER AND LYNX II JUST SAYS 1991. I WANT TO KNOW THE SPECIFICS THATS WHY I WENT ON THIS PAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

killer app, tetris

someone removed my statements to that effect, saying they were original research. it's neither research (it's well known) nor original (everyone knows it). --68.99.23.127 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone knows it" is not a valid reference, and hence constitutes WP:OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has specific policies on what criteria contributions must meet. --Marty Goldberg 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lynxlogo.gif

Image:Lynxlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

My name is Kevin Gondek and I disagree with all of this, First of all the Game Gear was first and the Gameboy is the best system ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.85.254 (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You disagree with all of what? Lynx was out 2 years before the game gear. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No you are wrong lynx was first. I should know I have a Gameboy tattoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.155.157 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Predecessor?

There should be a article for Atari's handheld console the touch me, as that is the predecssor to this and Atari's fist handheld console, not to metion one of the first handhelds alltogether. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There already is, at Touch Me (arcade game). However, its nowhere near the first handheld, and its certainly not a "console". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

sales number

http://atari.fr.free.fr/atariavenue/histoire.htm You can read Atari sold 1M Lynx in 1990 alone, and 15k in France.

Two problems with it. A) It's in French, this is the English Wikipedia (we need English sources). B) It's not considered a notable or reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just run it as a reference via the google translator then. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't do that. Once again, a) It won't make it in GA/FA review, it's not a notable or reliable source, it's a fan site and as such is not allowed as a reference. b) Per WP:NONENG, English sources are always preferable, and it's much more likely an exhaustive search of available news, periodical, and financial outlets will provide the figures needed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

16 bit

How is the lynx 16 bit? If it's 6502 based, surely that makes it 8-bit by definition, unless I'm missing something (which is not explained in the article).

It's multi-processor (Suzy and Mikey), which is explained. The Suzy chip contains a 16-bit graphics processor and a 16-bit math processor, which communicates with the CPU via a 16-bit data bus. The Mikey Chip includes a version of 6502 inside, the 65SC02, which has a 16 bit program counter and 16-bit address bus. Mikey itself also includes the sound engine, a DAC, Video DMA for the LCD, System timers, Interrupt controller, UART, and a 512 bytes bootstrap ROM. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still awfully POV to call it 16-bit. To a lot of people, the "bitness" of a system is solely derived from the CPU, no the support chips. Perhaps instead of calling it a 16-bit system, the line could be rewritten to say it has an 8-bit CPU with 16-bit yaddayadda. 76.226.109.227 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

sales numbers again

the 5 million units sold must be wrong,not only it's unscourced but the exact number of sales is not known (most say 500k to 2 millon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krem12 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The "most" are talking about US sales. It actually had much stronger sales in the UK and Europe. But I agree reliable sources should be found for any figure. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Conway's Game of Life

I wrote this little bit in my test pit, User:Govvy/Sandbox/temp was seeing if it should be included in the article, It could be seen as part of the testing part for the Lynx. The citation is about the Game of Life, but I asked Chuck Summerville personally on facebook, so I got a personal responce which I added to my blog, but due to citation rules I am not going to use that. Govvy (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources - Atari Explorer Online

An editor appears to be confused. Atari Explorer was once the official magazine of Atari Corp., but the online version that existed from 2003-2007 (according to the Wayback Machine) looks like it was only loosely affiliated with the Atari Historical Society/Atari Museum website. Gamepro was, at one time, a respected multi-platform video game magazine. So who's right? Well, I'd say if any figures were to appear on the atarimuseum.com website (unlikely) or are published in the pending Volume 2 of Curt Vendel and Marty Goldberg's magnum opus on the history of Atari (far more likely), those would be the most reliable, moreso than atari-explorer.com or gamepro.com. So, we'll just have to wait for the Atari Corp.: Business is War volume to be published. And for now, I'd suggest leaving the Gamepro.com figure in place, but perhaps making a note that sales figures from the timespan of 1989-whenever are disputed. It should further be noted that the Gamepro article is implying that the sales figures are 1989-1994, but does not itself cite any kind of source. The atari-explorer.com gives no sources for any of its information either. --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Atari Explorer was an independant and gamepro was brought out by Dixons group many years ago. Govvy (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no. As stated, the original Atari Explorer magazine was a publication of Atari Corporation. The website might have been semi-independent, but held a loose affiliation to the Atari Historical Society. Gamepro was bought out by IDG very early in its history and its IP assets remain part of Boston based IDG. --JohnDBuell (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Atari Explorer website was a fan site that was hosted by the Atari Museum. While the Atari Museum itself is considered a reliable source here, sites hosted by it do not automatically meet the same qualifications. Additionally, as John stated, Atari Explorer the magazine is completely different than this now defunct website. They share the same name because the fan chose to name his site with the same name. The original Atari Explorer magazine, was a magazine published directly by Atari Corp. from 1985-1992 before briefly switching to an online (non-web based) only version called Atari Explorer Online, before ending entirely by the time Atari Corp. reverse merged into JTS. I.E. it has zero to do with the later fan site. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sales figures, again

(See also the above section on the non-Atari "Atari Explorer" website) Read the RVG interview carefully. [1] The interviewer puts the 2.5 million figure into Still's head and he agrees with it without referring to any other sources to back that claim; he's going based on memory alone. The interviewer and Still both seem to agree that Lynx sales exceeded 1 million, but again give no external sources. Unverified claims made in an interview still fail WP:V. --JohnDBuell (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As a compromise, we could state that the sales figures are disputed, with Gamepro stating only 500,000, but a former Atari UK employee stating 1,000,000+. --JohnDBuell (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Still only confirms - from his memory - that 2.5 million units were made, not that they were sold in retail outlets. It wouldn't be the first time Atari had unsold stock on their hands - E.T. anybody? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

True - note what he said about "sold into retail", which means they're in the retail sales channel, but not actually sold to end users. Haven't Microsoft and Apple (among others) tried to inflate their sales numbers the same way throughout their histories? --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated, but a Google search for other reliable sources turned up another sub-500,000 ref. [2] Anomie⚔ 01:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Gamepro and 1up are most likely missquoting original sources from 1991. I.E. they're wrong. Here's an original original article from 1991 that states 500,000 just for 1990 alone. Likewise, this article that has the combined sales of the Game Gear and Lynx at less than 7 million units as of '95. Considering the Game Gear sold 11 million units from '91 through '99, if we cut that in half for '95 at about 5 million units over the 4 years, then about 2.5 million for the lynx fits into that. Either way, 500,000 units is way too low. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, the best way to go at this would be to say "Unit Sales: Disputed - 500,000 in 1990 (its first full year of retail sales), 1 to 2 million total over the system's original lifespan." That's too much for an infobox, but it would fit into prose. While we're on the subject of the infobox, I noticed that there's a blank for original retail price; didn't the Sears Catalog list it at $179 in 1989? --JohnDBuell (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"1 to 2 million" based on what reliable source? Anomie⚔ 12:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We have one reliable source from the actual time period that states directly from Atari Corp. that the 500,000 figure alone was just what they sold for 1990. That immediately calls in to question the Gamepro and 1up articles - which also by the way do not state the sources for the figure they provide. We have another reliable source that states gamegear sales and lynx sales combined totalled around 7 million units by 1995, and we have a third source that's a direct interview with a former Atari Corp. employee that gives total manufacturing run. The fact that it's from memory is irrelevant in this case, because all that's being done is providing counter-resources to the GamePro and 1up. You can't disclude a direct interview with a former employee any more than we can ignore the 1up and Gamepro articles. All have to be provided according to Wikipedia. What's normally done in this situation here on Wikipedia is to take all into account and come up with a range to display in the infobox (which at a minimum given the current sources could be simply "greater than 500,000") and separate prose to display in the article that goes like "Accounts of the Atari Lynx's sales range from........ GamePro and 1up state 500,000, however the xxxx states that figure in sales of units for just 1990 alone. According to the xxxx, by 1995 combined GameGear and Lynx sales totalled less than 7 million units....etc." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That news article from 1990, ok. Interview, maybe; is the source of the interview reliable? And trying to support anything more than "over 1000000" based on the interview's "7 digits" (but consider the points raised above) seems very flimsy; the "2.5 million" was a guess by the interviewer replied to with "something like that". Trying to somehow use "gamegear sales and lynx sales combined" is getting deep into WP:OR territory. Anomie⚔ 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that I now KNOW that it's Kieran himself who keeps trying to make the edits, now based on the interview that he conducted and posted on a forum, and the line of WP:OR has been crossed. --JohnDBuell (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It would really be wp:coi that's been crossed by Kieran, it'd be wp:or if he's adding things not directly quoted from the interview. For example, I can't use my own book as a reference, nor can I post things I've done for Retro Gamer magazine as a reference. Other people certainly could though. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You can say what you like at the end of the day but the less than 500,000 sales figure its totally incorrect, not even near factual. That much is known already. Yet it is still there despite all this talk. It needs removing and changing for something else, we know it sold at least 1 million even if the final sales figure is unknown. So I suggest either changing it to "more than 1 million" or 1-2.5 million. - Kieren Hawken

The sales figures really aren't in question, it's the reliability and verifiability of adequate sources that's the sticking point. That said, I have no idea why the compromise (suggested by Marty, above) hasn't been enacted. --JohnDBuell (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is still wrong I see, we really do need to change it to something else. I am not going to do it because every time I do it gets changed back to the same farcical "less than 500,00" figure. --Kieren Hawken (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed sales from the infobox and explained it elsewhere. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is totally invalid and completely ignores the previously quoted 2.5 million units figure which came directly from Daryl Still, who was the Atari UK Marketing Manager and Product Manager for the Lynx in Europe. It really should be left exactly how it was. Kieren Hawken (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My edit was based on this discussion. How is Marty's proposal not suitable? Leaving a CN tag is not adequate. I'd rather cite the magazine than a forum post so I left that out for others to decide. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a "forum post" it is a professionally conducted interview with the person in charge of Marketing and Sales at Atari UK and the European Product Manager for the Lynx. You cannot "leave others to decide" if you are not even providing the other source. I can see why people get so frustrated with Wikipedia when blatant facts are disregarded and/or removed. Kieren's interview was the first time we have ever seen a genuine figure stated on Lynx sales, to remove it and ignore it is just ludicrous.

When I'm the only one acting on the above discussion's outcome, then be reverted to an unsourced statement-completely ignoring sales in 1990 and without attempting to cite Darryl Still or anything for that matter "is just ludicrous". « Ryūkotsusei » 21:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As Marty already stated, the 500,000 figure refers to US sales only, Daryl Still quoted a figure based on worldwide sales, so nothing was being ignored at all. The edit you made should at least state worldwide sales even if you are going to totally ignore Daryl's statement. I would edit it myself but every single time I have corrected it my edit is removed almost immediately. I totally understand the previous users frustration on this matter. Kieren Hawken (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So your definition of "corrected" is removing US sales history and the contradiction between 1UP.com/GamePro and the Associated Press? So all that leaves afterwards to readers is a 1 - 3 million figure with a "citation needed" tag? « Ryūkotsusei » 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I still fail to understand why the Daryl Still interview cannot be cited. You don't really get a more reliable source than that. Kieren Hawken (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)