Talk:Amiga

The description of the Video Toaster as a 3d rendering platform is incorrect, see the article on the [Video Toaster] for a much better definition.

"Today the most popular Amiga is the A1200" -- in what sense? Shouldn't this be phrased in the past tense?

Well, perhaps it should be clarified, but people do still use Amiga computers. They're quite a minority now, but they'll show in web server access logs, and they develop and share software and chat on IRC.

To an anonymous user who said that new Amigas were being planned in the summary field of an edit...perhaps you could find an announcement or something to quote or link to in the article?

--cprompt

According to Amiga inc, they are working on Amiga Operating System Version 4.0, along with the AmigaOne hardware. So it is at least being plannned. Alas, I don't have a link (other than www.amiga.com )-- Logotu

I think it ought to be mentioned that a lot of the Amiga's in use today are upgraded a great deal with various enhancement hardware available; disk-controllers, memory boards, CPU turbos, Ethernet cards and new graphics adapters. This way the original hardware is being build on, resulting in performance increase of many magnitudes.

The acronym I removed has no base in reality. The name Amiga was actually chosen from the spanish word for "girlfriend" or "female friend". --Taurik 16:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The AROS edit was improperly done, but it may be a good idea to check the history before deleting stuff that was there much longer... --Taurik 20:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasos

Someone added the Pegasos to the table of marketed Amiga models. While I can see the reasoning behind it, the fact of the matter is that the Pegasos with MorphOS was NEVER marketed as an Amiga, and never had the Amiga name officially applied to it, therefore it shouldn't be in a table of "Marketed Amiga models". I have added a reference to it in the trivia section, since the computer was created by Amiga enthusiasts and MorphOS is able to run Amiga applications under emulation.

"Aga superior"

Only the original amiga chipset was ahead of its time. By the time AGA was unveiled, it was simply not competitive anymore. (too low memory bandwidth, no chunky mode, low video bandwidth) Sorry, but lets stay by the facts.--Qdr 19:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To anon user 62.101.126.233/81.135.36.201, When you make an edit that is removing content from the article, please explain why on the Talk page, or at least in the edit summary. Otherwise, your intentions may be mistaken, as was this case. If you remove content from an article again without leaving a comment or edit summary, you may be mistaken as a vandal. Also, if the comment on AROS needs to be rephrased, you could just mention it on the talk page. You could move the existing comment to the talk page too, if you feel so inclined. --cprompt 14:43, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

can't decode the cryptic caption

What the heck does this caption mean?

A just started Amiga 500 with kickstart 34.5 asks the user to insert the Workbench 1.3 floppy

Who or what is "A"? Also, the transition to "asks the using" doesn't make sense. Is this supposed to be "which asks the user"?

WpZurp 19:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Arpingstone for the clarification. WpZurp 16:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amigas still rock. Long live the Amiga. (AmigaMan)

Lorraine

I think Lorraine should be mentioned either on this page or on the Commodore page. (For those of you who don't know: Amiga was a company that created a computer they called Lorraine. The company was bought by Commodore and the computer was released as the Amiga.)

Reverting recent edit

The most recent edit changed the text "Amiga Community Portal" on the link to AmigaWorld.net to "Amiga, Inc. corporate fan site". I'm reverting it (doesn't seem like NPOV from here...) but thought that I'd better justify it here - could be a divisive issue as some people seem to have a grudge against that site, and I've never edited Wikipedia before so it could all go terribly wrong!

I see it's happened again. The Wikipedia is meant as a place to store information with as neutral a point a view as possible - is this? Amiga.org and ANN.lu are similar sites but don't have the same insulting tone to their description. I've taken the descision to remove the description for AW.net completely, as its apparent that there are two completely seperate (and unreconcilable) views. Apologies if I've overstepped the mark, but perhaps the user who edited it could at least justify their reasoning?

total revamp

I totally revamped the page with these purposes:

separate Amiga from Commodore International (its successes and failures should be read in its page, not here!), and Amiga from AmigaOS.
reformatted text to make it more consistent and suited to an encyclopedia
removed all things that violates the NPOV rule of the wikipedia
removed many redundant external links: this is a wiki, not a search engine!!

Hardware Section vs. Trivia

Is it really important to mention, that Amiga could emulate the mouse by use of the keyboard ? Other systems do this as well, however, there the OS needs to be loaded (Windows i.e.). The Amiga had its OS partially in the ROM, so this might equal. However, I am not a hardware tech and not aware of how this has beeen implemented. If we keep it, I would suggest adding a Hardware section (such as the OS section) in which we go indepth on hardware-features, like the possibilitiy for several "screens" with different resolutions, etc. Also the copros could be mentioned here. I am not good a hardware insights to the Amiga so I will leave this to others. For now, I move the Keyboard-Mouse functionality to the keyboard section, since I do not see it significant enough for an own Trivia entry. Thanks.

I originally wrote the entry in question, and I agree with it being moved to the Keyboard section. 06:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

Speaking of the trivia section, can anyone confirm the other "three-fingered salute", i.e. Ctrl-Alt-Alt? I have been an enthusiastic Amiga user for over a decade and this was the first time I've ever heard of it. Maybe I should dig out my A4000 and try it. 11:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Ctrl-Alt-Alt reboot only applies to OS4, and probably only when running on the AmigaOne. Because kickstart is located on disk with OS4, Ctrl-Amiga-Amiga reboots like it does on the classic Amiga (basically, it jumps to the start of kickstart and boots), but Ctrl-Alt-Alt reboots back to the BIOS and loads the kickstart off the disk again before booting. - Lumpbucket

That explains it, then, seeing as I have never had OS4, only earlier OS versions. This should be mentioned in the trivia section. Oh, I see it already has been. Never mind. 12:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Commodore 64' vs 'Commodore C64'

I changed occurances of "Commodore 64" to "Commodore C64". This might seem nitpicking, but the "Commodore VIC20" was not the "Commodore 20" either. "C64" seems to be the common model name of the "CBM64" by "Commodore". I remember it also being called "VC64", but this might have been specific to Germany and thus is of no value here. Please [section "CBM 64" vs "CBM64" and "Commodore 64" vs "Commodore C64"] for more on this. I should mention, that we need to keep conformance and consistancy on this issue, that is why I started the discussion over at the Commodore_64 article. Sorry for any inconvenience I might cause. Just trying to be accurate. Thanks.

On a side-note: Could anyone suggest why the link is messed up in my comment here and both links need to be different in editing ? I tried several variants and the long link always behaved strange.

The Commodore VIC 20 wasn't called the Commodore 20 because it was a VIC20 made by Commodore. The Commodore 64 wasn't called the Commodore C64 because C64 from my understanding was a user contraction of the name Commodore 64, which is the full system name and merely doubles as a companyname devicename. Calling it a Commodore C64 in my view is therefore a grating rudundancy. If a company called VIC made the VIC 20 then it would seem equally silly to turn around and call it the VIC VIC 20.

To summarize, I think its poor form to call the Commodore 64, or C64, a Commodore C64.

Microkernel?!

How can it be said that the AmigaOS is based on a microkernel? I've had discussions about this in the past, and people disagreed widely, and I don't even have a real opinion myself. But it seems quite apparent that the AmigaOS being a microkernel is not a fact. Does the AmigaOS have a clear distinction between kernel mode and user mode? I'm afraid not. Can you have a real microkernel without a clear distinction between kernel mode and user mode? I'm not sure, but I'm sure many authoritative people would say you can't.

So, I'm going to delete the references to microkernels if nobody objects in the next few days.

The AmigaOS has very little in the way of distinctive modes (kernel mode versus user mode) because it has very little in the way of security. Lack of memory protection and privledge restrictions leave very little room for the necessity of a "kernel mode".

That said, a definition of the Amiga kernel is necessary to continue with this. Is it the exec library, the entire contents of kickstart? If just exec, then perhaps it is a microkernel, if its all of kickstart it becomes monolithic and well in excess of the bounds I define a microkernel with.

History

I feel this article needs a total rewrite, it lacks a lot of historical information don't you think? I feel the Atari ST article reads much better than the Amiga one, because it contains the historical context which this one seems to be lacking in right now. In fact it has more information about the Amiga's purchase than this one!

The whole saga of Commodore's purchase of Amiga corporation probably needs an article to itself though. I'm in the process of writing up a brief history about the origins of Amiga, but should I keep it short and put it in this article, or expand it and put it in a separate article? This article seems to be pretty long as it is...

Also certain things needs some reduction, like the info about the keyboard. (Was the Amiga's keyboard more important than the custom chipset!?) The more I read the article, the more random and disjointed it becomes. Agree or disagree? ADSR6581 10:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I'm not sure about the history, it's true that the article could become quite long, but having a separate "History of the Amiga" article doesn't seem too sound to me, either. LjL 20:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do more than the occasional tweak to these articles for a while now. I think that a vigorous history section would be great; if it got too big or detailed, it could be broken out into a new article at that point. Also, one of these days, I'm going to open up one of my A1000s and take a picture of the design team signatures (and paw prints) on the inside of the case, for the A1000 article. --Ray Radlein 23:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I just corrected the missconception on the Amiga/Atari Inc./Atari Corp. relationship someone had put up in the trivia area. It's also wrong in the Atari ST entry. The updated info is based on current available material (including documents recovered by Curt Vendel of the Atari Historical Society) and my own interviews with Leonard Tramiel. --Marty Goldberg 16:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Operating system

I've just added some more paragraphs about AmigaOS, but then I realized there is already a separate AmigaOS article ;-) However, the structure of that article is such that I wouldn't really know where to put my stuff... what do you suggest? LjL 21:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

needs a rewrite

The opening paragraph is pretty bad. "memory mapped I/O"? weee. "plug and play"? Gratuitous reference to mainframes. No mention that the Amiga project started out as a game machine.

Then correct it! Everyone can edit - Adrian Pingstone 07:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. It's more factual and less hyped now.

Yes, I agree. I've changed it just a bit by adding a link to AmigaOS -- the OS is an important part of Amiga computers, and since there is an article that talks about it, I thought it should be linked somewhere very visible. I feel the need to justify my edit because there are already links to the AmigaOS article... however, I missed them myself the first time I read the article -- which might either mean that I don't read carefully enough, or that they aren't visible enough ;-)

Retromadness

Even with the link now pointing directly to the Amiga 4000T [1] page, I still think that link doesn't belong here. Look at the other links: they're all big sites with vast amounts of information (only pouet.net leaves me some doubts... it sure is a big site, but how is it Amiga-related, at least at a first glance?). The contrast with a page depicting an A4000T and briefly mentioning its hardware component is evident to me.

Before removing the link again, I'd like to hear some opinion, especially that of the link author. Thanks.

LjL 14:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete it. Mirror Vax 15:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

trueSpace

Another famous 3D program that originated on the Amiga is Caligari trueSpace. www.caligari.com

Article title: why not "Commodore Amiga"?

I have been wondering for a time now why on Earth the title of this article isn't "Commodore Amiga" rather than just "Amiga". Most, if not all, articles on other computers include the manufacturer's name in the model name, so I don't quite see why this doesn't apply to the Amiga as well. Please comment. If no reasonable arguments appear in favor of keeping the present title, I may change it before long. --Wernher 11:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I too have wondered this. I think it should be renamed as "Commodore Amiga". In the early days, Commodore (in the U.S) wanted to distance itself from the Amiga. Instead "Commodore Amiga", it was usually referenced as "The Amiga from Commodore". I don't know the official reason for this, but they could have been trying to stop the "Toy computer" image they gained in the early 80's from affecting the Amiga. ADSR6581 11:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you're in a renaming mood, how about A1000, A2000, etc. Are you an administrator? Because of course the redirect pages would have to be deleted to enable the move. Mirror Vax 13:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up; renaming the Axxx-articles should also be done. In fact, that's an even surer thing than the "Amiga" to "Commodore Amiga" one. I'm an admin, so actually performing the moves should be OK once we decide on the action as such. --Wernher 02:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't decided yet whether to support a renaming to "Commodore Amiga". But perhaps the reason that it has this name now is that the Amiga computer had a history before Commodore bought the company. Amiga, Inc. manufactured joysticks (one of which I have) to support the development of the computer that they were developing. Val42 17:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the Amiga also has some history after the demise of Commodore. An article by the name of Commodore Amiga would have to be purely historical.

These two points are the reason I haven't just done the renaming already; I thought we should take the time to discuss the pros and cons of a move to "Commodore Amiga". An argument supporting the renaming of the article is the fact that the Amiga was a CBM product for the majority of the period when it was a serious contender in the market. Before CBM, the Amiga was a mostly unknown (company/)product, and after CBM it must be said to (have) be(en) more of a hardcore CBM hacker scene thing (*ducking to avoid incoming burning arrows from the Amiga crowd*). Any comments on that? --Wernher 02:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly against renaming this article. Amiga != Commodore. It's true that it's been owned by Commodore for most of the time, but on these grounds, most articles should roam around all the time depending on the changing winds. It's just a stupid idea IMHO. LjL 23:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wernher, the *most notable and significant* history of the Amiga happened during its ownership by Commodore. Everything else is a footnote in comparison... Besides renaming, I propose we should have the following articles:

Amiga Corporation: Early history (1982-1984), how the amiga came about, events up to the purchase by Commodore

Commodore Amiga: Commodore-Amiga, Inc. (1985-1994), more history, models etc.

Amiga Technologies: Escom/gateway era.

Amiga Inc. :

I know you wasn't sure about this LjL (see "History" section above), but I feel we cannot squeeze all this into the current Amiga article, it should copyedited to the relevant ones. The "Amiga" article could be turned into a chronological summary, bringing together the above articles. Just a thought... ADSR6581 00:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I still don't quite like it, but if it has to be done, then yes, I would definitely favour an "Amiga" article with links to the relevant "sub-articles" (and, perhaps, some content of its own, like a short summary of what's to be found in the sub-articles; also, if the articles is divided according to the owning company, the "Amiga" article should probably give some information about which technologies can be found under which sub-articles: while from a "company" point of view it makes sense to make the split Amiga Technologies / Amiga Inc., from a technical point of view it makes much more sense to separate Amiga m68k / Amiga PPC). LjL 20:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fred Fish Collection

If we're going to mention Aminet I think we should have a mention of the Fred Fish collection. I don't know what became of the collection but as someone who used the Amiga extensively during its time, the Fred Fish collection was the best software collection there was and so it deserves mention, especially if someone knows a link to a currently hosted archive.