Jump to content

Talk:Amiga 1000

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anss123 (talk | contribs) at 15:26, 28 August 2010 (→‎Predecessor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing: Amiga Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Amiga (assessed as High-importance).
Things you can help WikiProject Amiga with:

Predecessor

Why Commodore 128 is mentioned as predecessor to Amiga 1000? They have same case design but Amiga is descendant of Atari line of computers thanks to Jay Miner's heritage. I f nobody objects I'll fix this. Xorxos (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Amiga 1000 does not have the same case design as the C128, that would be the Amiga 500 I believe. In any case it's more of a matter of Commodore positioning the Amiga as the upgrade path from Commodore's eight bit machines. The Atari 8-bits was succeeded by the Atari ST line of computers.--Anss123 (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes Amiga 500 was that. I still dont see how Amiga 1000 could be considered as a successor to C-128. C-128 was sold from 1985 to 1989 while Amiga 1000 was sold from 1985 to 1987. Amiga 1000 appeared 6 monhts after C-128. Doesnt look like successor to C-128. Xorxos (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does look odd, yes. One can of course say that the C128 has no successor and that the Amiga had no predecessor, but it's clear that Commodore wanted the Amiga to pick up where the Cxx platform left off. In the same vein the Atari 5200 was discontinued years before the 2600 but is still considered the "successor". --Anss123 (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this original research or do you have sources? We could just claim Commodore PC is successor to Amiga. Atari 5200 and 2600 were 8bit gaming consoles but Atari ST was its own family. Xorxos (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you mention the Atari ST at all, or the significance of the Atari xx00 being gaming computers. They don't change the fact that the 5200 is considered a "successor" to the 2600 despite the fact that the former was discontinued first. I.e. the Amiga 1000 being discontinued before the C128 does not in itself preclude if from being a successor (and for that matter the C128 being discontinued before the C64 does not stop it from being considered a successor to the C64).
One can also say that the Amiga has no predecessor, like I've already mentioned, but if you're going to stick a "predecessor" in the infobox it will have to be a Commodore machine, not a Atari machine.
That Commodore viewed the Amiga as their successor platform to their 8-bits systems can be gleamed through old marketing material. The C64 being "low end" and Amiga eventually moving into that position as the C64 was discontinued (though C= folded before discontinuing the C64).
The Commodore PC and AmigaUX can be seen as attempts at creating something beyond the Amiga, but I have no idea how Commodore viewed those products or how they marketed them.--Anss123 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]