Talk:Atari Jaguar

Jaguar was later released

Jaguar was later released to the public, so everyone can freely make games or hardware for it.

What was released to the public? Its patent? Copyright? Funnyhat 03:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The system was deemed 'open' in that the Atari approval process (whereby only registered/authorised developers could produce new software or hardware for or incorporating the system) was cancelled. Anybody with the time and inclination can now produce products for the Jaguar without risk of legal reprisal from whomever currently holds the rights to Atari products. How you word this in the actual article is up to you ;) --Stone

Does anyone know why Jaguar is in the 16 bit era? Its 32 bit era material because it came around the same time as 3do and 32x.--69.255.16.162 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

---

It was actually 64 bit in terms of power but it was competing with 16 bit consoles hence it was in the "16 bit era" as you called it - TonadoCreator.

How can they claim the Jaguar was a 64-bit console? It used the 68000 processer (a 16-bit processor).

No, if you bothered to read this page the 68000 is not the main CPU, its simply for bootstrapping the other processors. The Jaguar runs 5 processors in parallel. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For further clarity, first off the 68000 was a 32-bit CPU on a 16-bit data bus, similar to how the AMD Athlon 64 or Intel Core/Xeon both have externally a 32-bit bus. In addition, it had a 32 bit GPU and DSP, and a 64-bit Blitter and Object Processor as well as a 64-bit memory system. The 68000 was used by several early games for porting their games from other platforms (Amiga, Atari, Macintosh) but as developers became more familiar with the Jaguar's other processors, they took over the role of the central processing unit of the system. The Jaguar, as a result, is a flexible, even if more difficult to program system.(Downix (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Incidentally I just added a little extra detail on the prototype hardware, but forgot to add the edit summary. Sorry, I'm new at this :) --Stone

The first paragraph says that the Jaguar didn't have a single 64 bit processor and then it says some of the processors were 64 bit, anyone know which is true? Monkeyfacebag 14:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind -- I realize what the article is trying to say now. Boy I feel dumb. Monkeyfacebag 14:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Lynx connectivity?

I remember back in the day, there were rumours about the Jaguar being able to connect to a Lynx to use the latter as a controller, with screen connectivity. I've not been able to find any info on this rumour today, anyone know anything? T. J. Day 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this information is from Atarimuseum which is running by Curt Vendel:

"... It had been mentioned and hoped that the Atari Jaguar 64 would use the Atari Lynx as a high-end interactive video game controller with such high hopes as being the motion tracker for Alien Vs. Predator or even a Tricorder for a hoped for Star Trek game. Unfortunately this never came to happen. ..."

Misplaced negativity, especially concerning controllers

As a buyer of the Jaguar when it was launched and someone who has played most of the consoles that have existed, the multiple complaints about the controller in the article, including a picture with caption, is excessive. I found the controllers particularly comfortable and they didn't cause blisters like the Playstation's D pad. Obviously the Playstation's controller is superior for fighting games due to its many buttons, but the Jaguar came out before the Playstation did. It should have had the six action buttons from the start, certainly, but complaints over the inclusion of the keypad are fairly frivolous and given the existence of truly terrible controllers like the 5200's and the Intellivision's, calling the Jaguar's controllers the worst ever makes one seriously question the credibility of the critic.

The article seems biased against the other hardware as well. For instance, the 68000, according to some sources, was not intended to drive game logic. Developers simply took the easy way out and used it because of familiarity. The fact is that the Jaguar was exciting and advanced when it came out, in comparison with the SNES and especially the Genesis. The big problem wasn't so much due to the hardware ad it was the lack of high-quality titles. Like the 7800 and XE, Atari could not compete in game depth. Deep games like Metroid and Zelda were unheard of on both consoles. There is no Jaguar version of a long complex game like Final Fantasy 7.

The Jaguar's hardware could have been better, but the main problem was software. The article should reflect that, instead of obsessing over the rather comfortable and functional controllers. The article should also do a better job at providing the proper perspective concerning what the Jaguar represented when it came out. The Playstation did not exist! Particularly given Atari's limited resources, the Jaguar hardware was pretty impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.251.167 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

These are all your own opinions. The Jag controller has been criticised by reliable sources - as has been discussed here before - and all your other points are similarly contradicted by sourced references in the article. Just because you (and I, as it happens,) think the console is great, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to change its view - or is wrong in its view. We are without doubt, in the unreliable minority. There weren't many long drawn out strategy games at all back in those days, but it did have Theme Park, and Syndicate - and also Baldies on the Jag-CD. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So by "reliable sources" you mean other people expressing opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.251.167 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's a simple fact that there were far worse controllers made, like the 5200's and the Intellivision's. Have you used either of those? I doubt the IGN critic did. Otherwise, he couldn't make such a ridiculous claim. Additionally, one person's opinion is not the "majority opinion", and when a majority of people think something is true that doesn't make it so. Otherwise, Wikipedia would say geocentrism is right because who cares what Galileo thought? He's just in the "unreliable minority". It is a fact that the Atari 5200's controller is vastly inferior to the Jaguar's controller. A fact, not an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.251.167 (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read through Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, verifiability and original research, because you clearly don't understand them at the moment. Drop me a line when you've done so, and we'll continue if needs be. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Was Jaguar a US-only console?

Was Jaguar released outside of the United States? I changed the main article to say that, but after the fact, ic ouldn't find supporting evidence. I just wanted to clear up the inherent ambiguity caused by other points in the article. "Fall 1995 release of Sony Playstation" and "summer 1995 release of Sega Saturn" -- as everyone knows, those were the US release dates. In their respective home market of Japan, both of those consoles were released in 1994.

Yes, the Jaguar was released outside the US. I know it was released in Europe (the power LED is a different color there), but I can't recall if it got a Japanese release. Clayhalliwell 15:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was released in France. BTW, this article says that 4.41 millions of unit were sold. I greatly doubt that (excpet if unit means dollar). madlozoz --213.56.150.217 14:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It was released in UK, I know, I have one. Also 4.41 million is correct, it's not that much either, it's only 1/4 the population of New York City. 4.41 million worldwide is nothing really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.31.237 (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was released in Europe 1, Japan 1 2, and Australia. I'm surprised at the original poster, a simple google search on "atari jaguar europe" and "atari jaguar japan" brings up tons of supportin evidence. As would the Jaguar FAQ. --Marty Goldberg 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The power LED color depends on video system output. NTSC Jaguars have RED LED, PAL Jaguars have GREEN LED.

Im pretty dawn sure that the Atari Jaguar was releaced December 1994 in the UK, dunno about anywhere else in europe though. Dunno bout the Jaguar cd launch in the uk either, just know that the Jaguar CD was releaced October 1995 in North America. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no official launch in the UK, but grey imports were available Dec '93 with increasing availability throughout '94 Yowg (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The JagCD was released in the UK - I bought mine from Fona Electrical in early 1994, and another one six months later. Both were UK spec models, and worked equally well with my US Jag (red LED) and UK Jag (green LED). a_man_alone (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The name

One would assume that the name 'Jaguar' was intended to continue in a cat-related theme (after the 'Lynx' and the unreleased 'Panther'), does anyone have a reference/link that verifies this? 203.167.158.180 12:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Duncan

Note for page editing

sorry for this, u can delete it afterward. i dont wish to modify the page as i dont know how BUT, there is an error

the atari JAGUAR was built to compete with the SNES, Genesis/Megadrive etc. it is a 4th generation console, as its release date (1993) should make obvious. while it was not as technically advanced as atari claimed, running dual 32 bit processors, it was nevertheless ahead of its time in terms of capability. while it shares more in common with the later PSX, Saturn and N64 consoles in the way of graphics, it is a 4th generation console, and was released before the PSX was even conceived.

i think the page needs to be update, u can use any of what i said if u wish

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.68.235 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Jaguar runs 5 processors in parallel, not two. Not sure why this myth keeps popping up, though I do agree with your other points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.107.16.33 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Jaguar had 3 microprocessors and two specialized circuits. The object processor and blitter were not general purpose processors. The OP was a display list renderer while the blitter was... well... a feature-rich blitter. --Jbanes 02:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I SAW ATARI 2600 IN SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION. WHY DONT WE PUT ATARI JAGUAR IN FOURTH AND FIFTH GENERATION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the same gen as 3DO, Playstation, Saturn, and N64. It doesn't matter when it was released, but what the intention was. Indeed, it was intended to usher in a new gen, as was the 3DO Multiplayer. And I must point out that Saturn and Playstation were released in Japan a year later (Nov. and Dec. of '94, respectively). So, yes...it was meant to absolutely surpass the "16-bit" consoles and be a "next gen" console...and that's how it was referred to by the industry and the press at the time of release.

And while the OP and Blitter aren't general purpose processors, they are processors nonetheless. So, yes, 5 processors on 3 chips is an accurate description. One chip, TOM, housed a 32-bit GPU, and a 64-bit Blitter and 64-bit Object Processor. Jerry housed a 32-bit DSP, and the last chip was a 68k. And that 69k is where people get the notion that it's a 16-bit console, even though the 68k can be ignored for the most part, with games running on TOM and the DSP (heck, open up the Jag and TOM is labeled "CPU"). The 68k boots up the console, but due to the difficulty in programming the two RISC components (TOM and Jerry), most developers used the 68k as CPU, when...it really wasn't at all.

24.44.71.8 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have to point out: Playstation and Saturn were released only ONE YEAR after Jaguar was released. To state that it wasn't even conceived when Atari's "64-bit" console was released is absurd.

24.44.71.8 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

UNITS SOLD

2 MILLION OR 4.41 MILLION? SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW TO GOOGLE LIST A CITATION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

mcjakeqcool, when the Jaguar was discounined in early 1996, it had sold 500,000 units. Just to clarify. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can clarify if the Jaguar sold more than 500,000 units, because the Saturn sold 9 million units, and the $700 3do sold over 2 million units, is it right that it sold 500,000 units or was it more like 4.41 million like the geezer above, cos at the moment no one can clarify that the Jaguar sold more than 500,000 units. Which sounds ludacris being it had a advertising campain, can some on give me a answer to that one? Cheers, mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, mcjakeqcool! I might be able to get you some help on that one, I have a link here[1] that says that the Atari Jaguar sold up to 2 million units, 2 million units as you were saying is alot more releastic a sales figure than 500,000. 500,000 units, (yeah right!), 2 million is surely more like it. 86.20.32.16 (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but those are incorrect. The current figure is based on Atari Corp.'s own SEC filings, which is cited here. They clearly state only a 125,000 units were sold through the end of 1995 and they had another 100,000 in inventory which as of Spring of 1996, which they liquidated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

just as a follow-up, the SEC filing seems to be missing now. anyone know where another copy can be found? --68.229.164.54 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I only see 3 processors, not 5

Tom is the GPU. Jerry is the DSP/sound device. The 68000 is the CPU. 3 total. To label a "blitter" or "object" logic as a processor is as erroneous as to label a Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU) or memory management unit (MMU) as a processor. These are sub-sections inside larger devices; not processors by themselves. - Theaveng (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, what you see and what's officially stated are two different things and constitutes WP:OR unless you can find valid references stating the contrary. The Jaguar developers manual clearly states five processors spread across two custom chips and the 680000, which is not stated as "the cpu", simply an external bootstrapping device in the multiprocessor setup. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the ATARI manual is like referencing Microsoft's manual claiming that Windows Vista is "secure". It's a biased reference. Can't you find a better, unbaised reference? - Theaveng (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The 68k is not just a bootstrapping device. In fact, the term "bootstrapping" implies that this is the "Central" Processing Unit (CPU) and nothing else. It is no more "bootstrapping" than any other computer system with additional dedicated graphics and sound processors. The GPU has several severe bugs so that almost no games use it for anything but graphic routines and the 68k runs all the game logic. Especially because the DRAM is shared across all processors, it was (in theory) possible to use the GPU for some typical CPU routines which is the purpose of accelerator devices like these. However, the 68k is clearly the central unit. It doesn't matter how much of the work it does and the other processors are obviously not labeled as "CPU". The term "object processor" seems to be an Atari invention anyway and I doubt it has anything to do with OOP as the wiki-link implies. --217.87.124.116 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the manufacturers own developer's manual is not a biased referenced in any stretch of the imagination. Marketing materials are biased, advertisements are biased. A reference manual, released by the manufacturer for developers is not a biased reference as to the contents of its own hardware. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Got the Atari Developer's Manual

As I suspected, it does not say what various Atari fans have been claiming. It doesn't say the Jaguar has 5 processors (it says "multiple"), nor that it is a 64-bit system (it says it "features 64 bit technology" which would be the blitter and object accelerator, not the whole system). The persons in support of claiming Jaguar has 5 processors and a 64-bit CPU have been running us in circles with claims... which the manual does not support. - Theaveng (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Additionally, the developer's reference consists of several manuals as noted by its index. Likewise it was stated as a 64-bit system, both in its manuals and advertisement, and printed directly on the console itself. Continuing to read what you want in to things is just contributing to disruptive editing practices, which you have been warned for before. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WHERE does it say this? You keep makign claims, but you're not providing validation. I have the manual in my hands, and it says nothing about 5 processors. - Theaveng (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Technical specifications

• Note: the RfC was originally added to the article by an unknown user. A simialr RfC has also been posted to Talk:64-bitLabongo (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who read the manual and still cant see the facts...allow me to illuminate you. The following is from the official manual...only four pages in....I dont know how you could have missed this and maintain you read the manual. Jaguar is a custom chip set primarily intended to be the heart of a very high-performance games / leisure computer. It may also be used as a graphics accelerator in more complex systems, and applied to work-station and business uses. As well as a general purpose CPU, Jaguar contains four processing units. These are:

- Object Processor

The Object Processor is responsible for generating the display. For each display line it processes a set of commands - the object list - and generates the display for that line in an internal line buffer. Objects may be bit maps in a range of display resolutions, they may be scaled, conditional actions may be performed within the object list, and interrupts to the Graphics Processor may be generated.

- Graphics Processor

The Graphics Processor is a very fast micro-processor which is optimised for performing graphics generation. It has its own local RAM, and a powerful ALU which includes fast multiply and divide operations.

- Blitter

The Blitter is closely coupled to the GPU, and is able to rapidly move and fill graphical objects in memory. It includes hardware support for Z-buffering and shading at very high speed.

- Digital Sound Processor

The Digital Sound Processor is similar to the Graphics Processor, but is intended primarily for synthesizing sound, and for playing back sampled sound. It may also be used for general processing tasks. Jaguar provides these blocks with a 64-bit data path to external memory devices, and is capable of a very high data transfer rate into external dynamic RAM.

5 PROCESSING UNITS......well at least in all the math classes I've taken. Also please notice the 68k is refered to as a "general purpose CPU" ,not the system CPU. Oh...here for those of you that think the CPU is the 68k, you must have conveniently skipped this not on page five too.

The CPU is used as a manager. It deals with communications with the outside world, and manages the system for the other processors. It is the highest level in the control flow of a Jaguar program, and has complete control of the system.

It says right there: CPU. So why are you questioning if the 68k is the CPU. The answer's right there.

It's not suprising you would stop at the first sentence. Now read the rest of what I posted and learn something for once in your life....here...I'll 'bold' it for you.

Gorf

What manager do you know of that does any real work? the designer will tell you himself that the 68k processor was not even necessary but put in there to help people get around the machine easier. In fact the designers did not even want a 68k in there. That was Atari's idea. It sets the system up and then it should do nothing. Unfortunately it was treated like a CPU and why most games suffered terribly. It has the LOWEST priority in the system. On page 8...

The CPU normally has the lowest bus priority but under interrupt its priority is increased. The following list gives the priorities of all bus masters. 1. Higher priority daisy-chained bus master. 2. Refresh. 3. DSP at DMA priority. 4. GPU at DMA priority. 5. Blitter at high priority. 6. Object Processor. 7. DSP at normal priority. 8. CPU under interrupt. 9. GPU at normal priority. 10. Blitter at normal priority. 11. CPU

Ok for those that think the PS1 is only a year older, The Jaguar techonology was finalized in 91. It was test released in 92.I have the official release nets right here. Playstation was finished in 93.That is a LONG time for technology to advance and that is what happened. Not to mention the fact that the Jaguar did not have any tools to take advantage of the true 64 bit hardware...the silicon that is the TRUE power of the Jaguar that one few titles even begin to tap. It had a 68k C compiler and assembler with some RISC support. That is all you had.

Can User:Gorfian Empire please give me the website (I'm prizooming it's a website, anyhow.), on where you got the info about the releace nets that you have the info on, I'm really curious cos I'm a fan of the Jaguar, and I would love to know. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You cannot write power house games on the Jaguar if you cant get the machine to run out of main ram. We have figured out how to do this and we have seen VERY significant increases in performance. Projects only running at 15 or less fps using the 68k to do the work are now running at 30-60 FPS and these are 3d projects mind you. These are also using an extremely nefficient renderer. The Jaguar IS 64 bits as all the real work is done with 64 bits...and 64 bits is not what matters anyway but what you do with those 64 bits.

The developers for the Jaguar were lazy in some cases or urgently rushed by Atari. With that, rush meant no more time to write fast GPU code (because there were no tools able to help one write fast bug free code) but to write the game logic using the 68k. Most Jaguar games are very 68k dependent and only a handful of those games that actually show more power are laying off the 68k more but still not eliminating it like it should be. Every time that 68k hits the system bus, it cuts the bud width 75% and the effective clockrate in half.

You now have a 16 bit system, hence the reason for most of the awfull and less than worthy titles on the Jaguar. I have a demo of a beta Alien VS Preditor where it NEVER drops under 60 FPS. It's before they added the AI. You could walk around and fire at unitellegent enemies. The code was 90% RISC. Once they added the AI and used the 68k, the performance dropped to what? 15- 20 FPS inthe release version?

Tools are being developed to correct this and to add main code abilities and this assembler will have a linker and an entire debuging system as well as a GPU simulation system. The jaguar indeed has FIVE count them FIVE processors. The Blitter is a processor once engaged can do its process with no other intervention. The OPL is a processor and indeed has an command set and can perform jumps and comparisons, and once started processes its list on its own, performing math and sorting just like a processor does. It just does it stritcly on predetermined graphical data.

Both of these are the REAL heart of the system. The processors could have been 6502's. These chips are what do the real work in the Jaguar. Just because everyone misused the system and over used the 68k does not by any means justify the 68k as the main processor. You cant turn off the main processor in any system, You can turn off every one of the five processors in the Jaguar. I have code that once the 68k boots it never runs another instruction again.

I can and have run code on the DSP ONLY! I can and have run code on the GPU ONLY! I can and have run code on the 68k ONLY!

That means any one of these processors can be the CPU. THERE IS NO CPU in the Jaguar..the 68k is called a CPU because that is what it has always been called and what is is here... 'a' CPU, not 'the' CPU. It is nothing more than command and control and once the mission is underway,it should be shut down with one instruction....."stop $#2000". It will only wake when I want it to after that and not before. you cant operater a system with the main CPU dormant and is why the 68k is NOT the main CPU by any stretch. While asleep I can completely control the ENTIRE system with either or both the other general purpose procesors, the DSP and the GPU. With NO intervention from the 68k at all. Not the characteristics of a MAIN CPU at all.

Gorfian Empire (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

zzzzzzz...

(cough). What? Lecture over?

Good. I'm hungry and want to get some dinner. Oh before I leave, I want to point out that just because the Blitter can move 64 bit chunks of data using a "fill" command, does not magically turn the console into a 64 bit console. It's still primarily a 32 bit system (32 bit 68000, 32 bit DSP, 32 bit DRAM, 16 bit sound). ----- If that were true... if the mere existence of a 64 bit "fill" command made a console 64 bits, then I could rightly claim that PS3 and Xbox360 are 1024 bit consoles, since they can move (for one or two select commands) 1024 bit chunks of data. - Theaveng (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

The GPU, DSP, and Blitter internal registers are 32 bits wide and MUST be written as such.

Let me Quote too: Jaguar Reference Manual

Here's one type of Blitter Register

A2 Base Register F02224 Write only

32-bit register containing a pointer to the base of the window pointer to by A2.

That is one type of Blitter register but then there are also:

Destination Data Register F02248 Write only

This 64-bit register holds the destination data - which may be either read in the inner loop to allow unmodified

pixels to be written back correctly when in phrase-mode, or it may be used to give background or paper colours, if it is not read.

Destination Z Register F02250 Write only

This 64-bit register holds the destination Z value, and may be used as the data register. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.142.102 (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Avenger is suffering from dillusion here.....The other systems are not 64, 1024 or what ever bit accross the entire bus as the Jaguar is and you'd know that if you actually knew what you were talking about. All the bus is 64 bits wide in the Jaguar and the system is 64 bit. The PC by YOUR definition which is extremely inaccurate would only be 8 bits. The MMU, Blitter and OPL as well as the very memory itself is 64 bits. Reading the manual like you claimed you have would have proven this to you.

Gorf

Theaven, as Kiefer warned you in the other thread and as you've been warned by other admin's before - " keep the discussion civil - there's no need to be as rude to others here as you have been lately - continuing to be as bitey as you have been may get you blocked for disruptive editing." You want to debate with Gorfian that's one thing. The color commentary is not welcome, and not tolerated on Wikipedia, by policy. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to single out Theaveng. If you have a problem with Theaven's behaviour per se, discuss it on his discussion page and keep it there. The above comment by Gorfian Empire was just as rude and inappropriate. The comment consists of a full page of irrelevant text from the documentation and it is sprinkled with offensive remarks. For the record, at Talk:64-bit it was already concluded that the Jaguar is not a 64-bit architecture. I don't think anyone particularly cares if it's labeled as "64-bit" (something) considering that at least the memory bus and some registers of the blitter are 64-bit wide. Here is the link to the technical documentation again: [[2]]. --217.87.107.91 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok show me the irrelevence in my post. And if you actually read that documentation you will see I am right. I've been reading it and coding this machine for 12+ years now....Of course that never means anything to the ACE's(arm chair experts). I'll tell you what is offensive. Someone like your self with a snappy few sentence post that does not ONE thing to dispute my FACTS. Dont be an ACE or you end up looking like an ass.

Gorf

There is every reason to address his behavior here and elsewhere. He has been warned on his talk page as well in the past, and would rather just delete them rather than abide by him. Consequently, you do not dictate what is "singling out". Secondly, all that was decided on the 64-bit page is that it doesn't fit the scope of that article (which is about 64-bit cpu's as was repeatedly stated), likewise as Keifer put it "at least by any accepted definition being used in this article." Lastly, Gorfian is a well known Jaguar coder with 12+ years experience on that platform. The issue being pushed by the "not 64-bit" view was multifaceted and included claims on it not being a multi-processor system to support that view. Gorfian clearly addressed that issue and stated how it runs and functions as a multi-processor based system and all Theaven wanted to respond with was more rude behavior, and another opinion on the blitter completely ignoring the issue being addressed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

MG....I told you why I did not want to get involved in this nonsense. These two guys probably never wrote a line of code in their lives, never mind the Jaguar. C code dont count.Try learning your accuracies you two and actually read the manual. Then try coding the JAguar in assembler and learn that you are just plain wrong. There is not 64 bit CPU, you are correct but there are 64 bit processors on a 64 bit bus that is connected throughout the entire system. The MMU and the very DRAM are all 64 bits wide because the SYSTEM is 64 bits.

SFX and GFX cards are internal busses and not even close to the same thing. That analogy is not only weak but far from even relevant. You are talking two entirely different architectures all together. The PC and SFX/GFX cars are on an expansion bus in a 32 bit system. Those are NOT the main bus in the PC. THe JAguar 64 bit bus IS the main bus. Now go read the manual to that link you gave and actually learn something.

I'm quoting what somebody said in the 64-bit article, because I agree with 99% of what he said. "This Technical Reference shows indeed that even the GPU is a 32-bit unit. All its registers are at most 32-bit wide. [A few select operations of] the blitter has some 64-bit data registers, and the only other component that is "64-bit" is the memory bus. --217.87.87.117 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs)

You forgot the Object processor in that list, which also is 64-bits wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downix (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

previous/sucessor models

A little ways back someone put the Panther as the immediate predecessor, only for someone else to remove that and put the 7800 has, stating that only produced models should be listed. Yet, right below that entry is the Jaguar II as a succeeding model, and the Jag II was even less developed than the Panther, only having 1 of the 3 custom chips it had working. My thought is this, if the box with details is to only include produced units, should not the jag II be removed, or at least moved into the article itself, or conversely, if it does include development predecessors, should not the Panther be there as it does exist in the timeline? Just my 2 cents.

Fair use rationale for Image:Jaguar Logo.gif

Image:Jaguar Logo.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 ensure 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) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Power, and use of it

The Atari Jaguar was a 64 bit console, but software support was the sort of games you would put on a 32 bit consoles not 64, while the Jaguar 64's competitor the Amiga CD32 was 32 bit, but the games devolped are the sort of games were the games you put on a 24 bit console, not a 32 bit, both consoles were 32 and 64, both never had advantage taken for there power, but also both were not remotely 16 bit, both were fifth gen consoles, though the amiga cd32 was one of the least powerful, hence not showing 3d and hence not being as poweful as close competion like the Jaguar and 3do. Look at the graphics on in pack in games Cybermorph and Dangerous Streets on google images, compare 64 and 32 in the pre PS1 and N64 days and you'll see what I mean. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor Jaguar

Shame the Jaguar failed, it had so much potential it was cheap, and pretty looking, with a little bit more advertising the thing could be a sucsess it could show 3d, and had more going for it than the likes of the CD32, sorry commodore, but that thing was a faliure. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Discounied

Until very recently I belived that the Jaguar was discounied at the beginning of 1996, around the time of the releace of Fight for Life and sold of in shops a few months later, but now I do belive that the Jaguar was OFFICIALLY supported until 4/12/1996 (not nesercerily with good games, or any games at all, just supported.) so maybe that should be clarified for further notice. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My edits

I have sourced alot of RELEAVENT and OFFIAL edits about the Atari Jaguar, and most of them have internet sources, so please DON'T delete them. Thankyou, mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the references were either incorrect or self referencing Wikipedia, which is not allowed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop.

Can People please STOP deleting my sourced edits from this article, I source them, I explain them on the talk page, and then there're gone, It's ridiculous. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read above in Units Sold, the reversion was explained. The current source is the defacto standard, Atari Corp's own SEC filing stating only around 225,000 units were ever manufactured. The sources you added for totals were incorrect. Likewise, half of your sources were to other Wikipedia pages, which is not allowed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I never knew that sources to wikipeida pages were not allowed, ok I will stop adding those sources in, according to what you told me the Atari Jaguar sold 225,000 units. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the Jaguar released in Japan?

Was the Atari Jaguar released in Japan, I don't believe it was, but I won't edit this anyway, until someone can find my some clarification on it. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Check this out: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_15890850

http://www.shopwiki.com/detail/d=Atari_Jaguar_(Japan_Version)/ Yeah, I'd say it was released in Japan. Belasted (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the link you provided there, the Atari Jaguar was indeed released late 1994, not early 1994, the Jaguar was given a full scale release in the USA and launched in Canada is early 1994. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jaguar predessor

This link shows that the Atari XE Games System is the predessor to the Atari Jaguar[3], so I've changed it, To be honest though, I always thought that the Atari Jaguar (or Panther) was the predessor to the 7800 but turns out I'm wrong, so I've changed it. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that's correct, because one is a console and the other is a personal computer. But I'm not sure enough about this one way or another. Belasted (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, the XE Game System was promoted as a console that could expaned in to a computer with the addition of a seperate keyboard. Hence the title "Game System". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. The XEGS was a remodeled 65XE computer that was marketed/promoted as a game system in addition to being promoted as a "basic entry level personal computer". But it was NOT a game system in and of itself no more than Alienware PCs are "game systems". It was, in fact, a 65XE personal computer. This wasn't a case of turning into a computer with the "addition of a separate keyboard", as was proposed for other game consoles; the keyboard was packed in with the XEGS unit (in the same box), and, in fact, the XEGS could use ALL of the XE computer programs, and peripherals. So right out of the box it could be used as a personal computer. It was NOT a game console in and of itself, and thus NOT the successor to 7800 nor the predecessor of Jaguar, both of which have the game console model of the primary focus/software being game software in mind. --Therealspiffyone (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It was marketed as a game console. While under the hood it was effectively a 65XE, and it is generally described as a game console. See Wolf's "The video game explosion: a history from PONG to Playstation and beyond" and Slaven's "Video Game Bible, 1985-2002" - both make the point you're referring to, that it was repacked computer, but both also describe it as a game system (or console) as well, and Wolf places it between the 7200 and the Jaguar (depending on how you regard the Lynx). I don't think that being based on a computer necessarily precludes being a console. - Bilby (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It was marketed both as a "game system" and an XE computer. And as it had a keyboard packed into the unit, and in fact was a 65XE in a different shell, it wasn't "based" on the XE computer line but rather was a part of the computer line as it was, in fact, a 65XE. Right out of the box it could run XE computer programs. This made it a personal computer, not a game console. I'll leave it as is for now, but, marketing aside, it was sold as both and it errs more toward computer. This is VERY different than the 5200 which was based on the 400 line, but was NOT a 400 computer as there were quite a few differences and it couldn't run any of the 400 computer line software. Therealspiffyone (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's all WP:OR, it was marketed as a game console that could expand in to a computer as already shown. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not really WP:OR. It was marketed as BOTH, and it doesn't "expand" to a computer as it was, out of the box, already a computer. Again, the keyboard was packed in with the unit; it was not a separately purchased add-on peripheral as proposed or prototypical expansions for previous consoles (including previous Atari game consoles) were. OUT OF THE BOX it was a computer, and it was marketed AS A COMPUTER as well, which even the current article indicates ("a basic personal computer").-Therealspiffyone (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I already provided the direct resources in the other discussion that shows the opposite. Plain and simple, it's WP:OR for you to go on about this and continue to try these edits against consensus, without providing reliable resources to the contrary. You're just trying to force your opinion on the article, which is original research at worst and wp:synthesis at best. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Here: [4] Marketed as BOTH a game system and computer. And here: [5] (various bits of info as to how it's a computer right out of the box). And, of course, there's the fact that it includes the keyboard in the box, and as such it seems awfully clear as to the fact that it isn't "expandable" to a computer, but IS a computer marketed as a game system, which is more accurate than stating otherwise. I'll agree that it was marketed as a game system...but it was also clearly marketed as a computer as well, and was not "expandable to a computer, but was a computer out of the box. The links prove that. - Therealspiffyone (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they do not. Once again, that's WP:synthesis on your part. It clearly states about it's *additional* computer capabilities *as a game system*, which is not being contested. It in no way contradicts what I've already stated, what the consensus of all the other editors are, or the actual material directly from Atari provided in the other thread. Likewise, the keyboard was not provided directly in the box, that was the later deluxe model (which is the time period from your ad as well) as also shown. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Link may be incorrect

I think the link[6] which claims the Atari Jaguar has worldwide sales of 225,000 may be incorrect, as I think the fact that sources are extremly varied with Atari Jaguar sales[7][8][9][10] the fact that the Atari Jaguar had a good start sales wize, the fact that the Atari Jaguar was sold worldwide the fact that the Atari Jaguar had a fair share of third party tiltes [11]and the fact that the Atari Jaguar had quite a large advertising campain[12][13][14] if add all these facts together it seems to add up that the 225,000 units sold worldwide is not a relastic figure for a mainstream console like the Atari Jaguar, I would say perhaps the 225,000 units figure should be layed of until further notice, feel free to discuss this with me, but I think the figure is incorrect and should be changed. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but their own SEC filings are the defacto source of sales. If third part sources have issues with numbers, then that reflects more on their fact checking than casting doubt on financial and security filings. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's possible the numbers may be incorrect think about the 225,000 units sales, the Atari Jaguar is a mainstream console. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Noy joy on wether or not the amount of Atari Jaguar units according this this source[15] or not is invalid? When anyone's got any info on it give us a bell asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I challange the sales figure of 225,000 units worldwide with another link[16], if on 22nd November 1988, Atari owned 30% of the video games industry, how could it slip to less then 1% by 18th November 1993? For a worldwide sales figure, 225,000 units is not releastic, how could a console as accessible, and affordable as the Jaguar only sell 225,000 units? It is impossible. The 3do cost $700s but sold 2 million units, and the Sega Saturn was considered a Faliure and was poorly marketed and sold 9 million, ok, I do admit that the Amiga CD32 and 32x sold 100,000 and 200,000 respectively, but they were sold for less then 1 year! The Atari Jaguar was sold for a good part of 3. I do belive that I have given this talk page, and wikipedia enough evidence to suggest that this sales figure is wrong. Now all I need is that is OKayed that I change the source, and before anyone asks, I have read the De Facto link, and I still think it is wrong, and also it is only sourced until 31st December 1995, being that in Q4 1995 that the price of the Jaguar was cut to $99s, I would imagine that that would of moved units quickly and signiftly. As I have already said in this discuss edit, my motive is to correct and change the De Facto source given by wikipeida. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. Atari Corp's slide and declining market share was exactly the reason for the continued downsizing and eventual reverse merger of the company. The 30% in '88 was in relation to the 260jr and 7800, not the Jaguar. And likewise, there's a reason they reported "Over the past several years, Atari has undergone significant change. In 1992 and 1993, Atari significantly downsized operations..." and "These Jaguar sales were substantially below Atari's expectations". Once again, the SEC filing is the defacto listing, it is Atari Corp's own filing of their own numbers and inventory. It very clearly states "From the introduction of Jaguar in late 1993 through the end of 1995, Atari sold approximately 125,000 units of Jaguar. As of December 31, 1995, Atari had approximately 100,000 units of Jaguar in inventory". That means there were only 250,000 Jaguar's manufactured. You can't sell more units then you manufactured, and I don't know where you're located in the world or how old you are, but Securities and Exchange Commission filings are very serious business. Companies are required to maintain accurate reports to the SEC. Continual surmising and WP:OR as demonstrated above does not change this fact.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The point being is, that being that the Jaguar was supported beyond 31st December 1995, that it may have sold more units, regardless of security fillings by Atari, also I can not find a point in that article with in this De Facto link which tells me how many units the Jaguar sold from introduction, and even if this link was correct, even discouineing the 8 bit line would not affect Atari to this exstent, the Jaguar had some third party tiltes and was marketed, and releaced worldwide, and I fail to understand how or why the Jaguar sold 225,000 units worldwide, I doubt Atari only made 250,000 units and that is why I doubt the De Facto link given in this article. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is just getting pointless when you refuse to accept Atari's own SEC filings and reporting, and just becoming a waste of time. Support of a product has nothing to do with number of consoles sold, and once again you can't sell more units than manufactured. Even if support had gone on to to 1999 that would have nothing to do with number of consoles manufactured, which would have to be reported on the SEC filing as well. And support after the merger was a guy at a desk at JTS that represented all of Atari Corp. Atari themselves stated much poorer sales than expected, Atari themselves stated 150,00 sold and 100,000 in inventory (including the $99 possibly generating more sales of said 100,000 backstock but deteriorating rapidly, and also stated the need to liquidate the rest), and Atari themselves stated its major reorganization and declining market. Your comment about the 8-bit line makes no sense - you brought up about 30% video game market share in 1988, which was based on the sales of its 8-bit consoles at the time and deteriorated rapidly. We base content at Wikipedia on given facts, not on Mcjakeqcool's inability to accept facts or want to put forth WP:OR based on said inability. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can provide some reliable direct evidence for your claim, please stop debating the issue. You are failing to accept just how poorly the Jaguar fared. Only one source actually contradicts the currently-used figure, and the site, MSN Tech & Gadgets, often contains factual errors. Atari itself stated that it "has placed no manufacturing orders for the Jaguar console since mid-1995. Based on current and expected sales and inventory levels, Atari does not intend to pursue additional Jaguar manufacturing." From what I can see, nothing in any subsequent filing indicates that any more Jaguar hardware was ever produced. The company constantly refers to a "substantial inventory" that it is trying to sell off, despite substantial write-downs. Regardless of what you believe about the sales of the Jaguar, nothing has been provided that would justify a change. I would recommend you review Wikipedia:Verifiability, as well as Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy, which you continue to ignore. "It is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." In fact, since you seem to have trouble grasping the principle, I would recommend that you not post anything unless it includes a source that explicitly supports it, even in talk pages. Dancter (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will try and have some facts behind what I post in talk pages aswell as wiki pages. mcjakecool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I keep posting comments on this article, but they are to contibute to wikipeida, not to waste time. But I must point out that the 1 link you pointed out said that the Jaguar sold 2 million, but there was another that said the Jaguar sold 500,000, another that said the Jaguar sold 250,000 units in it's first year one the market (bareing in mind that the Jaguar was supported for 3 years) and the De Facto one that said the Jaguar sold approximately 225,000 units or 250,000 (I'm not particuly up on this) NOT exzactly, and fair enough saying that Alien VS Preditor was well recived or saying that Tempest 2000 helped sell the Jaguar may not help this article but there is a possiblty that the De Facto source may not by 100% accuarate and there is a possiblty that the Jaguar may have moved units after 31st December 1995. But ok I will stay off this article until I have a accuarate source but I hoped for the outcome of the Colecovision article[17] not for myself and not out of original research, but for the good of this wikipedia article, and the good of wikipedia in general, which is why I source my claims. I do always consider what I post or edit, before I post or edit it. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It did not say it sold 500,000. It said, "The system failed to sell more than 500,000 units and had only a small library of games." The other link never claims that the Jaguar sold more than 250,000. Neither document is likely to be as thoroughly fact-checked, as precisely-worded, or as scrutinized as an SEC filing. Neither source is likely to be more privy to Atari's sales situation than Atari itself. The SEC filing did read, "approximately," but the precision of the figure currently used in the Wikipedia article does take that into account. In the discussion concerning ColecoVision's sales, the editors proposed specific explanations for discrepancies between sources of a certain threshold of reliability. It doesn't seem as if you have much of a sense of how to assess a source. Based on your use of the term, I'm wondering if you even understand what "de facto" means. Dancter (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

De Facto means a Defaut source but not necessary a permanent soruce, a source which is the standard for the foresseable future, but one that is up for debate. I accept that until I find a reliable soruce by wikipedia standards that the give in source won't change, but It is quite significant that if what the De Facto source was true, that Atari's market share went from 30% to 1% in 5 years, the equivalent of the average console lifespan, and perhaps should be stated in this and other Atari articles If it is a reliable edit. However I still personaly doubt the Jaguar sold no more then 250,000 units worldwide during it's lifespan, however I accept the De Facto source, and the fact that my personal opinion is not important and would not contribute to wikipedia. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaguar sold 250,000 not 125,000

Though I agree with the 'De Facto' article for the benfits of wikipeida, I would say that for the benfits of this article and wikipedia as a whole, that it would make more sence to sugest that the Jaguar sold 250,000 units and not 125,000 units. As the 'De Facto' source given by Atari's SEC filling says that Atari manufactered 250,000 Jaguars, and being that not only that the Jaguar was very sucsessful in terms of sales and also the fact that there is no VALID reason AT ALL to sugest that the Jaguar sold less then the 250,000 units made by Atari, it would for the good of Wikipedia and this article, made sence to edit this article to state that the Jaguar sold 250,000 units and not 125,000 units. If anyone WHAT SO EVER has a grudge against this, please bring it up on this talk page. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You claim to agree with the SEC filing in terms of Wikipedia policy, yet still are disputing its facts, and still failing to substantiate your claims with verifiable sources. Find me one reliable source that directly states that the Jaguar was "very sucsessful [sic] in terms of sales," and not just initially. The statement you tampered with was a direct quotation, pulled directly from the source. I should note that it refers to sales as December 31, 1995. That is the information we have. You yourself claimed earlier that "Jaguar was supported beyond 31st December 1995, that it may have sold more units," so I find your reasoning even more confused. The article was very careful about not making assumptions of how much the console exactly sold in the end, given that there is some disagreement between the various accepted sources. That is the valid reason. The infobox reads, "less than 250,000," which was felt to be sufficiently ambiguous. If you would rather the infobox state, "250,000 or less," I would be willing to consider that, but to falsify a quotation is absolutely unacceptable. It's basically vandalism. Dancter (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that for the sake of not only this article but wikipeida aswell, it should be changed to 250,000 or less. I don't have any problems on a personal level with the SEC filling, but on a professinal wikipeida level, I must edit it to 250,000 or less units, as a appose to 125,000 units. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments, and re-read the article. You do not seem to understand at all. I can manage to get past your poor spelling, but it is difficult to discuss matters with you when your reading comprehension is so lacking. I was referring to the infobox, which has already been changed for you. I repeat, the statement you keep changing is a quotation taken verbatim from the source. It should not be changed. Dancter (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I sincerely belive it should be changed, but for the sake of wikipeida I will leave it alone. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Tramiel's Comments

Under history, this article claims that Sam Tramiel said that "the Jaguar was much more powerful than the Saturn", citing as its source a GameSpy.com article which quotes Traimel as saying: "Jaguar is as powerful, if not more powerful than Saturn." Did Traimel change his mind about the Saturn's capabilities in mid-interview? If so, can we see a source which shows that he said that? It seems a little silly to backup a claim that Traimel said "The Jaguar is FAR more powerful than the Saturn" with an article that quotes him as "The Jaguar is NOT more powerful than the Saturn".--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with Hbdragon88. As long as we're parsing statements, Tramiel was not quoted as saying that the Jaguar isn't more powerful than the Saturn. It was a conditional statement. Dancter (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. I just put it that way because this is the discussion page and I wanted to emphasize the ridiculousness of saying "Tramiel said A" in reference to an article where he says "Not A". "Jaguar is as powerful, if not more powerful than Saturn" is not something a person would say if they wanted to claim that the Jaguar could be much more powerful than the Saturn. Anyway, it's good to see that that statement has now been fixed.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this section to accurately reflect the interview, added a link to scans of the interview, and cleaned up the language in this section. However, I think the elaboration about Tramiel's Playstation prediction should be removed, because it's not really about the Jaguar, but about Tramiel and Atari Corp.. Unless someone can justify keeping it in I'll remove it. Cndrblck (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the reference, that can't be used. A) It's a copyright violation, and B) Forums can't be used as references. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the citation to be to the article, not linking to the copyrighted material. I believe it's important that we cite the article that information is coming from, and I don't think the GameSpy article is adequate for that (as it, in turn, attempts to link to a transcript of the article in question). Cndrblck (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaguar as the first console to support 32 player multiplayer games

BattleSphere for Jaguar was the first console game to have 32 player multiplayer.--ILoveSky (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case. You'd need a notable and reliable source stating that though to be able to put that claim in the article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Jaguars controller

I removed the bunk about the Jaguar having the "worst controller" ever and it "being reminiscent of the 5200". The Jaguar controller was fine bordering on good. The 9 key element was rarely used (I think CyberMorph used it, but it was a terrible game and it had nothing to do with the controller) and didn't interfere with the normal operation of the controller (the D-Pad and the three action buttons). Furthermore, comparing it to the 5200 controller makes no sense. The 5200 controller was a poorly implemented analog controller. The Jaguar had a fair to good (I'd rank it about equal to or better than the original XBox controller, putting it about on par with the original PlayStation controller) digital controller. Also, the linked article talked about the "VGA" connector, falling out "if a mouse farted" or some such. The fact that the author refers to it as a "VGA" connector (which it wasn't, it was a fairly standard issue serial connector), and calls it a bad thing, discredits their views on the whole gadget. It's like the author had never used the machine. I can't recall my Jag's controllers ever disconnecting because of light tugs. If anything it was one of the more solid controller connections I ever had. More to the point though, both the articles linked seem to load up criticism on the controller for no real reason other than "Jaguar failed, it's easy meat, LOL!". As a Jag owner, I can say that it had many, many faults. But the controller was never one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew1718 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-instated with a bit of rewording. The referenced sources are a single article in reality, so I have trimmed it to take that into account. Incidentally, I am also a Jag owner (three in fact) - and I believe the controller to be abysmal, (with the Pro being little better,) ergo our opinions balance out. The author is also correct in stating that the connector was a VGA D-sub configuration - VGA extension leads could be used to extend the controller cord length. It may not have had the mini locking screws, but his description is still valid and correct. I'm also not sure about your claims of Jag bashing - Atari may have had two entries in the chart, but so do Sega, and their controllers ranked 2nd & 3rd in the list. And finally, I have to agree with them about the Spiderman controller. Yikes! a_man_alone (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cortina

The information on the Cortina is incorrect, there is not one there were four of them, the thing was designed for my project. I was writing a TCP/IP stack and net tools for it, later including a web browser. I have Cortina #4 I think in my basement along with a dev kit and two sets of manuals. I got TCP/IP working for the most part and rudimentary HTML2.0 support as well. Atari went down before it was finished so it never came out.

Cortina is NOT a WebTV adapter although it was designed to support my project to do exactly that. Cortina is a serial, parallel, and keyboard/mouse board, nothing more. Even at that it is borked, it won't do 8-N-1 modem support, something at drove me up the wall. I was trying to have Atari fix this at the time but it was pretty clear they weren't going to make it so.....

I may have the name of the guy who designed it somewhere in my notes too, if I ever find the box I should post pictures and notes about it.

I have first hand knowledge that this is all true and I was in the middle of it coding and beating my head against the wall. If you have any questions, feel free to write me, first name at my web site (www.semiaccurate.com).

    -Charlie Demerjian  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.151.149 (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 

Proposed merge with Atari Jaguar Duo

Not enough info about proposed console for own article. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Support as a no-brainer for reasons brought up by proposer. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As a user with no brain, I felt qualified to enact the move suggestion. If anyone of the other guys complain, feel free to pin the blame on me. InternetMeme (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

May reconstruct this article.

This article seems low-profile due to the consoles low popularity. This also goes into my concern as for how it is presented. In Wikipedia, I assume the goal is to provide people with knowledge about the subject of an article. In other words, be informative. My problem with this page, as well as a few other pages, it does not actually do this. I don't feel like I learned about the Jaguar. About its history, development, notable games, what was going on with it during its run, in depth detail about its features, etc. The thing that shocked me the most is the information about the console, at least to me, is pretty easy to obtain.

Looking through the article, I see a little splash of commercial failure, a 10 word development section, a reception section whose aim seems to be to make the system look like junk, an odd legacy section, and some lists with little content describing the item listed.

So I will be taking the source of this page and going through it in notepad, and will probably redo the whole page for review and to be more informative. I was told to make a talk page before I did this, just in case if some people find the edit controversial. That's why I made this beforehand, but I think it's highly needed. This will also be my first major edit, so I hope some editors will hope aboard to help me with any errors I make. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be better to do a bunch of smaller revisions at first, since you're kind of new at this. That way, you don't dump three hours into all this work that doesn't mix well with Wikipedia guidelines. But yes, the article could definitely use some work. A common hurdle that prevents these sorts of articles from being improved is the fact that it's hard to find sources for video game related things from the mid-90s earlier, because most of the reliable sources on them in that era were found in print media, not the Internet. This system was out prior to most video game websites. But by all means, see what you can do. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Now sure if I can actually do smaller reverts because a lot of what I am working on ties into each other. Especially the opening summary. I actually previewed a few changes and it made the article look broken. Some things I will of course be leaving like the categories and stuff. It's going to take awhile before this is done anyway. I might do a simple change up and upload that maybe by tomorrow and finish it off and expand through the rest of the week(s). Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd strongly recommend that you don't do that. It can take a while to understand how Wikipedia works, I wouldn't recommend rewriting an entire article right off the bat. I'm afraid you're going to sink a ton of time into rewriting it, but because you're doing it all by yourself, don't fully know Wikipedia's policies, and would have no one there to notify you that you're not on the right track, and your changes won't be kept, and much of your time could be wasted.

• Its not even recommended that experienced editors do a massive rewrite off Wikipedia and then have it all be changed at once, let alone a new user. (I personally did smaller edits for months when I first started, so its nothing personal.) I'd recommend you start by slowly chipping away at the information currently present in the article, so your progress can be monitored, and so little mistakes can be undone. While there are many improvements that could be done to the article, there's much that should probably be kept as well... Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If the desired rewrites include information changes, I'd strongly recommend discussing them here first as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73 I understand your reasoning for doing smaller parts, but can't people do edits during big changes? I'm not removing and replacing EVERYTHING. Not to mention I have enough issues with Wikipedia as it is. it might be my locations or my browser, but no matter what I use I always get crashes and errors using Wikipedia, I had to repost this section 3 times before it even became visible, and doing small edits will be a large pain.

I Suppose I can compromise. Make limited larger edits that can be checked on, and then finish it off after everyones looked over the changes. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of bugs, you may have just saw my last reply was cloned like 50 times. Not the first time, but this is the first time I did not see it on the preview page, so i removed them. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people can make large edits. But just as easily, someone else can go and undo that large edit. And, if there are tons of issues with the initial big edit, they are right to do so. I see the same issue arise all the time; someone makes a huge edit, it gets reversed because its riddled with problems,and then that person takes it personally because all of their time was wasted, but it can't be helped, because they added work that isn't reconcilable with Wikipedia policies, or is so flawed that people prefer to stick with the original status of the article. We're recommending you don't fall into that same trap. Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I could make the edit, revert it, and then maybe link it to other people like you or users who post in this category a lot, which seems to be people like that User:Wgungfu who posted a bit ago. At the very least then, all the code won't be messed up and I can be told what parts to fix. But I suppose if I can take the Ram issues I could switch to chrome and do little edits, but man. I think at least this seems to be a better compromise. Especially since this is not the only article. I think I will start with the slightly less popular games and consoles (or FMV games, those don't seem to be cared about looking through a few) and then once I get the hang of it I'll move on over to a few others. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The Atari Jaguar is

The Atari jaguar as well as all discontinued or cancelled systems, are in the past. We should change "is" to "was" for clarity. Wonderworldamusementpark (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent IP edit

An IP insists on using an irrelevant source that does not mention the Jaguar as part of an original research attempt to "balance" criticism of the system's controller. The IP should be reverted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - a source needs to have direct relevance to the article. A critical review of controllers that doesn't mention the controller in question has no place in this article - although it may be of use over at Game controller. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Page protected. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Objection is faulty because the article and the content added to the article are both highly relevant and necessary to improve the article's balance. The Gerry article is called "The Worst Video Game Controllers Ever Designed" and includes both controllers that predate the Jaguar and controllers that postdate it. That makes the Jaguar included in the category of controller designs that were not selected by the author.

The argument that an article that presents the worst controller designs has to mention the Jaguar in order to be relevant is faulty. Just because the IGN editor felt it was the worst design ever does not mean every analyst agrees (they don't) and will therefore include a complaint about the Jaguar controller in an article about the worst controllers ever. The Gerry article provides balance to the IGN editor's criticism in two ways:

1. It establishes the fact that earlier controllers had phone keypads, which casts some doubt upon the IGN editor's opinion that the controller is the "worst ever" in terms of its inclusion of a phone keypad.

2. It establishes the fact that not all analysts agree with the IGN editor's opinion.

I found three other articles, two of which do include the Jaguar but which rank other controllers as worse, but due to complaints about the sources I removed them. The Diemicke article in particular was very comprehensive and quite good. http://www.mobygames.com/featured_article/feature,30/section,204/

This Jaguar Wikipedia article, as was mentioned elsewhere on this page, has three separate criticisms of the controller, including a captioned photo. That is hardly balanced or appropriately proportionate. Yet, if I try to add even a small amount of text, even a sentence, that is cited and which shows a differing opinion, it is attacked with everything possible, even the demand that an article include the Jaguar directly as an irrelevancy. It seems that someone has invested significant effort into presenting one side, a highly critical side, with regard to the controller, and all attempts to restore balance will be blocked. The demand that articles presenting an overview of the worst controller designs ever include the Jaguar directly, even though by omitting it it's clear that it was included in the set of "not selected" — since the article obviously included older and more recent designs, very much seems to be part of this firewall.

Moreover, the revert comment that said the fact that prior popular systems had the phone keypad design feature that the IGN editor was so critical of wasn't relevant is unsupportable. It is very relevant to the claim that the design is "the worst ever", in large part due to the inclusion of a phone keypad. All it takes is a simple click-through to see that the systems referenced all have phone keypads, yet the reverter said such a basic simple fact constitutes "original research".

This article has had a quite dubious source, an online forum discussion about the 64-bitness of the system, for quite some time. Yet, it is quite telling that it seems that no matter what, anything that rebuts that controller criticism is subjected to the most marvelous standards. TheTimesAreAChanging was warned for edit warring in the Dreamcast topic and I don't feel that my content addition is being viewed objectively.

I realize that nothing will change because there is something quite special about the way certain video game console articles are managed (all additional content blocked). That difference, in comparison with the bulk of Wikipedia, has been apparent for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.12.52 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Life123" is neither a reliable source, nor does it discuss Atari Jaguar at all. Any of your arguments hinge on WP:SYNTH - which is unusable. Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

For the contents of a source to be comparable to the Jag they need to mention the Jag and this doesn't. Reviewed controllers bracketing the Jag from a historic point of view does not equate to the Jag controller being considered for the article, and its non-appearance does not equate to it being considered a good controller - nor does it even mean it was a bad controller. What it means is that no opinion about the Jag controller can be ascertained from the review, hence it cannot be considered for inclusion.

It's a common misconception that an article must be balanced, and that if we have criticism of something, it must be balanced by positive comments. This isn't the case. If positive comments can be found then they can be included, but they must absolutely, specifically relate and mention the Jag by name - as does the negative commentary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

64-bit or 32-bit?

While Atari stated that the Jaguar is 64-bit, some reviewers and fans dispute the idea and say its only 32-bit. Who is right? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)