Talk:Amiga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Brands (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing / Amiga (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Amiga (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

NatAmi[edit]

I'm sure folks know that the NatAmi article recently fell at AFD, I have cut that article way down in length and added it to the hardware section here. Please double check this for accuracy. The key issue is that we lack sufficient reliable sources to document this project in an article of its own. I recognize that there is a lot of information on various forums about the project, but we do not use those as sources except in very limited cases. It would be helpful to find one external link that we can point to with a list of links to the various sources of information that do exist, but which do not meet WP's RS guidelines. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Natami merge[edit]

Done : clear consensus to merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedurally proposing a merger of Natami in line with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 27. Courcelles 09:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Not notable enough for own article. Mtking (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support in the procedural sense, but it's done already. I stripped down the article to what I thought was appropriate, and put it in the emulation section. Could use form formatting and expansion, but let's keep it to what can be reliably sourced.... --Nuujinn (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There has never been any question of the verifiable nature of many of the sources used in the article, only of their ability to confer notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Enough reliable sources to meet WP:V and show that it deserves a fairly significant mention in this article, but not quite enough to meet WP:PRODUCT or any other notability guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge. I only dispute one of the sources ability to prove notability. I fully support their evidence of WP:V. Merging seems like a good outcome until better sources are published; likely after the subject is released.--v/r - TP 18:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone have sourcing of US DoD use of the Amiga?[edit]

I remember using an Amiga 3000, with laserdisc data set, for TOW missile training some years ago, but cannot find sources to reference the use.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Some civil service computer programmers used home machines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.135.25 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Peripherals, Networking and Trivia[edit]

This article needs streamlined. There is still a lot of shit here, particularly in the sections about peripherals, networking (both of which belong in other articles) and notable historic uses (trivia). Unless anyone is going to rework these soon I am quite tempted to remove most of that content. Crb136 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes by Realamigaman[edit]

I reverted these "changes" back. His edits speak for themselves. I expect edit war from his side. Really sad someone vandalises article about nearly dead computer platform.Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Realamigaman seems to use new name "AmigaOne"... Pavlor (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as "RealAmigaMan" is probably only in it for trolling and petty vandalism, there is a point that AmigaONE and Amiga are not the same brand and shouldn't be treated as such. Recommend moving AmigaONE off this page and linking it via AmigaOS only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.99.231 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

As AmigaOne is brand created by Amiga.Inc for "rebirth of the Amiga desktop platform" it for sure belongs to general article about Amiga. Why remove this part of Amiga history?Pavlor (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Not removal - a link onwards to separate AmigaOne content would be preferable. It is a part of Amiga history indeed, but more a footnote than anything of great relevance. I personally get the feeling that there's more of a little self-aggrandisement about the AmigaOne stuff, but even if the reader doesn't share that opinion, there must eventually come the point where the document is too long for continued contemporary additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.248.178.170 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, there are 15 instances of "AmigaOne" in the article, not single one in the introduction. Most are in small "AmigaOS 4 systems" section (which is logical). I don´t think we really have "AmigaOne abundance problem" here. What specific sentences you have in mind?Pavlor (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Amiga serial transfer speed[edit]

Could someone with editing rights please make a change to the serial port specifications listing in this Wikipedia Amiga article?

Currently it lists it as greater than or equal to 115 Kbps (in the table listing communication interfaces used).

However, it would be nice to inform people of what this port was actually capable on the Amiga -- especially compared to the initial serial chip on the IBM PC and even compared to the UART that followed on later PCs.

The AMIGA Hardware Reference Manual (Third Edition) lists the AMIGA's serial UART performance as follows:

"This UART is programmable for any rate from 110 to over 1,000,000 bits per second."

(page 255) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.240.6 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

But on the next same book says: "With a cable of a reasonable length, the maximum reliable rate is on the order of 150,000-250,000 bits per second. Maximum rates will vary between machines. At these high rate it is not possible to handle the overhead of interrupts."
Maximal real life speed is also limited by CPU. People on EAB reported maximal achieved speed comparable with 115 Kbps value.Pavlor (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amiga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Amiga by Commodore, ACube and A-Eon?[edit]

Some unregistred editor did probably good-faith edits and changed wording in introduction, stating Amiga computers were produced not only by Commodore, but also by Eyetech and A-eon. I reverted this change from these reasons:

1. Current consensus is not to mix original Amiga models and later AmigaOne computers.

2. Although AmigaOne exists for 15 years, its impact on computer world is not (even remotely) comparable to Amiga. We shall not give undue weight to later developements.

3. AmigaOne (like other similar efforts) already has its place in introduction.

Your opinions?Pavlor (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see great damage in having "[...] (and later ACube and A-Eon) [...]", as long as only machines that directly descend from Amiga's IP are included. --LjL (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Then we shouldn´t forget Amiga Mini form CommodoreUSA...Pavlor (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
CommodoreUSA is Commodore, isn't it? LjL (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
If you mean Commodore that released Amiga in 1985, then not. It was new company that got license to Commodore/Amiga IP in 2011/2012, Amiga Mini was Core i7 based computer runing Linux distribution called "CommodoreOS". I don´t object the inclusion of these products to Amiga article introduction, though these are even less relevant than AmigaOne. Giving too much weight to recent/current events would not serve well Amiga article. However, if more editors don´t see this as problem, I will gladly do necessary edits.Pavlor (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
My question is whether the mere inclusion of "(and later ...)" in parenthesis is really giving too much weight. LjL (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you look at my discussion in above "Recent changes by Realamigaman" section, some editors see even current representation of AmigaOne as excessive. That is why I´m probably so overcautious in this regard. We should wait for other opinions and then make final decision. As I wrote, I see no problem in such rewording, but I suggest to wait for more input.Pavlor (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the current version. The non-Commodore manufacturers are mere footnotes in the Amiga's history and are more notable for being part of a long string of attempts to revive the platform rather than achieving any measurable impact on their own. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article rather than be exhaustively complete, and the bulk of this article is about the Commodore era, not the rest. The lead should reflect that, and it can do so by discussing later manufacturers near the end, where that discussion is now. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is that the article should mainly concentrate on the original Commodore Amiga, and only mention later attempts at reintroducing the platform in passing. None of them have been nearly as notable as the original platform. Some even seem to be cash-in efforts that consist of little more than slapping an "Amiga" sticker on a generic Wintel PC. JIP | Talk 08:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I toned down (and corrected) some AmigaOne informations in the article. I think our consensus remains to leave AmigaOne share in the article as it is.Pavlor (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Amiga - the Jurassic computer[edit]

Someone recently added a long piece of text glorifying the Amiga as "the Jurassic computer", responsible for the CGI effects in Jurassic Park, but it was later reverted. I'm going to add it back, but heavily shortened, and with none of the glorifying, just mentioning that the Amiga as used for the CGI effects. But this will probably have to wait until after Christmas. JIP | Talk 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Tramiel and loan[edit]

I delete sentence "Tramiel provided a $500,000 loan to keep the company running, with the proviso that failure to pay it back in one month would leave Atari owning the technology.[10]" since there is no mention of Jack name in reference http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/08/a-history-of-the-amiga-part-3/3/ from link: "CEO Dave Morse gave presentations to a number of companies, including Sony, Hewlett-Packard, Philips, Apple, and Silicon Graphics, but the only interested suitor was Atari, who lent the struggling company $500,000 as part of a set of painful buyout negotiations. According to the contract, Amiga had to pay back the $500,000 by the end of June or Atari would own all of their technology." Atari Inc. (predate Jack Tramiels Atari Corp.) lend money, not Jack. More about this topic you can find in book "Business is Fun" by Marty Goldberg and Curt Vendel with original contract. If someone have time it would be nice to have complete topic covered here on wikipedia. Link to "Business is Fun" book with story about Jack Tramiel, Atari Inc and Amiga: https://books.google.rs/books?id=3FwGMtRafrAC&pg=PA746&lpg=PA746&dq=Marty+Goldberg+and+Curt+Vendel+amiga+atari+contract+business+is+fun&source=bl&ots=1lqmZjSsm6&sig=SJykhw-Z76j_2QoVUakauEzRGL0&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=loan&f=false from page 743 --Calimero (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Amiga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)