Talk:Amiga/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Trivia???

Honestly, the "trivia" sections of the article either need to be incorporated into the main text or deleted if the information isn't relevant. "Trivia" does not belong in an encyclopedia, it makes it look like a Junior High kid's report or something. Heavy Metal Cellist ^talk_contribs

A lot of the trivia can be put into the history section or corresponding main articles (e.g. Tidbits about the A1000 can be covered by the A1000 article). The Problem is that it is difficult to squeeze the trivia into the various articles without making them difficult to read (jump back a few revisions and you’ll find the trivia as articles littered with random - often of topic - facts). IMO some of the trivia is interesting and I’m against simply deleting it.--Anss123 09:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The amount of trivia on this article is getting ridiculous. Who cares if the Amiga was used as a "personal video recorder" or for piloting ROVs? Really? I'm thinking about breaking the trivia out into its own article titled Notable uses of Amiga throughout history.--Anss123 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work ppl! - but what about emulators?

This article reads a lot better than it did a few months ago. I added a bit of polish myself today.

But as I was going through the article, I didn't notice anything about Amiga emulators for the PC. I'm not up with the latest, but wasn't there an AmigaForever emulator on the PC or something? If so, I think it should get a mention here. Gatoclass 18:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are a couple of Amiga emulators and they are mentioned here.--Anss123 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

External link cleanup

I just nuked most of the external links (I'm not the first to do so); before adding links it might be useful to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:External links. --Gribeco 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What to link to

   (See new guideline proposal here.)

In Wikipedia, it is possible to link to external websites. Such links are referred to as "external links". Many articles have a small section containing a few external links. There are a few things which should be considered when adding an external link.

   * Is it accessible?
   * Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?
   * Is it entered correctly?
   * Is the link, in the context used, likely to have a substantive longevity? For example, it is not useful to link to a homepage that changes often and merely happens to have a relevant picture or article on its front page at the moment. Similarly, be very wary of citing an unstable page as a source.

[edit]

What should be linked to

  1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.
  2. Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
  3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.
  4. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)
  5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
  6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

[edit]

Occasionally acceptable links

  1. For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. For films, Movie Review Query Engine, Hollywood.com, Internet Movie Database, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic offer especially large collections of reviews.
  2. Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.
  3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)
  4. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
  5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).

The guiding principle here is a few. Prior to my intervention, there were 40 external links, which seems grossly out of proportion to me. --Gribeco 20:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There were certainly many that were just random links and shouldn't have been there, though some should perhaps go back. The article is now rather lacking in references, which some sites (e.g., [1]) could have helped serve as. I shall try and have a closer look at them. Mdwh 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bah oui, mais les contributeurs, en France, sont essentiellement des gens bornés. Et ça, c'est plus important que d'être raisonnable.

Past tense

I've just reverted several edits, which put the computer in the past tense. The Amiga concept and operating system are still in development even today and so the phrasing of the article should stay as it is. The revert also included some changes to belittle the significance of features of the computer when it was first released, again not valid edits, especially when referring to multitasking an era where the largest competitors did not have such a feature. ~~ Peteb16 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Amiga CDTV - first computer with CD-ROM?

Firstly, we should probably mention the CDTV somewhere - it may have been a failure commercially, but it was still significant (imo), being initially in "console" form, and including a CD-ROM drive.

But in particular, I note that Apple_Macintosh#Effects_on_the_technology_industry and Macintosh IIvx claim that the Macintosh IIvx was the first computer to have a CD ROM drive. I presume the distinction is being made between computer and console, in which case, when did they start selling the Amiga CDTV with keyboard, mouse, etc? I know that the original release date was 1990 - the Mac came out in 1992. (Note that the CDTV article states it as "the first computer to come with a CD-ROM drive as standard", in contradiction to the Mac articles.) I don't think we should let the Macintosh editors claim they had all the firsts ;) Mdwh 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Say" in AmigaOS 2.0?

The article says, "In the original 1.x AmigaOS releases, a Say program demo included with AmigaBASIC programming examples. For 2.0, Say became a standard utility program which did not need AmigaBASIC". Is that correct? I thought the narrator was dropped from AmigaOS 2.0. Also, I think Say was a standalone program in Workbench 1.2, but I'm not totally sure of this. Can somebody fact-check this? Wonderstruck 10:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an utilities/say executable (V37.4, 6220 bytes), on my 2.05 Workbench disk, also the devs/narrator.device (V37.7, 65760 bytes). Femto 11:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Amiga speech synthesis has never needed AmigaBASIC. The Say program demo with the animated mouth and all might have, but it is possible to make the Amiga speak from the command line, with the files Femto pointed out. The files are no longer included as standard from 2.0 onwards (because of licensing issues), but if copied there, they will work perfectly. JIP | Talk 06:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a slip of the keyboard, but Say was still available in 2.0, it was removed in 3.0. —Pixel8 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Could be. I have never owned a 2.0-based Amiga, I went straight from a 1.2 500 to a 3.0 1200. JIP | Talk 08:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Meh, IIRC say was removed in 2.05, IOW first release of 2.05 had say but it was later removed. I recall this because the say in 2.05 was better than the one in 1.3.--Anss123 10:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First commercially available operating system with pre-emptive multitasking?

UNIX could be purchased from AT&T before the amiga existed, there was also OpenVMS, Multics I am sure I am missing a tremendous number of others, they might not have been afordable but they were available.

Hmm okay, it needs to be changed. First home (or personal?) computer with one? Mdwh 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Time-Line

A time-line of dates, models, and features would be nice.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Amiga

Since there are so many articles related to the Amiga here, as well as many Amiga enthusiasts, I've started a WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Amiga. --Anivron 05:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tense for article

I see GatoClass has been modifying the tense of the article from present to past. Up to this point, the article has been written in the present tense (and I've tried to match that in edits). It is arguable what the tense should be - is the Amiga "in the past" and therefore past tense, or do you write the article based on the fact that Amigas still exist and are still being used and some software work done, in which case present tense is appropriate. Comments? GatoClass, you must have an opinion... jesup 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that present tense should be used when describing the technical parts. I.e. The sound chip, named Paula, supported four sound channels... reads worse to me, and is arguably wrong as Paula never stopped supporting anything.--Anss123 21:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose to move the tense back to present tense (and make a pass over it to check - some uses of past are correct). GatoClass: could you comment? I'm in no rush; it doesn't hurt the article for now. jesup 22:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be copyrighted, but depends whether it counts as Fair Use I guess (as with all the copyrighted images on the article page)? Mdwh 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would likely not be fair use on YouTube. I'll review it personaly in a bit. ---J.S (t|c) 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not fair-use on YouTube. ---J.S (t|c) 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

HAM image issues

The HAM image is not a very appropriate one (personal signature is 1/3 the screen), and the copyright info on the image is wrong (it's not a game image). A better image should be found for HAM for both here and the HAM page. jesup 03:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable users and trivia

While lots of information has been added in the last few days to notable users are trivia, these sections were already too long before the additions. This is an encyclopedia article, not a website for listing of trivia. At best, trivia and notable users should be moved to a new page - but I'd advise strongly editing the list to a small number that are in proportion and are relevant, notable, and add something to "Amiga" as an encyclopedia article. For example: Astronomer Charles Kowal - is his use of an Amiga notable to a reader of an encyclopedia about Amigas in general? That's an extreme example, but for example all the musicians should be wrapped into a single paragraph or two.

The separation of Trivia and Notable Users was to try to tame the over-long list that existed; now both are too long. See WP:NOT — jesup 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to made a first summary of these two sections (and I noted also that some minutes before me, user ChrisGriswold moved Trivia section below in the article). --Raffaele Megabyte 13:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the triva section, moving its contents into the body of the article or to other articles as warranted. Others are welcome to clean up my insertions as they see fit. The noteable persons bit's next. A bit harder a task... --Monotonehell 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good start; though I haven't reviewed all the removed info to see if any more of it has a good spot in the article. I should note that per Wikipedia External Link guidance it should be called "External links". If we need to police it better, so be it. We can also add warnings (in the source (via a comment) or in the text) that Wikipedia is not a link list. — jesup 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL is under a lot of discussion, that particular guideline isn't consensus - there's a good consensus to change to "further reading" but there's a cabal blocking the change. Either way the term "external links" is honey for spam flies and changing it helps random acts of spam. here's the original section which stated that Further reading is the preferred option, with the option to call the section external links if they are all the items are online. The idea of Further reading is that it allows non-online texts to be referenced (you know "books" - non-volatile storage media ;) --Monotonehell 08:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Story of Amiga is full of trivia, interesting and curious facts. I think that more than deleting it, it deserves an article of its own.

Also it is very difficult to delete and/or move list of notable users. There are people outside and wannabe historical expert that want to NEGATE the influence of Amiga in the history of computing, negating its characteristics and unique features, and even also trying to negate that famous people used Amiga to let it raise the idea that Amiga was un-relevant. This is very dangerous for it could change the vision o readers regarding the timeline of the history of computing and to keep a correct vision of the historical facts. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte 15:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia by definition is not encyclopedic. Although it is fine in short sections in articles, it doesn't get its own article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Links revert war

At first I thought this was just the work of a vandal pushing the undo button. But it seems the editor in question has created an account. But isn't aware that this kind of conflict should be talked about, not just warred about. So I'll do it for them. --Monotonehell 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These are the links they've added...

1Amiga, Inc.

This one is already in the further reading section.

2Amiga.org

This is a community portal and forum. Doesn't meet the criteria for an external link on WP.

3Amiga Music Preservation The database for Amiga musics and musicians.

This is a database of mod musicians and mods. It's also listed in some of the articles regarding mod files.

4Amigaworld.net - Official support forum for the AmigaOne.

This is another community portal and discussion forum. Again not EL material.

5Amiga Wiki - Wiki dedicated to all things Amiga-related.

Is what it says on the label. But replicates the information on 100 other amiga sites out there. Only outstanding feature is that it's a wiki.

6The Big Book of Amiga Hardware - Extensive list of various Amiga peripherals

Another list of amiga hardware and software. It very extensive.

The question is; do any of these meet the requirements for listing? I tend to think 2 and 4 do not. The others are up for debate. --Monotonehell 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are (and what I left in my edit) is that the Amiga Wiki and the Big Book site are the only two I can possibly see being allowed here. The rest are more "scene" sites, that really don't do much for an encyclopedic article other than give material/resources for actually using Amiga's (or Amiga emulators) now. While important to someone using an Amiga, they are not relevant for an actual encyclopedia article - i.e. they do not constitute an actual reference of some sort. A resource is not a reference. --Marty Goldberg 17:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this position, I visit most of these sites on a regular basis, but I store them in my bookmarks not on wikipedia. --Monotonehell 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that I think the requirements for external links is broader than that for references - it can perhaps include useful relevant material (e.g., "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.") "Further reading" isn't quite the same as "References". (That's not to say I think forums should be linked, they shouldn't - but I don't think a site should be discounted just because it's only of interest to Amiga users.) Mdwh 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

4 is afterall a support site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.165.249.35 (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I think we should change

Under Operating systems->AmigaOS, Second paragraph, last sentence. "Recently this memory protection feature has been implemented in Amiga OS 4." Should be changed to “Later this memory protection feature….” Not recently… Thanks. Note: I don't like to directly edit the texts... that's why I am posting this here.

I don't see why not, you raise a perfectly valid point and one that is backed by Wikipedia policy. Information shouldn't be written in such a way that it can become outdated. ~~ Peteb16 01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

don't forget memory :-)

IIRC the amiga had an interesting memory architecture. it would be nice to see something about this added to the hardware section. Ericfluger 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean the chip-mem/fast-mem/slow-mem mess? Guess you have a point there. Chip mem is a bit like today's Unified Memory Architecture, I.e a pool of memory than can be used by all subsystems. Sadly chip-mem is limited to 2 MB, and 7 something MHz due to limitations in the Amiga chipset. Fast-mem can be used by the CPU and expansion boards (but not the chip-set), it is called fast mem because it's not slowed down by the chipset but is otherwise pretty much like the memory on modern PCs. Slow-mem is just like Fast mem except it hangs of a slow interface (or so I'm lead to believe).--Anss123 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the chip memory was faster. I think that it was the same speed of memory, but it was used at about twice the speed of "fast mem". However, the chip memory was accessible by both the custom chips and the CPU. Most of the time, the custom chips would not interfere with the CPU. But under some circumstances, the custom chips would need more bandwidth so they would introduce wait-states for the CPU. But the "fast mem", even though accessed at a slower rate, didn't have the potential of wait-states introduced by the custom chips. I don't have the references for this, but it should be in the Hardware Reference Manual. Val42 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New Amigas

Now that there might come some new Amigas on the market. Please cite your sources, please do not just copy/paste your info from news outlets and please link stuff to appropriate wikipages. -- Henriok 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found the media release that the IP possible copy and pasted from. Anyone want to copy edit? --Monotonehell 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ROM section

Removed this paragraph from it:

When AmigaOS crashes, it displays a flashing red box with a number - two 32-bit hexadecimal values. It is called Guru Meditation screen. The number is usually the 68000 exception number or one of a list of error numbers, and some other piece of information, such as the address of the task running when the crash was detected. Lists of Guru errors codes were published regularly by Amiga magazines, so experienced users could use it as a useful reference. The term "Guru Meditation" comes from the fact that some of the original design team would see how long they could balance on an Amiga 'joyboard' while thinking about problems.

This section since it seemingly talks about AmigaOS, not the ROM --Anss123 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your confusion may be because you're trying to see the OS and the ROM as two separate entities. In the classic Amigas the ROM was part of the OS. Intuition + Workbench = OS. --Monotonehell 10:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough. The AOS article states The Kickstart also contained many stock parts of the Amiga's operating system, such as Exec, Intuition and the core of AmigaDOS. But is the fact that the Guru Meditation error codes equates to the 68000 exception number all that relevant to the ROM chip?

That part of the OS is in ROM is noteworthy, and should be mentioned, but details is better left to the AmigaOS article.

--Anss123 11:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Data coming from a chip being faster than data coming from a floppy disk or 1988-era hard drive seems like common sense - do we really to dig up a citation? --Anon.

Most definitely yes. Having the OS in ROM improves boot up time but ROM is slower than RAM so just having the OS in ROM does not mean it is slower than an OS that load itself into RAM from a floppy disk. Understand?

As it happens, AmigaOS does not load all of itself into RAM, but leaves some subsystems residing in the slow ROM, which would make the Amiga slower than systems that does not do this (all else being equal, and assuming you don't run into memory limitations due to loading the entire OS into RAM).

--Anss123 22:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see now...

Claim 1: Compared to other platforms, the Amiga's storage of critical operating system components in the chip instead of on disk allowed for increased speed and responsiveness

What other platforms? The Mac has its option ROM, the ST has everything in ROM and DOS is built on top of its BIOS stored in ROM. The C64 and other 8-Biters have their OSes in ROM. That leaves what? Unix?

Claim 2: The ability to upgrade the system by replacing a single chip was considered a great advantage in the Amiga's commercial lifespan.

I completely fail to see how having to upgrade the Kickstart ROM alongside the OS was any advantage at all, I would call that a disadvantage resulting in annoyances such as Kickstart switchers. --Anss123 23:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Claim 2: I suppose it's an advantage over not being able to upgrade the ROM at all. I think the main problem with the parts you've identified, is that they are not well written. Getting a new version of the ROM that would allow you to boot from a hard drive and similar improvements were seen as an advantage. Having the Intuition parts of the OS on ROM instead of on a disk were seen as an advantage as a disk was slower and could be over written or damaged more easily. This is all from the perspective of an Amiga user back Then. Seen from today's perspective one can easily ridicule the system.

I think it best to simply rewrite the section to include the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions regarding how preferable such a setup was. Perhaps something along these lines:

The classic Amiga Operating System consisted of Intuition and Workbench. In the Amiga 1000 model, Intuition was first loaded from a floppy disk, followed by Workbench. Later models held Intuition on a ROM, improving start up times. Models could be upgraded by changing the ROM.

But worded better. XD --Monotonehell 13:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)