Talk:Amiga/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

16-bit

There doesn't appear to have been a lot of discussion about this, for some reason. Yes, the 68k is a 32-bit processor, and yes, AmigaOS is 32-bit, but for about fifteen years the Amiga was referred to as a 16-bit machine. There appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid saying this in-article, which is confusing. Chris Cunningham 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with classifying the 68000 processor is that internally, it is a 32-bit processor, but its external data bus is 16 bits and its address bus is 24 bits. I think that this needs to be explained whenever the width of this processor is discussed. — Val42 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As I say, this is worth mentioning, but the article not mentioning that the classic Amiga is regarded as a 16-bit machine at all seems very odd indeed to me. I thought I'd ask first in case there truly was a good reason for not mentioning this. Chris Cunningham 18:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it I've never heard the Amiga referred to as a 16-Bit computer. There was the Amiga CD 32, Nintendo 64, Sega 16-Bit, and various other systems marketing their bitness but did the Amiga?--Anss123 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "marketed". Clearly one advertises whatever one can get away with. A rudimentary Googling gives a couple of hundred thousand instances of people describing the Amiga as a 16-bit machine, as does Amiga games last time I looked. I grew up with the Amiga and it was always described as a 16-bit machine. Certainly the entire UK computing press referred to it as such. Chris Cunningham 20:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that "bit"-ness can refer to many different things, but yes I agree, I think there should be some mention here. From what I remember, all of the 68000-based Amigas tended to be referred to as "16 bit" machines (not sure if they were marketed as such - although note that they did market the CD32 as the "world's first 32-bit CD-ROM based games console", which seems to imply they didn't think the CDTV counted as 32-bit...). Mdwh 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem is talking about "Amiga" in general vs. the line of Amiga products. The "Amiga" is not regarded as a 16-bit machine, however some of the models in the product line were. I suspect when some of the above people were saying "The amiga..." they had a specific model in mind.The initial 68000 based models of computers (both the Amiga 1000 and Atari's 520/1040st's) were introduced at the time as the "next generation of 16-bit computers" (vs. the previous generation of 8-bit computers). The CD32 was a 32 bit console (as were later amiga's), using the 68EC020 chip, a fully 32 bit chip (as opposed to 16/32). With regards to Mdwh's comment, you answered your own question. The CD32 was a game console (and marketed as such). The CDTV was marketed as more of a set top multi-media box that also happened to play games. --Marty Goldberg 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As Marty has stated, Amiga straddled the two classes. It began as one of the first non "8bit PCs" and was refered to as 16bit. Although the architecture could handle 32bit numbers, there was a hybriding of the two across the whole cpu/bus/etc. It all depends on where you base your classification. The 68000 began life as a 32bit CPU, although most buses were initially 16bit. The later machines were arguably "more 32bit" than the earlier. I think the reason it was initially marketed/known as a 16bit machine was that the previous popular machines were 8bit, and since some of the architecture was 16bit the full 32bit class couldn't be used. After it gained that class in the public's mind, it stuck. --Monotonehell 05:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As you say, "some of the models in the product line were" - and it happens to be that these models are generally considerably better-known than the more recent ones. This article really gives more recent Amiga developments undue weight. There really should be more prominent mention of the Amiga's earlier role as a contemporary of the ST. But I thought I'd ask before adding this, as it seemed contentious. Chris Cunningham 15:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Topics on that subject would belong in History of the Amiga. This article is correctly weighted toward recent developments, it's an introductory article, summarising those subjects that exist elsewhere in more depth and discussing those that do not in greater detail. Amiga goes from the mid 80s to the present, although as you pointed out its more popular years were the late 80s and early 90s. --Monotonehell 20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't summarise the other articles, because it concentrates so much on recent developments. I'm going to add a little explanation about the 16/32-bit thing when next I go over the article. Chris Cunningham 08:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It only summaries other articles where those other article exist. Where there is a topic that is not covered in another article it is dealt with here. That is how it should be, and results in what you see as "weighted toward". But this is not undue weight, since there are entire other articles for dealing with the other topics. History of the Amiga, Original Amiga chipset, Enhanced Chip Set, Advanced Graphics Architecture, Amiga models and variants, Amiga emulation, AmigaOS, Emulation on the Amiga and Amiga software. In some of those cases some over eager editors have expanded the summaries instead of the main articles, that does need to be addressed. --Monotonehell 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Generally considered better known" violates WP:Weasel words and WP:OR and is not a cause for editing, and there's already a comment on it being the rival of the ST. I agree with Monotonehell and the others, that sort of stuff belongs in the Amiga history article. This is a general intro article that spans the entire line and gives no undue weight to recent developments. In fact, there's one tiny section entitled "New Amigas" that's maybe 1/10 of the article. Likewise, adding more on the early systems would simply reproduce material from other entries here. Also, saying "some are better known" is also WP:OR without providing a valid reference to such. As far as adding an explination, the most that should really be added is an addition to the intro line. Possibly "Based on the Motorola 68k series of 16/32 and 32-bit microprocessors", though again, the main 68000 entry classifies it as a 32-bit chip. Additionaly, a look through Amiga's own advertisements and brochures shows they did not push or promote the early systems as "16/32", 16-bit, or 32-bit machines. My comment was in regards to how some of the magazines promoted it, and what I remembered as well, though I would never think of putting that in the entry since this is an encyclopedia and not a fansite, blog, etc.. Either way, you need an actual reference (i.e. an online copy of a magazine from the period) discussing it as such to include that here or its also considered WP:OR. Gross generalizations like "entire UK computing press" also don't cut it, just as google searches do not either. And if you're thinking of using one of these "hundred thousand instances" of sites misstakingly promoting it as a pure 16-bit machine, remember that a reference has to be a reliable source. --Marty Goldberg 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "things I say on a talk page" with "things I think would be appropriate content in an article". I'm also unsure as to why it's being pre-supposed that I'm trying to weaselly insert a POV into the article, having come to discuss it in good faith first, but I suppose I should be used to that by now. If I can identify some established sources I'll bring them on here. Chris Cunningham 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "saying you're being weaselly" vs. "the title of the entry for the Wikipedia policy for not using opinion as fact". Leave the melodrama ("I suppose I should be used to that by now") at the door, people were not accusing you of proposing good faith edits. --Marty Goldberg 16:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to pass opinion as fact. It is, however, pertinent to point out that public opinion of the classic Amiga generally held that it was a 16-bit machine, to the point where magazines such as The One actually named themselves for it, and that omitting this seems negligent. The article can remain factual while reporting popular opinion as it relates to the Amiga's position in the market at the time. Chris Cunningham 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Thumperward's recent edit addresses the concerns quite well, what's people's opinions? I guess back then "16bit" sounded quite futuristic whilst these days 32bit sounds old. I notice that even 1985 A1000 adverts mentioned 16/32bit in their specifications. And pure 32bit from the A3000 model. Interesting stuff. --Monotonehell 09:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick review of the Commodore Amiga 1000 ads. I don't see any discussion about the bits. ----- As for the issue at hand, the way it is dealt with in other articles like Nintendo 64 is to say 32/64... meaning that it is a 64-bit CPU sitting on a 32-bit-wide die. It would be logical to list Amiga as 16/32 as well. ----- On the FreeScale 68000 page, it is listed as "part of the 32 bit family". ----- Trivia: The first consumer good to have 16 bit was the Intellivision game console. - Theaveng 10:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As the reference I just re-added indicates, gaming magazines at the time referred to the Amiga and the ST as 16-bit. I think the intro is clear enough on the ambiguity of the issue. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

When I purchased my Commodore Amiga 500 in 1988, it was not marketed as a 16 bit. It was marketed as an "upgrade for the Commodore 64" with an emphasis on # of colors (16 vs. 4096) and multitasking (which the C64 could not do). Nobody in the 80s talked about bits. It just was not a topic of conversation. ----- The first time I ever heard the word "bit" in a sales pitch was with the Sega Genesis, which was the 1990s. But in the 80s? The concept did not exist in the marketing brochures. 162.58.0.64 16:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

not entirely true - the mac was heavily hyped as a 32 bit machine when it came out. and the pc was likewise as 16 bits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I just went back and looked through the Premier issue of Amiga World, the very first issue of a magazine dedicated to the Amiga, and when they do mention the system's CPU, they reference 16/32.BcRIPster (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Good info. ----- By the way, if I took an Intel Core Duo and put it onto a 32-bit-wide data bus, would it no longer be a 64-bit processor? The answer of course is no. It would still be a 64-bit-based processor with 64-bit instructions, even if it had to sub-divide data into half words to feed it to the outside world. ----- The core is still the core, even if it's sitting on a smaller die with fewer pins. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why "Amiga" and not "Commodore Amiga"

Why is this article under the "Amiga" heading, and not "Commodore Amiga"? After all, my Commodore Amiga 500 has a great big Commodore logo on it (along with all the Workbench); it wasn't made by IBM or Atari. I suppose it's consistent with how the Apple Macintosh is listed under just "Macintosh". Anyway. Just curious. 162.58.0.64 16:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a guess, but it's probably because it wasn't always manufactured by Commordore. There was Amiga Technologies who made it after Commodore went under, and various companies have owned it since. Miremare 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, Amiga Corporation, the company that developed the Amiga computer, later became a subsidiary of Commodore. So it's historically inaccurate to call it the "Commodore Amiga". Dreadstar † 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess. I'll always think of it as a "Commodore machine", because that's what was stamped all over the computer, the manuals, the software back when I owned my A500. To me and my friends, it was the 32-bit version of a Commodore 64. - Theaveng 11:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And even if the Amiga was only ever made by Commodore, I believe Wikipedia policy is to prefer simpler titles - so that's why it's Macintosh, not Apple Macintosh. Mdwh 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be confused with McIntosh...;) Dreadstar † 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There was also a campaign by Commodore to NOT call it the Commodore Amiga but "The Amiga by Commodore" because of Commodore's reputation as making 'toy' computers like the 64. No wonder they're gone now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Boing ball

Boing Ball was recently AFD'd with the result being merge. Could someone who knows more about this than I do perform the merge please? Cheers, Miremare 13:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Monotonehell 15:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone should make a version for the HTC Diamond, I need a Boing Ball on my phone *g* --IceHunter (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Graphics: Sliced HAM (SHAM or SHM)

No discussion about sliced HAM? This was a technique used on the original Amigas to use all 4096 colors without the "blur" of HAM. It required the full attention of the CPU (i.e. no multitasking), but the pictures were beautiful and crystal-clear. I stopped using HAM after I discovered Sliced HAM. - Theaveng 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't. But since you seem to know a lot about it, why not gather a few references and add a paragraph about it? --Monotonehell 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've Googled a bit and put some info on the article. I didn't even knew the mode existed. Yes, why not expanding and referencing the article yourself? Ricnun 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Although the name "Sham" is dubious lol - joking --Monotonehell 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good reference from IBM.com, under "compatibility" "Ham and Cheese". Dreadstar † 06:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This topic is too detailed to be coverted in this article. Instead, it should be coverted in the Amiga Hold-and-Modify article. — Val42 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style, if it gets too long. Dreadstar † 20:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice, I didn't know that article existed! Cool! We should make a section in this article per Wikipedia:Summary style if one doesn't already exist. I'm not paying enough attention to it..obviously..lol..! Dreadstar † 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the "See also" section until someone can add a section for it...or add it to an appropriate section. Dreadstar † 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I used the Sliced HAM routine a lot back in the 1980s (and thus learned about female biology & Sports Illustrated swimsuits).  ;-) I would download scanned images but the HAM mode always had that "blurred" look. Sliced HAM reproduced the image in hi-resolution & crystal-clear detail. - Theaveng 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have those images still ;-) CLUT vs HAM vs Sliced HAM would be an interesting comparison, at least for those of us that have never seen it.--Anss123 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure those images are still out there; there's a whole site dedicated to nothing by Commodore 64 porn & probably one exists for Amiga too. Before I sold my Amiga 500 and 2000, I used my video-camera to capture all my favorite demos, and that also included an image of SI Swimsuit cover ~1990 using the Sliced HAM approach. So I've got a record of my misspent youth. ;-)

I have no idea what CLUT is, but I don't see how you can improve on the 640x480x4096 colors provided by SHAM. Not without upgrading from the Original Chipset to a new chipset. - Theaveng 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Clut is what you get when not using HAM, unless the Amiga has direct color too. --Anss123 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Executable packer to save space (what was it called?)

Another thing I used to do with my Amiga was create a backup Workbench disk, but I would use a compression program to make every command 1/2 its normal size. This offered several advantages: (1) Loaded off the floppy faster. (2) Used less space in the RAM: drive. Unfortunately I don't remember of the name of the program I used..... I only remember the characteristic "flashing" that happened every time I typed "info" or "copy" or some other command. - Theaveng 20:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It was called PowerPacker. I can find a bunch of references to programs that will unpack Amiga PowerPacker files, but not a good ref on the program itself. - Chrisfeohpatti (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More trivia

A tribute to The B-52's' song appears on the Commodore Amiga A500 PCB, ROCK LOBSTER is included in the silk screen along with the component labels and copyright information. ( not Trivia, but important to the model ), Reference http://geektechnique.org/images/amiga500-light-3.thumb.jpg

George Robbins was the perpetrator, and added a B52's song title to every board he worked on.

( Real Trivia ) Other boards thus defaced were:

A600 - Junebug A1200 - Channel Z A590 - Party Mix (Also, the front LEDs labelled 'fred' and 'wilma') Reference http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=88403

Someone should add the real trivia to the trivia section, an A500 is known as a "rock Lobster" e.g. "I have a rock lobster", amiga owners would know that I have a 500 and is not trivia. 172.201.210.190 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean a reference that the Amiga 500 was referred to as a "rock lobster". I know that the words were printed on the board, but I've never heard of anyone referring to the machine as a "rock lobster". Mdwh 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The magazine Amiga Format very often refered to the A500 as a rock lobster, unfortunatly I no longer have the magazines or the A500, I upgraded to an A500+ that i still have ( not a rock lobseter ) :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.71.185 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

How many were sold?

The Commodore 64 sold 30 million units. How many Amiga 500s/2000 were sold? - Theaveng 10:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere around 5m units. Check out this link: http://www.wowdailynews.com/pegasus/total_share.html and I'm sure other figures are available. Alatari 12:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

More Notable Historic Uses

Another historic use was in the production of the game show Lingo. I don't have a citable source for this other than my own memory, but if someone else can do so and wants to add it, feel free. --Rob (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned once in the Lingo (US game show) article as the computer used to select the "Random Word". If the computer was used for production graphics and the like it's easier to make the case for notability than if it were used only for random word selection. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Byte review

Does anyone have the Byte [p]review of the A1000 online? I remember a comparison of the Amiga vs. Mac where they went into graphics primitives and the Amiga's true preemptive multitasking vs. the classic Mac's hackish DA "implementation" and it ended up by predicting the Amiga would have twice the product life of the Mac or some such because the Amiga's problems were easily fixable but the Mac's were deep-rooted and architectural. Very prescient writing, all things considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "Mac DA implementation"? ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Desk Accessory. On the original Mac OS small apps like the calculator or notepad were packaged as driver code and ran inside the running app's address space. That was the only form of multitasking until System 7 introducted cooperative tasking. Another quote I remember from the article was it mentioned how apps were supposed to call WaitNextEvent() (or whatever it was) "as often as possible" and stated the quality of a system was inversely proportional to the number of things an app was supposed to do "as often as possible"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On "contemporary" references

So this source was just removed from the article again using the following rationale:

The supplied citation is NOT of the 1980s press. Therefore it does not support the "contemporary press called it 16 bit" assertion. You need to find an article with a 1980s dateline.

It would appear obvious to me that while the URL is obviously not from the eighties (because they, like, didn't have websites then) that it describes a magazine from that period, which quite clearly (from the source) described the Amiga as a 16-bit machine. This is what we call a "secondary source". I don't see the grounds for removing this reference are valid. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see grounds to remove it. A secondary source written in the 2000s does Not provide proof that the popular press, manufacturers, or users of the 1985-89 time period refered to the Amiga as a 16-bit machine. (I never did; and neither did anyone I knew. "16 bit computer" is a retroactive term that did not exist in the 1980s. It came much later.) For example, today we call record players "record players" but that was not what they were originally called by inventors or their contemporaties. In the 1910s and 20s, they were typically called "grammophones" or "phonographs" or even "victrolas". Today's terminology did not come until much later. ----- When looking for a citation of what people in the 1980s called a piece of technology, you need to dig up an old article from Commodore magazine, RUN, or AmigaWorld that has an 80s dateline, and see what *contemporary writers* called the machine. (Most of these back issues exist on the internet.)

P.S. I want to add that a secondary source is usually not considered a source if it does not provide a link to the original primary document. There needs to be some kind of link to the primary (example: "AmigaWorld January 1986 includes ads saying Amiga has 4096 colors"), in order to be considered a secondary. The article you cited had no link to the primary source, so it can not be considered a source of any kind. It's merely opinion of questionable validity, and has less value than hearsay. ---- Theaveng (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The source in question discusses a magazine titled "The One for 16-bit Games". This is a contemporary magazine, which described the machine as 16-bit. The Sega Mega Drive, which uses the same CPU as the A1000 and was released in 1988, has "16-BIT" written on the front of the case. The suggestion that the term wasn't in use until "much later" is plainly false, and the reference in question is as good as any.

Your description of what constitutes a secondary source is likewise inaccurate, as is your characterisation of the reference as having "less value than hearsay". I can only assume that this was misguided hyperbole. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, 8-bit, 16-bit, etc... was a video game industry phenomenon. It came into play with the Amiga when they launched the CD32 and attempted to enter the console market. Prior to that the Amiga was generally considered a PC and PCs didn't get "x-bit" descriptions, they were described by Mhz. To that end I did a quick scan though first year of Amiga World, Amazing Computing, etc... and my recollection was confirmed by the language I found. If the word "bit" was referenced, it generally occurred in a chart and 16/32 was what was written. I'm looking for my issues of Byte that first covered the system to see what language was used there, but this is getting silly.BcRIPster (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept that the non-gaming press didn't go for "16 bit", but at least in the case of the UK gaming press this was the accepted position for Amigas from day one. So we could reword to reflect this difference. Chris Cunningham (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember UK Spectrum magazine Crash at least referring to the Amiga and Atari ST as 16-bit machines in the late 1980s, distinguishing them from the 8-bits (e.g., see [1]). I can't remember if the Amiga was actually marketed as a 16-bit machine though.

As for "The One for 16-bit Games", there's plenty of information on this at [2]. This certainly counts as a secondary source, and directly references primary material, including scans of the magazine. Mdwh (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But wasn't The One an early 90's magazine? The Amiga didn't start to get classified as predominantly a "Gaming" system until around the release of the Amiga 500. At the time of the 1000 and even at the 2000, it was still marketed as a computer competing with the ST, the //gs and/or Macintosh II and PCs... In fact the Mac II came out about the a same time as the Amiga 1000 and I recall going to events and taunting the Apple reps publicly that task swapping was not the same as multi-tasking. Much fun ensued. Even early owners of Amiga's did not consider their *computers* to be the same as game machines because they did more than play games, and those games weren't console games they were computer games, implying a greater level of sophistication and detail. Console gaming was for kids. Adults played games on computers. Granted the ~$2000 vs ~$200 price point difference helped exasperate this.BcRIPster (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The link I gave says The One started October 1988. Though you raise a good point, I've no idea if the Amiga 1000 was referred to as 16-bit, and currently the article specifically says "original machine" - maybe it should be changed to something vague like "earlier models", or perhaps specifically to "Amiga 500"? Mdwh (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Although having said that, there's a reference here [3] from July 1986. Mdwh (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember very well magazines at the time calling the Amiga and ST 16-bit mainly to differentiate from the earlier 8-bit 64 and XE series. Look for a source in a magazine like Compute! that covered both architectures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)