Talk:Amiga 500

message: I believe this article references another article (on Tom's Hardware) that is incorrect.  I have tried changing it many times but have been warned that I am not allowed to change something with a reference.  Even though I believe the reference is wrong.  It was suggested that I challenge the reference.  I'm not quite sure how to do that so I am trying here.  
The line I would like to change is:
While not the first computer to have an open architecture, the Amiga is considered due to its expandability as one of the early examples.
While I do believe the Amiga has an "open architecture", I don't believe it was "one of the first" computers to have that feature or an "early example".
The reference to Tom's Hardware is here:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/history-of-computers,4518-31.html
Towards the bottom of the article, the author states:
Amiga was one of the first computers with an open architecture. It had two expansion slots, one on the side and one on the bottom
My issue is that I don't believe it was "one of the first".  I thought it was widely known that the Apple 1, Apple II and the IBM 5150 were designed around an open architecture and they were released to the general public many years before the first Amiga was released.  I believe the Amiga 1000 was released in late 1986.  Whereas the Apple 1 & II were released late 1976.  10 years is not "close enough" in my opinion.  Especially in the computer industry.  If someone claimed the Amiga was "one of the first" computers to support color then that claim would quickly be rejected.
Here are a couple references to the IBM 5150 and the Apple computers talking about their open architecture.  I believe these references are more accurate.
Apple 1 ("single peripheral slot")
 
https://apple2history.org/history/ah02/
Apple II ("It became one of the most important and unique features of the Apple II, and a significant part of its open design")
https://apple2history.org/history/ah03/
IBM 5150 (several references to open design of the 5150).
https://www.filfre.net/2012/05/the-ibm-pc-part-1/
What I would like to happen is the reference to the Tom's Hardware article be removed.  I have even contacted the original author to see if he could correct his article.  But I received no response.  The reference should be removed and the line supporting it as well.  A more generic term like "The Amiga was designed around an open architecture" would be much more accurate.  I've tried changing it to this several times but my edits keep getting removed.
Please let me know if there is a better way to challenge this reference.  Or, if you think I'm wrong.  I just feel that the Amiga was many great things...but "one of the first" with an open architecture is not.  
cbmeeks 13:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenge the "Open Architecture" line

message: Mmmmm, very fond memories of my Amiga 500.  Nice work. -- LukeyBoy
* Support renaming this article as Amiga 500 in the interest of uniformity.  Related articles, such as Amiga 1200 and Amiga 4000, are not abbreviated or concatenated.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Naconkantari. Haakon 21:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone have any (US based) articles from March to July 1987 about the A500? I have looked through the google groups archive from Jan to July '87, but it doesn't make any specific mention of a release date. The impression I get from the archive is around June. —Pixel8 14:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A500 release date

message: It looks like a PC owner wrote the summary. Amigas have had an interrupt system called "IRQs". This is IBM PC and compatibles terminology. Likewise, why mention that there's no Port-mapped I/O? As this is purely an Intel/Zilog phenomenon, why say it? It would be like saying there was no segmented memory or 640KB memory limit - these things are purely IBM PC topics and the fact they're not on other computers is indicative of the other computers not being IBM PCs. Should I say that the Amiga 500 doesn't contain pork because it's not a pork sausage?
:PC-users may be limited in their view of computer architecture :-) Electron9 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd 

message: In Release section, "neither the A1200 nor the A600 replicated the commercial success of its predecessor as, by this time, the market was definitively shifting from the home computer platforms of the past to commodity Wintel PCs and the new "low-cost" Macintosh Classic, LC  and IIsi models", I added tag . I dont dispute its message but wording is historically inaccurate. In 1992-1995 MS-DOS was still prominent on PCs (so, why Wintel PC?) and I dont recall Macs were competing against Amiga 500 at all since Amiga (500) was mostly a gaming machine. And what about consoles? Amiga and Amiga 500 was losing the market but better sources could be used. Xorxos (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A600/A1200 and PC/Macs 

message: This article claims that it is commonly known as "Rock Lobster" in the lead, but it doesn't mention it anywhere in the body or cite the claim.  Can anyone cite the claim or shall I delete it? Chrisrus (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "B52/ROCK LOBSTER" is literally printed on the board. Zac67 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but this picture you've provided doesn't seem to show it. Chrisrus (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Erm - have you looked at the bottom right edge of the board just below the FDD? Zac67 (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I see it now.  And this picture proves that it "is commonly known as" that? Chrisrus (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article just states "also known as" which the picture doesn't exactly prove but printing on the board pretty much suggests the code name's no secret. Zac67 (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be the codename and it clearly printed on the board.  But has anyone, ever, referred to any Amiga as the "Rock Lobster".  As in, "Hey Frank!  Let's go to my house and play Shadow of the Beast on my new Rock Lobster!" cbmeeks cbmeeks 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock Lobster?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amiga 500. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524012705/http://www.amigau.com/aig/sales.html to http://www.amigau.com/aig/sales.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You mentioned the price of the A500 being in the region of £499, i'm pretty sure it was a lot less than that, i bought my first A500 in 87 and i'm certain i only paid £199, £499 would have been well out of my price range, i also bought a second one in 89 and i know for sure i only paid £99.99 for it then.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.82.95 (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1987 it may have dropped to £199 at some point (but that seems lower than I'd expect, or is supported by the article which has a BYTE magazine stating the A500 was $649 in 1987) - but when launched it was £499.  Here is a link to a launch advert that states ""Incredibly only £499.99 including VAT"  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price of the A500 

message: I thought that the Amiga 500 had a logo, so I searched the Web and found not one, but several logos used on the various computer packages and front page of A500 manuals. I figured that only one of them had to be the standard logo, and finding it was actually difficult. However, I settled on this logo, with the italicized AMIGA in all caps and the '5' slightly larger than the "00". The reason I think that this is the most commonly used logo for the model is not only due to its apparent ubiquity, but also because its look and feel is clearly shared by the logo of the future Amiga 500 Mini. That is just my guess, and I would appreciate any help on determining the logo. FreeMediaKid$ 12:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo