Talk:Amiga/Archive 1

message: This article should be deleted.  Nobody acutally uses Amigas anymore.  Wikipedia is not the place for nonstandard computers to spread self-aggrandizing propaganda about themselves.--AirportTerminal 11:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You soooo got pwned by one of the admins :P 83.76.220.226 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment Hopefully people can refrain from responding to obvious flamebait. Thanks. Mdwh 11:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: *Support — Nintendude moved the page unilaterally, which is bad form in my book. — Pixel8 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (The above comment must have been added when the top of the page still said "It has been suggested that the article Amiga be moved to Amiga." This is because the article was originally called Amiga (computer), and someone put a merge suggestion on the talk page, and the article was moved to Amiga, but the merge suggestion wasn't removed. Now it is.) JIP | Talk 06:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: The AmigaOne series of computers were produced under license from the current holders of the Amiga Intellectual Property, and were sold bundled with AmigaOS 4.0, which is a continuation of the same operating system that shipped with Commodore Amigas. This is enough to justify their presence in the table of commercially released Amiga computers.
--Lumpbucket 15:30, 08 Dec 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of AmigaOne series 

message: Only the original amiga chipset was ahead of its time. By the time AGA was unveiled, it was simply not competitive anymore. (too low memory bandwidth, no chunky mode, low video bandwidth) Sorry, but lets stay by the facts.--Qdr 19:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aga superior" 

message: What the heck does this caption mean?
:A just started Amiga 500 with kickstart 34.5 asks the user to insert the Workbench 1.3 floppy
Who or what is "A"? Also, the transition to "asks the using" doesn't make sense. Is this supposed to be "which asks the user"?
WpZurp 19:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Arpingstone for the clarification. WpZurp 16:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  can't decode the cryptic caption 

message: How can it be said that the AmigaOS is based on a microkernel?
I've had discussions about this in the past, and people disagreed widely, and I don't even have a real opinion myself.
But it seems quite apparent that the AmigaOS being a microkernel is not a fact.
Does the AmigaOS have a clear distinction between kernel mode and user mode? I'm afraid not.
Can you have a real microkernel without a clear distinction between kernel mode and user mode? I'm not sure, but I'm sure many authoritative people would say you can't.
So, I'm going to delete the references to microkernels if nobody objects in the next few days.
----
The AmigaOS has very little in the way of distinctive modes (kernel mode versus user mode) because it has very little in the way of security. Lack of memory protection and privledge restrictions leave very little room for the necessity of a "kernel mode".
That said, a definition of the Amiga kernel is necessary to continue with this. Is it the exec library, the entire contents of kickstart? If just exec, then perhaps it is a microkernel, if its all of kickstart it becomes monolithic and well in excess of the bounds I define a microkernel with.
----
exokernel seems to fit what there, what do you guys think?
----
Nope. Exokernel it is the name of a specific class of kernels.
There was people in Wikipedia who in the past wanted to delete Amiga Exec from microkernels [see Kernel (computer science) invoice into Wikipedia] but I found a good compromise who saved Amiga far from being deleted.
Exec is an "Atypical Microkernel". It has gained its own class into Kernels and we all must refer to it as already stated.
--Raffaele Megabyte 10:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microkernel?! 

message: I feel this article needs a total rewrite, it lacks a lot of historical information don't you think? I feel the Atari ST article reads much better than the Amiga one, because it contains the historical context which this one seems to be lacking in right now. In fact it has more information about the Amiga's purchase than this one! 
The whole saga of Commodore's purchase of Amiga corporation probably needs an article to itself though. I'm in the process of writing up a brief history about the origins of Amiga, but should I keep it short and put it in this article, or expand it and put it in a separate article?  This article seems to be pretty long as it is... 
Also certain things needs some reduction, like the info about the keyboard. (Was the Amiga's keyboard more important than the custom chipset!?) The more I read the article, the more random and disjointed it becomes. Agree or disagree? ADSR6581 10:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? The UI really does freeze while accessing the menus. This is one of the things that annoys me about the Amiga. Try it, open AmigaAMP or Frogger or similar, play a song and then access the menus. You get a similar effect in MS Windows if you hold in the X button in many applications (Media Player Classic for instance). Anss123 13:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'm not sure we're talking about the same ting. I'm not talking about the OS crashing; I'm talking about small animations stopping up while in the menus. (e.g. The progress bar of a media player for instance). To me it looks like the OS is blocking some message queue, which something I consider to be a clear case of bad design. (But not overtly important in the large scale of things) Anss123 10:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been meaning to do more than the occasional tweak to these articles for a while now. I think that a vigorous history section would be great; if it got too big or detailed, it could be broken out into a new article at that point. Also, one of these days, I'm going to open up one of my A1000s and take a picture of the design team signatures (and paw prints) on the inside of the case, for the A1000 article. --Ray Radlein 23:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
----
I just corrected the missconception on the Amiga/Atari Inc./Atari Corp. relationship someone had put up in the trivia area.  It's also wrong in the Atari ST entry.  The updated info is based on current available material (including documents recovered by Curt Vendel of the Atari Historical Society) and my own interviews with Leonard Tramiel. --Marty Goldberg 16:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History