Talk:Amiga/Archive 3

message: 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 talkcontribs
: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)
thread_title:  Trivia??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes there are a couple of Amiga emulators and they are mentioned here.--Anss123 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work ppl! - but what about emulators?

message: 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)
thread_title: Past tense

message: 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)
thread_title:  Amiga CDTV - first computer with CD-ROM? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Say" in AmigaOS 2.0? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First commercially available operating system with pre-emptive multitasking? 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Amiga]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tense for article 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  HAM image issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable users and trivia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I think we should change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  don't forget memory :-) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Amigas