Talk:Amiga 1000

Predecessor
Why Commodore 128 is mentioned as predecessor to Amiga 1000? They have same case design but Amiga is descendant of Atari line of computers thanks to Jay Miner's heritage. I f nobody objects I'll fix this. Xorxos (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Amiga 1000 does not have the same case design as the C128, that would be the Amiga 500 I believe. In any case it's more of a matter of Commodore positioning the Amiga as the upgrade path from Commodore's eight bit machines. The Atari 8-bits was succeeded by the Atari ST line of computers.--Anss123 (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes Amiga 500 was that. I still dont see how Amiga 1000 could be considered as a successor to C-128. C-128 was sold from 1985 to 1989 while Amiga 1000 was sold from 1985 to 1987. Amiga 1000 appeared 6 monhts after C-128. Doesnt look like successor to C-128. Xorxos (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It does look odd, yes. One can of course say that the C128 has no successor and that the Amiga had no predecessor, but it's clear that Commodore wanted the Amiga to pick up where the Cxx platform left off. In the same vein the Atari 5200 was discontinued years before the 2600 but is still considered the "successor". --Anss123 (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this original research or do you have sources? We could just claim Commodore PC is successor to Amiga. Atari 5200 and 2600 were 8bit gaming consoles but Atari ST was its own family. Xorxos (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why you mention the Atari ST at all, or the significance of the Atari xx00 being gaming computers. They don't change the fact that the 5200 is considered a "successor" to the 2600 despite the fact that the former was discontinued first. I.e. the Amiga 1000 being discontinued before the C128 does not in itself preclude if from being a successor (and for that matter the C128 being discontinued before the C64 does not stop it from being considered a successor to the C64).


 * One can also say that the Amiga has no predecessor, like I've already mentioned, but if you're going to stick a "predecessor" in the infobox it will have to be a Commodore machine, not a Atari machine.


 * That Commodore viewed the Amiga as their successor platform to their 8-bits systems can be gleamed through old marketing material. The C64 being "low end" and Amiga eventually moving into that position as the C64 was discontinued (though C= folded before discontinuing the C64).


 * The Commodore PC and AmigaUX can be seen as attempts at creating something beyond the Amiga, but I have no idea how Commodore viewed those products or how they marketed them.--Anss123 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be so sensitive. C-128 and Amiga 1000 were developed at the same time, launched in the same year, Amiga development was completely separate from C64/C128. Amiga 1000 being more powerful does it make it successor to C-128? Or just because it was launched six months later? Commodore PC is more powerful than Amiga 1000 -- is it therefore successor to Amiga 1000? From C= marketing POV (WP:OR) Amiga 500 was successor to C128 but Amiga 1000? My original suggestion to remove predecessor from Amiga 1000 remain (please see also C-128 talk page and Commodore 65). Xorxos (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your original suggestion mentioned that "Amiga is descendant of Atari line of computers", which I took to mean that you wish to put the Atari as the predecessor. I've mentioned that I have no issue with "no predecessor", so consider the matter closed.--Anss123 (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always been unhappy with the C128 to A1000 succession thing. Marketing-wise it may be true, but the Amiga only became the successor of the CBM 8-bits only after that line died. From the development POV, the Amiga is rather a successor of the Atari 8-bits (just as the ST line succeeds the CBM 8-bits). Technically, neither is true, so I'm happy with how it is. --Zac67 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs copyediting?
I have reviewed this article for grammar, punctuation, etc., and made a few edits, but it seems not to need copy editing. S. Micah Salb, Esq. (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)ssalb1

I agree, I couldn't spot any problems either. I will remove the copy edit template. RuthLivingstone (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Amiga 1000. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://byte.com/art/9408/sec14/art1.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126692-page,8-c,systems/article.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

HI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.42.204.43 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Written in the present tense
why is this written in the present tense? "the amiga 1000 is ... it combines..." its historic surely. "The amiga 1000 was... It combined..." I tried fixing that but it got reverted. Fmadd (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it still combines etc. It's not like if you have a computer like this on the desk that it stops doing things like this because people thinks it's old. Bytesock (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

" It combines the powerful 16/32-bit Motorola 68000 CPU " .... er, this was considered powerful in 1985, but it isn't powerful today. a $5 raspberry pi is orders of magnitude faster, thanks to the magic of moore 's law. "with one of the most advanced graphics and sound systems in its class".. again historical. Compare it to modern GPUs which everyone has in their pocket phones.

It just reads strangely IMO, like someone forgot to update it. Like it's a cut-paste from a 1980s magazine article.

Now write all these in the *past* tense (to give the correct context), and you far better explain why this thing is so interesting. Fmadd (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Put it this way. It does use a blitter but what's powerful changed. However the CPU is powerful for its class. There was no RPi in 1985. Bytesock (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please also check out MOS:TENSE. Hardware may be obsolete but is still in existance today. --Zac67 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

so we need a mix of tenses? 'powerful 68000 / best in class graphics' - has to be said in the past tense to make sense, since those statements only make sense in a historical context. I think this is a very fuzzy issue.

From Wikipedia to Fakepedia?
The photograph was edited again, this time to make it appear as if the screen was naturally grey (i.e., empty), instead of the black void that had been used to hide the Tutankhamen picture as it appears in the un-edited photograph. Wikipedia is not a glossy magazine. If we do not take seriously our aim -- to portray the world as it is -- we're definitely off to the land of fantasy and fiction. --2003:DE:2743:F942:B43D:B0D9:E3EB:9093 (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Memory options
The infobox says the A1000 could only take 512K of memory, yet the main text suggests 8.5 or 9Mb. My understanding is that there were two main upgrade points, one to add 256K and the other to add 512K - I'm not certain whether more than 1Mb is possible. Incidentally this is the onyl Amiga which can be configured to have 768K of memory, which causes some games which require 512K but are enhanced with 1Mb (Lemmings and John Madden Football for example) to fail.--MartinUK (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Amiga architecture supports more memory in "Zorro" space. In the case of A1000, some expansions (eg. external harddrive) may have additional RAM (configured as "Fast RAM"). Pavlor (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)