This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Any objections to me moving the bit about iWin to the Trivia section of the Amiga article? Whilst the iWin hoax is worth mentioning somewhere, I don't feel it's appropriate to put it amongst a list of otherwise serious (even if unsuccessful) attempts to produce real machines. It's out of place, and kind of detracts from the others. Mdwh 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A2000 (and its variants) or B2604e aren´t on the list of hardware supported by OS4. I know only one B2604e owner, who tried to install OS4 on his machine... and failed. I´m removing respective entries in the table, until someone gives source for A2000/B2604 and OS4 compatibility. Pavlor ( talk) 08:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Some un-registred user added note about hardware compatibilty of AmigaOne models with classic Amiga computers. Xorxos then changed this line assuming AmigaOne models aren´t also software compatible. One of claimed features of AmigaOS4 is compatibility with AmigaOS applications. There is transparent emulation of 68k CPU (JIT or interpretive for less compatible software), 68k applications can use PowerPC components (libraries etc.) and PowerPC applications can use 68k components (eg. 68k paint program PPaint can use PowerPC datatypes to load and save pictures). There is also support for some hardware features of classic Amiga computers - since 4.0 Final it is possible to promote planar screen modes (eg. HAM/HAM8) etc.. Some OS parts are still 68k (Arexx). Pavlor ( talk) 05:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I see EVIL-MCDUCK changed titles of two sections ("Commodore Amiga models" and "PowerPC-based AmigaOS models (post Commodore)"). I reverted them back to prior state. However, I agree there is much to improve, but titles choosen by EVIL-MCDUCK aren´t suitable, I think. Original Amiga computers were all introduced by parent companies (Commodore-Amiga.Inc, Amiga Technologies), AmigaOne was always name for 3rd party hardware. Both are distinct platforms. I´m open to better rewording than current state, but I oppose sole word "Amiga" in title of AmigaOne section. What about simple "AmigaOne models"? Pavlor ( talk) 18:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amiga models and variants. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the colours in the timeline. Are they supposed to represent something or are they just there to tell the different models apart? What I find especially weird is that "AGA" is displayed in a red bar, but the models that actually used AGA are displayed in orange bars (A4000 and A1200) and in a blue bar (CD32). JIP | Talk 23:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
how is it possible if kickstarter for 2.0x and 3.x require 512KB of memory but the amiga 1000 had only 256kb of wcs memory Muonium777 ( talk) 11:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Any objections to me moving the bit about iWin to the Trivia section of the Amiga article? Whilst the iWin hoax is worth mentioning somewhere, I don't feel it's appropriate to put it amongst a list of otherwise serious (even if unsuccessful) attempts to produce real machines. It's out of place, and kind of detracts from the others. Mdwh 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A2000 (and its variants) or B2604e aren´t on the list of hardware supported by OS4. I know only one B2604e owner, who tried to install OS4 on his machine... and failed. I´m removing respective entries in the table, until someone gives source for A2000/B2604 and OS4 compatibility. Pavlor ( talk) 08:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Some un-registred user added note about hardware compatibilty of AmigaOne models with classic Amiga computers. Xorxos then changed this line assuming AmigaOne models aren´t also software compatible. One of claimed features of AmigaOS4 is compatibility with AmigaOS applications. There is transparent emulation of 68k CPU (JIT or interpretive for less compatible software), 68k applications can use PowerPC components (libraries etc.) and PowerPC applications can use 68k components (eg. 68k paint program PPaint can use PowerPC datatypes to load and save pictures). There is also support for some hardware features of classic Amiga computers - since 4.0 Final it is possible to promote planar screen modes (eg. HAM/HAM8) etc.. Some OS parts are still 68k (Arexx). Pavlor ( talk) 05:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I see EVIL-MCDUCK changed titles of two sections ("Commodore Amiga models" and "PowerPC-based AmigaOS models (post Commodore)"). I reverted them back to prior state. However, I agree there is much to improve, but titles choosen by EVIL-MCDUCK aren´t suitable, I think. Original Amiga computers were all introduced by parent companies (Commodore-Amiga.Inc, Amiga Technologies), AmigaOne was always name for 3rd party hardware. Both are distinct platforms. I´m open to better rewording than current state, but I oppose sole word "Amiga" in title of AmigaOne section. What about simple "AmigaOne models"? Pavlor ( talk) 18:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amiga models and variants. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the colours in the timeline. Are they supposed to represent something or are they just there to tell the different models apart? What I find especially weird is that "AGA" is displayed in a red bar, but the models that actually used AGA are displayed in orange bars (A4000 and A1200) and in a blue bar (CD32). JIP | Talk 23:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
how is it possible if kickstarter for 2.0x and 3.x require 512KB of memory but the amiga 1000 had only 256kb of wcs memory Muonium777 ( talk) 11:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)