Talk:AmigaOne X1000

Workstation term

I wonder whether X1000 should be called a workstation, which - given it's capabilities - can't be compared with the the modern, more powerful (e.g. in terms of a computing power) computers, which are called workstations.

nimrod7777 (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

According to a company web site it is "a high end system".Xorxos (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

therefore, I drew attention to this - the info should be clarified. It is a conceivable situation that in 2011 someone produces 16-bit machine and advertise it as a workstation, because for the fans of the 16-bit machines, this type of product could be recognized as a high-end machine, such as Natami could be considered as high-end in comparison with the Classics, but comparing this product with any other computer available it couldn't be considered high-end. nimrod7777 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

X1000 is unreleased!

it's vaporware —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.29.243 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

this hardware is not released!

But the Amiga is making a proper comeback, finally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.120.73 (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the point? It won't be capable of running modern (2010 era) software. The market share will be too low to see ports of any major software. According to the FAQ, the X1000 will be capable of playing Quake 3 but not Quake 4. A low end PC can play Quake 4 these days!

From a technical point of view, the X1000 will be capable to run Quake 4 and (probably) any other game based on id Tech 4. When this will happen depends on when id will release the source code of id Tech 4. According to [[1]], it should be released this year.--151.8.79.164 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So seriously, what's the point? Nostalgia? Stick with your old Amiga or use an emulator173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

This article should not exist until the AmigaOne X1000 does, if it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.175.31 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Many articles have been made in the past, for forthcoming products or events, and cited based on official or reliable sources. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 16:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone should nominate this article for deletion. Article is not encyclopedic. Subject does not even exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.207.18 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No. This is a planned release. There is a Wikipedia article about Pokemon Black and White, so should we delete this too? Maybe we should delete Second Coming of Christ—that hasn't happened yet, either, and many people don't believe it ever will. What about planned Mars missions or NASA's Constellation_program? Things that haven't happened yet can still be notable. There is room for improvement, but that doesn't mean it should be thrown away. Eris Discord | Talk 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's just yet another random Windows-loving jackhole who talks crap online. There's one on every single tech-related discussion page. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 06:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at that IP's edit history, they seem to have some strange anti-Amiga chip on their shoulder. Keep an eye on this page for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm (talk • contribs) 06:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest merging this article with main AmigaOne article. This thingy is not released until christmas 2010 and at this moment there is nothing special with this machine.Xorxos (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. See above for the reasons why its release being in the future isn't an issue. For the issue of merging, consider this: Wikipedia has an article for the whole iMac family as well as separate articles for the iMac G3, G4, G5 and the assorted Intel iMac models. The situation is analogous for the AmigaOne series, since the A-Eon AmigaOne has less in common with its Eyetech predecessors than an iMac G4 does with a G3. 89.243.24.176 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Other articles are irrelevant to this discussion. Every article should be reviewed on their own.Xorxos (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course other articles are relevant. If the iMac articles set the precedent of having a separate article for each major revision, that precedent should be applied here. Given that the AmigaOne series is much smaller volume than the iMac series, obviously we wouldn't have separate articles for the A1-SE A1-XE and uA1, but it makes sense to have an 'AmigaOne (Eyetech)' article and a separate 'AmigaOne (A-Eon)' section, since the two are very different machines that just happen to share the AmigaOne brand. The 'AmigaOne (A-Eon)' article might as well be called 'AmigaOne X1000' for now, since it is so far the only machine in A-Eon's AmigaOne lineup. 89.243.24.176 (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you say we should delete separate artciles for the iMac G3, G4 etc. I am all for it. Still, if you actually read those pages you would find out they have content and notability. This AmigaOne X1000 article is only spec sheet. Where is the story behind machine? What makes this particular AmigaOne model important? Please tell us. Tell us in the article.Xorxos (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, big edit time. Added History and a section on the Xena Coprocessor. 89.243.24.176 (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

More X1000 facts

- Its in beta testing - It was publicly presented, as said in the article - Planned reiease date has moved from summer to christhmas 2010. - The Amiga OS4 does not YET support dual core, 64 bit or XMOS, so it needs update - There is announcement of strategic partnership of AmigaOS4 maker and A1000 maker http://hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=136

hyperion-entertainment-cvba-and-a-eon-technology-cvba-announce-strategic-partnership&catid=36:amigaos-4x&Itemid=18

- Presumably, PPC Linux such as Debian will be avaliable for the system, as it exists fro all PPC Amiga boards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.7.179 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's now halfway through 2014. Amiga OS 4 still does not support two cores, and until it does, this article should reflect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.0.236 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

computer vs Amiga in the summary

I see there were some fights for the very first words: "AmigaOne X1000 is a PowerPC-based computer". Although AmigaOne was (according to Bill McEwen in 2002) intended for "rebirth of the Amiga desktop platform", I think it would be better to use plain word "computer" for the initial description - it really is not necessary to repeat what is obvious (AmigaOne is now de facto PowerPC Amiga desktop platform). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlor (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

For the AmigaOne article I used "series of Amiga branded computers", so something like "AmigaOne X1000 is a PowerPC-based Amiga branded computer" could be useable? Your opinions?--Pavlor (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

How A-eon is calling it? Xorxos (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A-EON certainly doesn´t use sole word "Amiga" for describing its new computer. I think we both agree that original wording "computer" is most appropriate here. I tried to find some compromise ("Amiga branded computer"), but that didn´t satisfy that one user promoting word "Amiga". My current position is no compromise - I support using plain word "computer", because using "Amiga" would open endless discussusions what is and what is not Amiga - really not something that should be in encyclopedia.--Pavlor (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea of it "qualifying" as Amiga or not is moot: Amiga is a brandname, one that A-Eon certainly do not have the rights to use. They use the "AmigaONE" brand instead. Many fans of OS4 will - either through ignorance or a deliberate attempt to deceive - call this hardware an Amiga. They are of course welcome to their opinion and call it what they want at home, but legally it is not an Amiga and as such should not be called one on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.0.236 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

AmigaOne brand was created by Amiga.Inc, so it is "Amiga" brand... Both "AmigaOne" and "Amiga One" are legal under September 30 2009 settlement agreement terms.Pavlor (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not that simple. AmigaONE != Amiga; Amiga is a very specific brand. The distinction is legal but very concrete all the same. No one is denying that this can be called an AmigaONE. If A-Eon had the rights to call their system an Amiga, they almost certainly would be doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.0.236 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is that simple. Any brand created by Amiga.Inc is "Amiga" brand - be it AmigaDE, Amiga Anywhere or Amiga One. Hyperion can use subset of "Amiga" brands - "Amiga OS"/"AmigaOS", "Amiga One"/"AmigaOne". Only computers licensed by Amiga.Inc can have term "Amiga" in their name (like dAmiga, AmigaOne XE, Commodore Amiga Mini) - similarly only computers licensed by Apple can have term "Mac" in their name (Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro etc.).Pavlor (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please re-read the Amiga Inc. settlement details. It says nothing about subsets of brands, only that Hyperion have the perpetual right to use "Amiga OS". It is unclear (and probably unlikely) that Amiga Inc. ever owned the AmigaONE brand.

Well, AmigaOne brand was created by then Amiga.Inc back in year 2000 to market desktop computers for AmigaDE. In the end, only PowerPC version ever appeared and never ran AmigaDE, but AmigaOS. In November 2001 Amiga.Inc, Hyperion and Eyetech signed original AmigaOne agreement creating legal base for AmigaOS4 (Hyperion) and AmigaOne (Eyetech) projects. In 2009, after more than 2 years of legal battle, remaining partners in that original agreement (Amiga and Hyperion) signed new Settlement Agreement granting Hyperion rights we discussed above. Any other questions?Pavlor (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No original research. The article is about AmigaOne X1000 model which run AmigaOS 4. Describe the computer model, its specifications and specialities and supported operating systems. Xorxos (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think, I gave enough sources about AmigaOne background (name, history, legal aspects) - that is what original unsigned editor asked about. As I wrote above, I don´t want to pollute this article with rather philosophical "what is Amiga" nonesense. Speaking about sources... there are sections in grave need of them (entire reception section).Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for philosophical debate. 'Amiga' is a legal trademark. There very few companies with the rights to use it, and A-Eon is not one of them. Claiming that AmigaOne must equal Amiga because it is an 'Amiga brandname' (whatever that means) is also disingenuous. Please help keep the fan edits out of the article let's deal in hard fact only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.45.247 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look through history of this page, you will see I removed "Amiga" from the introduction. AmigaOne is Amiga brand created for computers intended to run AmigaDE (later/now AmigaOS4), nothing more. Although connection to "Amiga" is clear, it is distinct product from Amiga computers of Commodore/AT era.Pavlor (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

PA6T 1.8 GHz vs 2.0 GHz

I see some editors (unregistered) repeatedly change clock rate of PA6T from 1.8 GHz to 2.0 GHz. I would like to see source for such claim. A-eon page shows 1.8 GHz as standard frequency (nominal frequency 2.0 GHz was not used for X1000).Pavlor (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

PA semi announced CPU at 2Ghz. Since X1000 is only commercially avail computer with it, now we know its only 1.8Ghz

CPU was designed to 2Ghz and above, but never manufactured, due to Apple purchase. http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2199 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastavox (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Waaaaaaiiiit....

A "workstation" in a tower case ... with a very powerful but under-used processor lurking behind the scenes, capable of massive parallelism when more of them are added, ultimately based on the Inmos Transputer ... and the UI and ultimately quite a lot of the actual usability of the machine dealt with by a low powered, rather previous-generation CPU ... derived from the successor product line to what was originally used in a bunch of mid-80s to early-90s computers, and running an OS that's morphed from one used in the same machines, and, in the time of the product launch at least, is decidedly niche ... originally from a company that was at one time run by Jack Tramiel who departed just before said machines were launched, and went to the wall in the 90s before its trademark and IP was bought up by a succession of no-mark companies and eventually revived after the millennium with a lot of money going in but not much of any real note coming back the other way...

...does that make this essentially the spiritual successor to the Atari ATW-800?! 193.63.174.211 (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because its not capable of "massive parallelism" - XCore chip is an I/O controller, not a DSP chip or real parallel CPU. It is programmable, but not in Transputer way. Even some similar ideas, were expressed in original x1000 promo materials, they are no longer present. Rastavox (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Reception section

No references, no sources. Really bad state. Is it that hard to find any sources (not even talking about their reliability)?Pavlor (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, looks like a section has been written to put it down. But things do change - Xorro got its first card, so the line that was used (disappointment in its no use state or such) no longer stands. Similar will be with no use of second CPU by AmigaOS, once that has changed.

Even the line on massive delay kind of really speaks of AmigaOS 4 state and one board revision (what was original promise - automn 2010 with OS 4.2 :-) then that it was a real vapor product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastavox (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If unsubstantiated information is going to removed, then such removal has to be balanced. I have therefore removed the part about "Hyperion are working on a multi-core X Kernel" because this was announced 2-3 years ago and the developers involved no longer appear to be associated. I'm not even going to get into how experienced developers have dismissed it as impossible while retaining compatibility -- no other news has surfaced, and it has not been mentioned again in Hyperion's recent public statements. Until this kernel is proven not to be vapor then AmigaOS 4 not being able to utilise the second core of a machine purpose designed for it is a pretty significant criticism. One that shouldn't be dismissed with things that may or may not appear in the next half decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.45.247 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, if you have links to "how experienced developers have dismissed it as impossible while retaining compatibility" add them to this article (note: "the developers involved" seem to work for Hyperion - judging by their recent appearance on AmigaOS support forum). Again, if you have any links/references (I don´t even expect reliable sources...) in support of claims in reception section, add them without hesitation. I´m not against your opinions (points you raised are valid). Any substantial claim on Wikipedia should be referenced.Pavlor (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As nobody objects, I will perform the merger. Pavlor (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

---

I propose that Xorro be merged into AmigaOne X1000. I think that the content in the Xorro article can easily be explained in the context of AmigaOne X1000. Xorro article has nearly no reliable sources to show its notability (and only limited hope to prove it in future...), so it may be deleted someday. As Xorro is part of Nemo (X1000) motherboard, the X1000 article looks like ideal place for it. When X5000 is released and if (big IF) it gets its own Wikipedia article, we can simply wikilink Xorro to proper section in the X1000 article.Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links

Is youtube review worthy of inclusion among the external links? I think not, but community may decide otherwise. Your opinion? Pavlor (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)