Talk:Atari Lynx/Archive 1

Archive 1

interview with the designer

Here's a bit about the Lynx from the book 'High Score', it might contain information useful to the article:

"There were three guys-Dave Morse, Dave Needle and me. Dave Morse's son said one day 'Dad, you should take that Amiga idea and do something small that you can hold in your hand.' So we went to a restaurant and did some drawings on napkins to see what it would look like. We stole the napkins. We decided we should start a company, but then we found Epyx, which was a cool company and decided to throw our lot in with them. We became part of Epyx and completed the design. But due to reasons out of our control Epyx had spent too much money on other things and dipped into our project. They didn't have enough money to market it. The Lynx was done. It was in a phase where the hardware and tools were done and people were developing software for it. But it would die without marketing. Then we found out Atari wanted to acquire it, but Needle and I had a bad impression of Atari at the time. If the stories we'd heard were true, they were not pleasant people to do business with. So when Epyx announced that they were making a deal with Atari, we didn't want to have anything to do with it. We said we'd quit if they went with Atari. And they said they were going with Atari. So we quit.

The next time we were free to meet, we went to another restaurant and began drawing the 3DO system on napkins. We stole those napkins, too." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.67.17 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Dave Needle and R.J. Mical... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.121.66.144 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Connection and compatibility

Is the Lynx definitely able to be attached to the Jaguar? Not sure i've heard of that before, thats all! Kevo00 22:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, but what they mean by that was, there were a ComLynx pins on the communications port on the back of the jaguar. Games were planned that would have taken advantage of it (think lynx as a tricorder in a certain space adventure series...) but nothing came to fruitition. --69.156.1.161 07:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I would say the most innovative thing about the Lynx was the ability to daisy chain them for network games (I believe it could network 8 or 12 systems). Also, I think it's debatable if Chip's Challenge is the Lynx's most famous game. There were several arcade games ported to the system such as Stun Runner, Klaxx, Hard Drivin, APB, and Steel Tallons.

Yes, I'm surprised the daisy-chaining isn't mentionned yet, given that I've always assumed it is what inspired the system's name (as in "links"). Perhaps someone could track down some details of exactly how many could be connected in one go (and did many games make use of this ability, I wonder?). - IMSoP 23:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the name came from Lynx/'links' in reference to the ability to link up consoles - I think some of the original magazine ads for the Lynx referred to the ability to 'Lynx-up' [sic]. I might check this out and see if I can add some info and a link. 203.167.158.180 12:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Duncan

Removed the Chip's Challenge nonsense because most of the arcade ports were more famous than it. Also reworked the tech specs. --drew1718 01:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advertising contract?

Atari signs seven million dollar advertising contract for the Lynx with
Hal Rinney & Partners.  Plans called for a new nationwide campaign to
begin in April 1992.

anyone have details on this? --Pelladon 19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Atari Lynx in films

Can someone add that the Lynx II was in "Child's Play 3" 142.162.49.69

Maybe, I have seen the Lynx in a few other films, I don't think it's worth a mention. Govvy 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• It was also in Terminator 2 as well to my recollection (not sure if it was classic or Lynx II). They were using it to crack a PIN number :-)
• * No this was an Atari Portfolio, a rebranded version of the DIP Pocket Computer from a company in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:EC1B:5D00:C875:34C1:4D66:E269 (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

MerlinYoda 05:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't an Atari Lynx, that was an Amstrad laptop that cracked the number in Terminator 2, anyway if you're interested at the beginning of If Looks Could Kill - Teen Agent when they were in the kitchen discussing his future, before sending him to France, the younger brother was playing on a Lynx 2. But as I said again, I don't think it's worth mentioning when they used the Lynx as a prop in films. Govvy 10:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was an Atari Portfolio used in the movie. --67.142.130.28 00:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement

I was looking at trying to improve the article, so I thought I post a few idea's. The few things I could see, some pictures of the internal workings of the Lynx, maybe a technical map in the specifications section. A few more references, maybe a section in the external links of old reviews from the web. Govvy 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the claim in the article that "Lynx was very prone to damage. Buttons and connections would not take a lot of strain from gamers and were nowhere near as durable as the GameBoy." As an owner of both a Lynx and a Gameboy, I'd have to say that this claim - at least in my experience - is completely false! Posted by 200.65.125.96 02:45, 29 May 2007 (Please sign your posts ~~~~)

It did have problems with the buttons on the Lynx II, in England, the tech team would constantly get a high number of returns, to fix an issue with button lodging, often tiny bits broke off and ended up lodged in the Lynx. The other problem was that the female power connector very often had to be resoldered back onto the board because it became loose. Those were the two main problems. The first Lynx was certainly more solid and durable, but that at times had returns to fix the power socket also. Govvy 09:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction Request

{{editprotected}}There is an issue of improper word usage in the second sentence of the article. Rather than reading, "The Lynx had the privilege of being the world's first handheld[...]," it would be more fitting to read, "The Lynx holds the distinction of being[...]"JehovahMilton 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ☺ 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MORE EXACT DATE OF LYNX II

LYNX SAYS 1989 SEPTEMBER AND LYNX II JUST SAYS 1991. I WANT TO KNOW THE SPECIFICS THATS WHY I WENT ON THIS PAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

killer app, tetris

someone removed my statements to that effect, saying they were original research. it's neither research (it's well known) nor original (everyone knows it). --68.99.23.127 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone knows it" is not a valid reference, and hence constitutes WP:OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has specific policies on what criteria contributions must meet. --Marty Goldberg 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lynxlogo.gif

Image:Lynxlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

My name is Kevin Gondek and I disagree with all of this, First of all the Game Gear was first and the Gameboy is the best system ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.85.254 (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You disagree with all of what? Lynx was out 2 years before the game gear. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No you are wrong lynx was first. I should know I have a Gameboy tattoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.155.157 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Predecessor?

There should be a article for Atari's handheld console the touch me, as that is the predecssor to this and Atari's fist handheld console, not to metion one of the first handhelds alltogether. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There already is, at Touch Me (arcade game). However, its nowhere near the first handheld, and its certainly not a "console". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

sales number

http://atari.fr.free.fr/atariavenue/histoire.htm You can read Atari sold 1M Lynx in 1990 alone, and 15k in France.

Two problems with it. A) It's in French, this is the English Wikipedia (we need English sources). B) It's not considered a notable or reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just run it as a reference via the google translator then. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't do that. Once again, a) It won't make it in GA/FA review, it's not a notable or reliable source, it's a fan site and as such is not allowed as a reference. b) Per WP:NONENG, English sources are always preferable, and it's much more likely an exhaustive search of available news, periodical, and financial outlets will provide the figures needed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

16 bit

How is the lynx 16 bit? If it's 6502 based, surely that makes it 8-bit by definition, unless I'm missing something (which is not explained in the article).

It's multi-processor (Suzy and Mikey), which is explained. The Suzy chip contains a 16-bit graphics processor and a 16-bit math processor, which communicates with the CPU via a 16-bit data bus. The Mikey Chip includes a version of 6502 inside, the 65SC02, which has a 16 bit program counter and 16-bit address bus. Mikey itself also includes the sound engine, a DAC, Video DMA for the LCD, System timers, Interrupt controller, UART, and a 512 bytes bootstrap ROM. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still awfully POV to call it 16-bit. To a lot of people, the "bitness" of a system is solely derived from the CPU, no the support chips. Perhaps instead of calling it a 16-bit system, the line could be rewritten to say it has an 8-bit CPU with 16-bit yaddayadda. 76.226.109.227 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The kids these days also call Sega Genesis a 16 bit system, despite its 32-bit CPU. I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.66.183.2 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought when they say 16 bit, it was referring to the graphic outpost. Govvy (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's because the data bus is 16-bits wide. Indrian (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

sales numbers again

the 5 million units sold must be wrong,not only it's unscourced but the exact number of sales is not known (most say 500k to 2 millon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krem12 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The "most" are talking about US sales. It actually had much stronger sales in the UK and Europe. But I agree reliable sources should be found for any figure. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Conway's Game of Life

I wrote this little bit in my test pit, User:Govvy/Sandbox/temp was seeing if it should be included in the article, It could be seen as part of the testing part for the Lynx. The citation is about the Game of Life, but I asked Chuck Summerville personally on facebook, so I got a personal responce which I added to my blog, but due to citation rules I am not going to use that. Govvy (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources - Atari Explorer Online

An editor appears to be confused. Atari Explorer was once the official magazine of Atari Corp., but the online version that existed from 2003-2007 (according to the Wayback Machine) looks like it was only loosely affiliated with the Atari Historical Society/Atari Museum website. Gamepro was, at one time, a respected multi-platform video game magazine. So who's right? Well, I'd say if any figures were to appear on the atarimuseum.com website (unlikely) or are published in the pending Volume 2 of Curt Vendel and Marty Goldberg's magnum opus on the history of Atari (far more likely), those would be the most reliable, moreso than atari-explorer.com or gamepro.com. So, we'll just have to wait for the Atari Corp.: Business is War volume to be published. And for now, I'd suggest leaving the Gamepro.com figure in place, but perhaps making a note that sales figures from the timespan of 1989-whenever are disputed. It should further be noted that the Gamepro article is implying that the sales figures are 1989-1994, but does not itself cite any kind of source. The atari-explorer.com gives no sources for any of its information either. --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Atari Explorer was an independant and gamepro was brought out by Dixons group many years ago. Govvy (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no. As stated, the original Atari Explorer magazine was a publication of Atari Corporation. The website might have been semi-independent, but held a loose affiliation to the Atari Historical Society. Gamepro was bought out by IDG very early in its history and its IP assets remain part of Boston based IDG. --JohnDBuell (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Atari Explorer website was a fan site that was hosted by the Atari Museum. While the Atari Museum itself is considered a reliable source here, sites hosted by it do not automatically meet the same qualifications. Additionally, as John stated, Atari Explorer the magazine is completely different than this now defunct website. They share the same name because the fan chose to name his site with the same name. The original Atari Explorer magazine, was a magazine published directly by Atari Corp. from 1985-1992 before briefly switching to an online (non-web based) only version called Atari Explorer Online, before ending entirely by the time Atari Corp. reverse merged into JTS. I.E. it has zero to do with the later fan site. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sales figures, again

(See also the above section on the non-Atari "Atari Explorer" website) Read the RVG interview carefully. [1] The interviewer puts the 2.5 million figure into Still's head and he agrees with it without referring to any other sources to back that claim; he's going based on memory alone. The interviewer and Still both seem to agree that Lynx sales exceeded 1 million, but again give no external sources. Unverified claims made in an interview still fail WP:V. --JohnDBuell (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As a compromise, we could state that the sales figures are disputed, with Gamepro stating only 500,000, but a former Atari UK employee stating 1,000,000+. --JohnDBuell (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Still only confirms - from his memory - that 2.5 million units were made, not that they were sold in retail outlets. It wouldn't be the first time Atari had unsold stock on their hands - E.T. anybody? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

True - note what he said about "sold into retail", which means they're in the retail sales channel, but not actually sold to end users. Haven't Microsoft and Apple (among others) tried to inflate their sales numbers the same way throughout their histories? --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated, but a Google search for other reliable sources turned up another sub-500,000 ref. [2] Anomie⚔ 01:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Gamepro and 1up are most likely missquoting original sources from 1991. I.E. they're wrong. Here's an original original article from 1991 that states 500,000 just for 1990 alone. Likewise, this article that has the combined sales of the Game Gear and Lynx at less than 7 million units as of '95. Considering the Game Gear sold 11 million units from '91 through '99, if we cut that in half for '95 at about 5 million units over the 4 years, then about 2.5 million for the lynx fits into that. Either way, 500,000 units is way too low. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, the best way to go at this would be to say "Unit Sales: Disputed - 500,000 in 1990 (its first full year of retail sales), 1 to 2 million total over the system's original lifespan." That's too much for an infobox, but it would fit into prose. While we're on the subject of the infobox, I noticed that there's a blank for original retail price; didn't the Sears Catalog list it at $179 in 1989? --JohnDBuell (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"1 to 2 million" based on what reliable source? Anomie⚔ 12:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We have one reliable source from the actual time period that states directly from Atari Corp. that the 500,000 figure alone was just what they sold for 1990. That immediately calls in to question the Gamepro and 1up articles - which also by the way do not state the sources for the figure they provide. We have another reliable source that states gamegear sales and lynx sales combined totalled around 7 million units by 1995, and we have a third source that's a direct interview with a former Atari Corp. employee that gives total manufacturing run. The fact that it's from memory is irrelevant in this case, because all that's being done is providing counter-resources to the GamePro and 1up. You can't disclude a direct interview with a former employee any more than we can ignore the 1up and Gamepro articles. All have to be provided according to Wikipedia. What's normally done in this situation here on Wikipedia is to take all into account and come up with a range to display in the infobox (which at a minimum given the current sources could be simply "greater than 500,000") and separate prose to display in the article that goes like "Accounts of the Atari Lynx's sales range from........ GamePro and 1up state 500,000, however the xxxx states that figure in sales of units for just 1990 alone. According to the xxxx, by 1995 combined GameGear and Lynx sales totalled less than 7 million units....etc." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That news article from 1990, ok. Interview, maybe; is the source of the interview reliable? And trying to support anything more than "over 1000000" based on the interview's "7 digits" (but consider the points raised above) seems very flimsy; the "2.5 million" was a guess by the interviewer replied to with "something like that". Trying to somehow use "gamegear sales and lynx sales combined" is getting deep into WP:OR territory. Anomie⚔ 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that I now KNOW that it's Kieran himself who keeps trying to make the edits, now based on the interview that he conducted and posted on a forum, and the line of WP:OR has been crossed. --JohnDBuell (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It would really be wp:coi that's been crossed by Kieran, it'd be wp:or if he's adding things not directly quoted from the interview. For example, I can't use my own book as a reference, nor can I post things I've done for Retro Gamer magazine as a reference. Other people certainly could though. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You can say what you like at the end of the day but the less than 500,000 sales figure its totally incorrect, not even near factual. That much is known already. Yet it is still there despite all this talk. It needs removing and changing for something else, we know it sold at least 1 million even if the final sales figure is unknown. So I suggest either changing it to "more than 1 million" or 1-2.5 million. - Kieren Hawken

The sales figures really aren't in question, it's the reliability and verifiability of adequate sources that's the sticking point. That said, I have no idea why the compromise (suggested by Marty, above) hasn't been enacted. --JohnDBuell (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is still wrong I see, we really do need to change it to something else. I am not going to do it because every time I do it gets changed back to the same farcical "less than 500,00" figure. --Kieren Hawken (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed sales from the infobox and explained it elsewhere. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is totally invalid and completely ignores the previously quoted 2.5 million units figure which came directly from Daryl Still, who was the Atari UK Marketing Manager and Product Manager for the Lynx in Europe. It really should be left exactly how it was. Kieren Hawken (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My edit was based on this discussion. How is Marty's proposal not suitable? Leaving a CN tag is not adequate. I'd rather cite the magazine than a forum post so I left that out for others to decide. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a "forum post" it is a professionally conducted interview with the person in charge of Marketing and Sales at Atari UK and the European Product Manager for the Lynx. You cannot "leave others to decide" if you are not even providing the other source. I can see why people get so frustrated with Wikipedia when blatant facts are disregarded and/or removed. Kieren's interview was the first time we have ever seen a genuine figure stated on Lynx sales, to remove it and ignore it is just ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.43.48.136 (talk • contribs)

When I'm the only one acting on the above discussion's outcome, then be reverted to an unsourced statement-completely ignoring sales in 1990 and without attempting to cite Darryl Still or anything for that matter "is just ludicrous". « Ryūkotsusei » 21:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As Marty already stated, the 500,000 figure refers to US sales only, Daryl Still quoted a figure based on worldwide sales, so nothing was being ignored at all. The edit you made should at least state worldwide sales even if you are going to totally ignore Daryl's statement. I would edit it myself but every single time I have corrected it my edit is removed almost immediately. I totally understand the previous users frustration on this matter. Kieren Hawken (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So your definition of "corrected" is removing US sales history and the contradiction between 1UP.com/GamePro and the Associated Press? So all that leaves afterwards to readers is a 1 - 3 million figure with a "citation needed" tag? « Ryūkotsusei » 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I still fail to understand why the Daryl Still interview cannot be cited. You don't really get a more reliable source than that. Kieren Hawken (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

From what I've read nobody answered Anomie on what makes the website reliable. So I'll ping WT:VG/S. « Ryūkotsusei » 05:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:V

WP cares more about verifiability than truth. It matters more that we can source something absolutely reliable than something "true" because it was posted somewhere on the Internet. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has more on this, but this idea is best described in this article, particularly ¶11.  czar ♔ 07:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that sales figures on old systems are always a disaster to source. Best bet is not looking for the ultimate figure but just mentioning what (reliable) sources said what when.  czar ♔ 07:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In a recent issue of Retro Gamer magazine it was stated that Lynx sales were just under 3 million, this was taken from ex-managers of Atari and quoted in the article. So it seems that the stupid 500,000 figure was well off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.20.139 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source for this?

"In May 1991, Sega launched its Game Gear portable gaming handheld. Also a color handheld, in comparison to the Lynx it had a higher cost and shorter battery life (3–4 hours as opposed to 4-5 for the Lynx), but it was less bulky and was backed up by significantly more games. In North America the Game Gear took second place, and while in Europe sales of the Lynx were initially quite strong on the back of the popular Atari ST, it still could not compete with the software library of the Game Gear and was pushed into third place. Retailers such as Game and Toys R Us continued to sell the Lynx well into the mid-90s on the back of the Atari Jaguar launch, helped by magazines such as Ultimate Future Games who continued to cover the Lynx alongside the new generation of 32-bit and 64-bit consoles." I had heard the Lynx sold well in europe, but I have seen no paper source that can back this up, as well as the Gamegear taking second place.Leeroyhim (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why was this section removed. It was me who originally added this and all of it can be verified. You can easily find magazine scans online of Ultimate Future games in 1994 and 1995 with Atari Lynx reviews in them as well as catalogues and adverts from the same period. I myself worked for Game during this period who were still selling the Lynx in 94/95 as were rival chain Calculus. The interview with Darryl Still linked here as well as the German and French magazines linked already prove how good Lynx sales were in Europe. It seems that every time I visit this page important and relevant information has been removed without any good reason and the Lynx page is starting to become somewhat of mockery that rather than being based on verifiable facts is based on what certain wikipedia editors believe. I hope that the upcoming Retro Gamer article clears some of these matters up, I myself interviewed Lynx designer RJ Mical as well as key individuals from Atari over the past couple weeks to verify everything. Kieren Hawken (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Made an edit.

The current edit I made to the front page removes the sales mentions since we do not actually have official numbers. For all we know the Gamegear was outsold. The Lynx was also not abandoned. 1989-1996 is abandoned? The 1984 number is wrong by the official releases. Another thing, the Lynx II was not a "relaunch" Atari Lynx originals were still being sold. The Gamegear being in second place along with the Lynx doing well in Europe because of computers have no references and is based on most likely anecdotal evidence or original research. I am also questioning the reference related to 1up and others for claiming the Atari Lynx sold less than 500,000 which is based on the old version of this wikipeida article, and should probably be removed by a registered user.

There are a lot of broken and misquoted text in this article. I would suggest a clean up ASAP.87.117.250.226 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cassette

@Evan-Amos: Hi there. Regarding your recent edit, I don't know anything at all about it. But if you're saying that a developer was quoted as commenting on the absence of a cassette drive, then that means the *idea* is significant enough to include, though obviously not as it had been stated in the segment you removed. Is the idea controversial? Has it been notably asserted somewhere that there had been a cassette drive? Prototypes have all kinds of weird stuff for the purpose of rewritable convenience, but a cassette seems outlandishly obsolete, so I'm curious why it was even mentioned by a developer. It would be interesting to see that quote you mentioned. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smuckola: I've been doing research into the Lynx when I came across an interview snippet from RJ Mical, who was one of the two original designers of the Lynx (along with Dave Needle) who mentioned that there was no tape system. I've been looking for that quote to post for you but have been having trouble finding it. But it seems that the issue is more complicated than I thought, because apparently there is documentation from Epyx that the Mikey chip has pin outs for a tape system, as seen here [[3]]. If that's true, then the tape issue should be re-included back into the article, hopefully with sources. Evan-Amos (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Evan-Amos: Well hey, it turns out it's true. Once I quit searching for "atari lynx cassette" and instead for "atari lynx tape", I got some results. here and here, the latter of which seems to be maybe a hodgepodge community-updated version of an Atari manual. I don't know. Sometimes on esoteric subjects where virtually no reliable sources exist, like this subject, I try to suspend disbelief, as if wikipedia is a comedy of errors where even a stopped clock is right twice a day ;-) I know these aren't reliable sources but let's say they're kinda middle of the road weblogs; weblog type of sources are allowed if there's no other option, which is going to be the case for a subject like this. And, at some point, we probably have to consider that there may be no hope for this becoming a GA, and call it good. For example, I just upgraded the crap out of 64DD, where I've done stuff like {{citation needed}} and {{better source}} or {{elucidate}} even on my own work where I feel sure that a decent citation could eventually be found. My focus there is more on having a complete and viable article, with no lore and fancruft, though I have no idea if it could ever be GA. BTW, I was astonished to recently learn about the Famicom Data Recorder; I just can't even imagine a handheld with even tiny microcassettes. I'll leave this to you because I'm a general Atari kid with no Lynx experience. Good luck with your research and I hope it bears much fruit for you and for Wikipedia. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smuckola: I more than understand the lack of reliable sources issue, especially given the nature of video game reporting. When it comes down to that, usually good faith and common sense prevail. Based on everything I've seen, I would say that the tape system mentions is warranted.

And almost everything in the early/mid '80s wanted to have a keyboard and tape system, because anything with electronics in it was going to be a computer. It more or less stopped with the NES in America, but the Famicom still has plenty of this mentality affecting it. It had a keyboard and basic programming system for it! Evan-Amos (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Evan-Amos: BTW, I just reread your original comment, and I wanted to toss this idea out here just in case it ever becomes relevant to this or other issues: if you do find that other source you mentioned, it is also possible on Wikipedia to state a WP:CONTROVERSY (either as a range of data, or as multiple contradictory statements, or whatever). It's something we face in such archaeological reconstructions ;) From the looks of the rest of this Talk page, it looks like some situations could use some finesse because some people need to keep WP:COOL. Maybe that other source (or your recollection thereof) was only clarifying the tail end of the issue though. At least Atari is an American (ENGLISH-SPEAKING!) company, unlike so much of ye olden Nintendo. I want to know if Wikiproject Video Games has an archive of citable classic publications (especially translations from Japanese) which have been gifted to the public. You're a pretty good writer, btw. And I'm sure that your cultural memory on this is invaluable. Good stuff. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smuckola: I found it, it was right under my nose. It comes from this article a few years ago, based on interviews with Needle and Mical, that sheds a lot of light on the pre-Atari period. [Now Gamer interview]

This is from Mical: "While work progressed on the hardware, Epyx continued to produce videogames such as Chip’s Challenge and a Handy department was created. At one point it was sealed off from the rest of the building for security purposes. It was decided that cartridges would be used for the games. Although there had been reports that games were going to be loaded from tape, Mical says there was no truth in them. “We did think about hard disk a little…”"

I don't know, it seems that there's a lot of evidence that the tape loading could be a thing, but then you get one of the designers explicitly say that there wasn't. I don't really know what to think. Evan-Amos (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Evan-Amos: What an awesome source. It's unconscionable that anyone would remove that from the article. I read all three sources (the one you just provided and the two developer docs I'd found) and rewrote my resulting draft several times, and I think it's accurate. These guys can design anything for any reason, and sometimes a chip comes with vestigial circuitry that's more expensive to remove than to leave in. In my opinion, they're vague contexts which are just this shy of a WP:CONTROVERSY, and I originally drafted it as one, but I don't think it is. His quote doesn't say that it had never had tape hardware, and the article didn't say that it couldn't possibly utilize tapes, and the documents don't say that the tape pre-support was ever intended for consumer use. Nobody's ever going to say "hey guess what! The first color pseudo-3D handheld EVEN features backward compatibility mode with the classics.... tapes!" See also the Mezzanine port (vestigial floppy drive interface) on original iMacs. I have it on my to do list for 64DD, to comb the article's lamentably long history for similarly deleted sources and factoids.  :-/ Well done, sir. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bugs & limitations

The cartridge was laid out in pages and a page was read serially. This made programming animating sprites (eg player sprite) tricky. You had to put them at the start of each page and fit in other data in what remained of the page. The blitter allowed sprites of 2,4,8 or 16 colours BUT the data could not end on a byte boundary so you wasted 1-8 bite on every frame. I was sat at the next desk to the guy who coded Viking Child and for someone usually so cool, it drove them up the wall. It had a LOT of compromises to get that colour LCD screen and it killed batteries. In fact, battery-life was so bad that a lot of people would get really far in a game, only for the machine to power down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Retro Gamer magazine 129 (25 Years of Lynx) - units sold

I've created a section just to give this a bit more exposure. @86.11.20.139: mentioned in this issue "Lynx sales were just under 3 million, this was taken from ex-managers of Atari and quoted in the article." This was also brought up at atariage.com. Anyone want to chime in on whether or not this should be cited? « Ryūkotsusei » 19:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at that issue of the magazine, the 3 million figure is not actually a direct quote, nor is it attributed to a specific person in the article. As the Atari Age thread notes, this seems an exaggeration of a claim pushed on Daryl Still in an interview in which he agrees with the interviewer that the system probably sold "about 2.5 million units," but specifically states he does not know the number. This is exactly how misinformation gets spread. I like Retro Gamer a lot and often rely on its interviews, but this seems like sloppy research. Indrian (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually in the article it clearly attributes the figure to ex-marketing manager Darryl Still. Sales figures such as this CANNOT be used in Retro Gamer unless they can be verified. This is a very strict requirement of the magazine. Many of the comments on AtariAge are nothing but trolling based on a dislike some of the members have their for the author of this article. I believe the figure, which was discussed at length by staff and readers, was broken down to US sales (500,000), French sales (1 million), UK sales (1 million) and rest of world (450,000). The "pushed" interview you speak of was on the website Retro Video Gamer and no such pushing took place, Darryl merely agreed with an estimate by the author. When this was followed up on in the Retro Gamer article more research was done into obtaining the figure and the facts and using a mix of press coverage (which exists to prove the French, UK and US sales already) and reports of ex-Atari staff the just under 3 million figure was reached. Retro Gamer would not have printed this figure or allowed it to be quoted unless it had been verified at source, and that is why Retro Gamer are considered a verified source by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.1.220 (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact looking at the AtariAge link Lost Dragon/Rogue Trooper/Ross Silifant/Last Shogun and all the other names he uses is a know trouble maker who was banned from the Retro Gamer forum because of his antics and personal crusades to troll the Editor and staff. So that says it all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.1.220 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• No it does not, and I wonder why you are being so openly dishonest to push your agenda. The only quote from Daryl Still on sales is "the worldwide build was well into seven digits and they had all been sold into retail." This is a vague, generalized statement and does not point to a final figure. By this statement, the final shipments could have been 1.5 million or 7 million as easily as 3 million, and none of that speaks to what actually sold through to consumers. The statement in the article that "the Lynx eventually went on to achieve lifetime sales of nearly 3 million" is smack in the middle of a block of narrative text with no quotes and no indication as to source. Sure, they (you?) might have run that figure by Still for the article, but the earlier interview makes it quite clear that he only has a vague idea of what the system actually sold. An executive just saying "that sounds about right" is not a valid historical source. And yes, the figure was pushed on him because the interviewer gave his opinion and Still casually agreed with it after already having stated he does not know the final figure for sure.

Look, I think that the Lynx probably did sell north of two million systems, but I don't often find Retro Gamer a trustworthy source outside of the wonderful interviews they conduct because it is a popular magazine not a scholarly one and it draws much of its secondary research from old game magazines and the like which often have pretty inaccurate information. The magazine has passed bad numbers for Sega systems before (again, hardly their fault, everyone was passing around bad Sega figures for awhile, comes with the territory) and they once did an article on Epyx in which they said Dave Morse became CEO in 1983, completely erasing Michael Katz's two years as CEO and Gil Freeman's one. While I am sure the staff strives for accuracy, the primary goal of the publication is to entertain retro enthusiasts, and they have only so much time to do research what with deadlines to meet and all that. I'm a proud subscriber, so I have no problem with that, but it has to be considered when evaluating historical information. Now if you have some scans of those original French articles breaking down sales figures, then we can talk. Indrian (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that if you reverse IP 212.42.1.220 you end up at signature gifts, which is where Kieren Hawken worked at the time of that statement (and the follow up trying to discredit Ross Silifant). Given the source of the figure, and who potentially is anonymously trying to verify it, then I would say a WP:CoI — Preceding unsigned comment added by StraightDown (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@StraightDown: I think i found another source where there's an approximation as to how many were sold, it's not a internal paperwork but at least it's something...

http://ftp.pigwa.net/stuff/mirror/www.atari-explorer.com/lynx.html User:KGRAMR (talk) 15:5, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atari Lynx. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916114505/http://ataritimes.com/index.php?ArticleIDX=370 to http://ataritimes.com/index.php?ArticleIDX=370

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atari Lynx. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916114505/http://ataritimes.com/index.php?ArticleIDX=370 to http://ataritimes.com/index.php?ArticleIDX=370

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Lynx logo

I am inclined to remove that, the colours are wrong and it doesn't appear correct. Anyone else agree or disagree? Govvy (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Features section

shouldn't we move that after the History section? Govvy (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

After Atari section

This article is about the hand held console, so I am confused and think there are notability issues with regards to the whole After Atari section. Why are these none-notable titles even mentioned on the page? I am more inclined to remove the section. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Though the name of the section is a bit miss-leading, it should be left until someone has a better name. And those games, at least T-Tris, SIMIS and Alpine Games have been sold a few hundred times. Which is notable regarding the fact, that these were made as homebrew card w/o offical support from Atari.42Bastian (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This section shows that the console lives even though Atari passed away. So removing the section reduces information. If you come up with a better solution, be my guest. If you remove it w/o such, I will likely re-add it! 42Bastian (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not how notability is derived, selling a few hundred games? I could sell a few hundred apples at a market stool, I fail to see how selling a few hundred games of a homebrew is passes WP:N. If anything there should be a section on the Decline of the Lynx and then maybe homebrew market should follow that. Govvy (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Is the machine 8-bit or 16 bit.

This has been discussed before but it appears a consensus was not reached. I recently made an edit to report the machine as 8-bit. My reasoning was that it used an 8-bit main CPU and that is the method that is most commonly used for such things. This was reverted back to 16-bit with the reasoning that "it's a duel processor total maths of the graphics engine and a math co-processor running at 16 MHz, i.e 16-Bit frame rate." This is not the traditional way a system has its bits determined. Other companies have tried to use different standards for advertising their machines to make them seem more powerful and they have always gotten flax for it in the press and with consumers (see the TurboGrafx-16 and the Atari Jaguar). By the above standard, the Genesis and Neo Geo would be considered 32-bit machines (they both used Motorola 68000s, which had 32 bit addressing). Or at the very least 24-bit machines, as they both had a 16-bit main CPU and an 8-bit co-processor (Zilog Z80) or a 24-bit graphics data bus in the case of the Neo Geo. SNK tried to claim this with the Neo Geo yet no one considers it a 24-bit console. The most common way to determine the "bits" of a console has been to use the main CPU. Not the graphics CPU, not the co-processor, not the math chips, not the number of colors it supports. For that reason, I believe this article should be changed to reflect that. Lando242 (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I double this, the main CPU's computing registers should be the way to determin the console's bit size. So the Lynx is an 8bit console, as the Gameboy. But on the Jaguar page this would start a flame war, as with this definition it is only a 32bit console ;-) 42Bastian (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, handheld's and consoles of the era are described differently to computers, computers you refer to the CPU speed output. For handhelds and consoles they are described by the graphic engine. If you saw an advert on TV for the Sega Mega Drive, they would tell you 16-bit graphics engine. This is also correct for the Atari Lynx, the 16-bit is not telling you about the power ratio of the duel cpu, but the graphics engine output. Hence the lead description. Govvy (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It has always been down to the main CPU. Anytime someone said any different it was the console's marketing department trying to blow smoke. The only companies that ever deviated from that were always trying to generate spin. Hence the "64-bit" Jaguar (Atari claimed "32-bit CPU + 32-bit CPU = 64-bit console", not the graphics engine), "24-bit" Neo Geo (more of the same; 16 + 8 = 24), and "128-bit" Dreamcast (really only the math chip was). All of those systems were criticized for the practice, as their Wikipedia articles show. Later, of course, bits meant nothing. I don't think a system release after the PS2 even mentioned bits. Most were 32 or 64-bit anyway. Even so, [[4]] specifically calls out the CPU as the 'true' source of a system's bits. Lando242 (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Nameing the Lynx a 16bit console is simply wrong. Even though Suzy could do 16x16 math, nothing else in the system is 16bit as one would expect reading about a 16bit console. Therefore I'd say, the Lynx is 8bit.42Bastian (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Then you're claiming WP:POV, 4th Generation consoles went by graphic engine output, that's just how it was for 4th generation machines. It was all about the colour depth, this is was part of the early console wars as well as the handhelds. You can always ask at WP:WikiProject Video games for more comments here. Govvy (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I still claim the Lynx being an 8 bit console. It is the same league as GameBoy and GameGear, which both are named 8bit consoles.42Bastian (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Where is your source that 4th gen consoles are rated by their graphics engine output? Why would only that generation of consoles get a special rating system? Some were *marketed* as such but in each case they got flax for doing so and it was a departure from the standard. The TurboGrafx-16 is considered an 8-bit console because of its CPU. If we go by your color pallet hypothesis it was 9-bit. But that would mean the SNES was 15-bit. Similarly the Neo*Geo, another 4th gen console, is considered 16-bit, not 24-bit. The Lynx is in the same boat. Even the 4th generation Wikipedia page specifically calls out the the generation as featuring 16-bit microprocessors, not graphics processors or color pallets. No one other than a marketing team ever considered using anything but the main CPU as the what determined the "bits" of a system. Anyway, by that logic the Game Boy was a 2-bit system (4 colors) and the 32-bit Game Boy Advanced was 15-bit. Lando242 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)