Talk:Bondwell

Untitled
I see no justification for | this edit. The anonymous user had corrected a mistake in the use of binary units. That is not vandalism. Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No mistake. The article source uses Kb so it was edited to use those kind of prefixes that are more familiar to the target readership and to be consistent with the source used by the article, thus helping the reader to understand and verify the terms used, rather than using unfamiliar prefixes. As it turns out the anonymous user was range blocked for vandalism on multiple pages and is most likely a user who is evading an indefinite editing ban. Fnagaton 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a mistake in the article. The kibibyte appeared incorrectly with the symbol kiB instead of KiB.  Correcting that mistake is not vandalism. Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, the user is most likely User talk:NotSarenne (and other related socks) who is evading an indefinite editing ban, as such any edit by that user is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and the edit is not a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Therefore the change was reverted as vandalism. This bad faith vandalism is demonstrated by the user violating 3RR, vandalising multiple pages including pages belonging to an admin (and your talk page) and changing IP address rapidly to avoid subsequent blocks. This resulted in the range block of the user's ISP. This is not the first time the user has rapidly changed IP addresses while posting on this subject to evade their ban. Reverting the change I made is not vandalism per se if it was done by someone who is doing it in good faith. But the fact is I have had my suspicions the "anonymous" user is evading their ban for quite some time and have been making that information available for investigation and as the user demonstrated by their multiple IP vandalism they are not acting in good faith. So reverting the user as a vandal is warranted. Look at the edits made by this user in this range block request (plus all the other ones on the related talk pages not specifically listed from the same ISP in the report I linked earlier) and you cannot seriously tell me the ban evading user is acting in good faith. Fnagaton 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi guys! I don't think the linked article is the source. It is just an external article. This external article really uses "Kb" but that means "Kilobit" not Kilobyte. If you really wanted to stay true to this external on a literal level, you would have to use "Kb" here, too. I have also looked at the history and the initial authors, not just one, did not use KB but KiB. Apparently, an overwhelming majority agrees that "KiB" should be used. I agree with what Thunderbird2 said and I don't agree that Fnagaton's reverts are fair or even justified. Thank you. --TimTomTom (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no justification for your reverts TimTomTom. I disagree with what Thunderbird2 said and the majority agree that "KiB" should not be used.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert anything at all. I was editing and cleaning the article. Fnagaton was reverting my edits. We've already agreed that there was no reason for Fnagaton's silent conversion of "KiB" to KB after the article had been stable for about a year. There were a lot of minor things to fix but neither of you two bothered to do anything about those. I think that says it all but oh well... --TimTomTom (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you really think ""Kb" but that means "Kilobit"" then you are incorrectly using KiB because KiB means kibibyte so you should undo your edits to place back the KiB prefix and use the terms Kb in the article. The majority don't think what you claim either, this is obvious from the recent edit history. Fnagaton 12:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what KiB means. It's always 1024 bytes. The linked external articles isn't the source for this article. You can find information about the Bondwell computers elsewhere. The external articles uses "Kb" incorrectly. If you mind so much, feel free to remove the link to it. 5 editors vs. 1 editor is sufficiently convincing. The article has been using KiB for about a year without anyone complaining. In your first edit to the article, you didn't even say why you were changing the units. --TimTomTom (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is not what you know about KiB being 1024 bytes. The point is that you just wrote ""Kb" but that means "Kilobit"" and that means you are either incorrectly using KiB or you are using KiB which is not familiar and isn't used in the source. Fnagaton 13:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, quit making claims. I'm not using KiB incorrectly. What you are "familiar" with is not the point here either. If you insist on literal use of sources and keep claiming - against your better knowledge - that the linked external article is the only source, then go ahead and change "KB" to "Kb". Otherwise you are contradicting yourself and are trying to fabricate arguments. --TimTomTom (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen: there is no justification in replacing KiB with the ambiguous KB unless it is disambiguated by some other means. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I used the source prefixes and added disambiguation. Using IEC here is not better.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for demonstrating what's "better". You're kidding right? This has to be a joke. You've inserted some blunt "(KB = 1024 bytes)" in one place and call that a disambiguation? The article was clean and clear before you started making it more difficult to understand. What's with the other "KB"s? Do they also refer to 1024 bytes or not? Why did you disambiguate it only once when it's well-known that "KB" can has several different meanings in the same article or sentence? Why didn't you disambiguate MB? May I also ask you to be a bit more precise with your wording? It's somewhat difficult to understand your comments because you don't seem motivated enough to even try to get your message across. --TimTomTom (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My current version is the "best" by your definition because it doesn't discriminate against readers who don't know your "KB" convention. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to teach readers, especially not deprecated, ambiguous conventions. --TimTomTom (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is best to use the source prefixes. Disambiguation is not to be over used that is why I did not change all refs.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong view about which prefix is used, provided the article ends up unambiguous. However, it is much easier to make an article unambiguous using IEC prefixes than without them.  If you choose a different path, the onus is on you to put the effort in to make it unambiguous. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like all prefixes have been banned now. If no one objects, I'll restore them, using b=bit, B=byte, k=1000, Ki=1024. Alex1 (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It looks like Bondwell was a later incarnation of Spectravideo, or a partnership/acquisition between the California Spectravideo and the Hong Kong Bondwell. I note that there's also a proposal to merge Spectravideo with Spectravision.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Bondwell computers are a completely independent line. The Spectravideo computers were introduced between 1983 and 1986, the Bondwell 12 and 14 were introduced in 1984, I bought mine in February 1985. The Spectravideo was mainly a game computer, with graphics, multichannel sound chip and Basic in ROM, whereas the Bondwell was sold with office software only, without graphics, and very limited sound capabilities (one 8 bit D/A converter). Alex1 (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is more to it: 1: My Bondwell 8T laptop has a Turbo switch which lets it rush at 8 MHz. 2: Bondwell 8 had an (optional?) external 5 1/4" floppy drive, and the power supply for this fits perfectly to a Spectravideo game machine. I also have an old BW 12 or 14 and I do remember both Bondwell and Spectravideo logos together on its manuals. So there is definitely a connection between the two brands. (Anonymous user)

Appearance in Aliens
This computer wasn't the one used in the movie Aliens (film). Actually, it was a "GRiD Systems" model. Although there's a strong resemblence between these two models, the difference can be seen when comparing the keys nearby the space key. Furthermore, GRiD OS had a similiar yellowish interface like in the movie. I'll remove the section from this article and add it to the article Grid Compass. --WITTus (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources
I was doing some research and came across some potential additional sources: —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Contains specifications and additional information on Bondwell computers in general
 * More information on the Bondwell 12/14
 * Bondwell 12/14 schematics/scans (on the right side there are additional related Bondwell 12/14 pages, including source text from some articles from the 80's)

Peripheral I/O and Interrupts
A citation of further discussion should be included, as the use of peripheral I/O itself doesn’t render interrupts useless, impossible, or prohibitively difficult. 76.105.116.29 (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)