Talk:Macintosh 512K

Switcher
Should a refference of the Switcher program by Andy Hertzfeld be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercheif (talk • contribs)
 * Since there's no article for that, Multifinder will have to do. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefixes
Editors should know that the IEC prefixes (kibibyte, mebibyte, etc.) are no longer permitted according to WP:MOSNUM (details here). Note further that MOSNUM requires that articles ensure the meaning of unit symbols like “KB” and “MB” are clear (since they vary depending on whether or not they apply to RAM or hard drive storage).
 * Are you tagging every single computer- or digital info- related talk page like this? Potatoswatter (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, no. But I did I “tag”—as you put it—this talk page because you twice reverted (, and ) an edit Fnagaton made to the article to bring it into compliance with A) the way the rest of the computing world communicates to its customers and other general-interest readers, B) the way other encyclopedias communicate on this subject, and C) per MOSNUM guidelines. Your reversion had the effect of restoring the IEC prefix “KiB”, which is not recognized by the typical reader coming to Wikipedia. Why? Perhaps you think it is better to edit-war over issues? I believe that is why we have “discussion” pages: to discuss things. Greg L (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

On an entirely separate note, it was never “Mac 512K”. The proper name is/was the “Mac 512” and its nickname was “Fat Mac.” Note that I used these computers when they first came out and made a living off of them starting with the Mac SE. Further, the original Mac was never called “Mac 128K” nor “Mac 128” nor anything else. It was just called “Macintosh” but was referred informally as “the original Mac” or “the 128K Mac”. The way the term “Mac 128K” is linked in this article, makes it look like that is its formal name. What should be corrected soon is the entire article name is incorrect ; it needs to be moved to one with the correct title. This article needs work. Greg L (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the proper format of a move discussion, to continue the anal tone. Might as well point out that sources abound on Google for the name including "K," not to mention the prominent nameplate photograph in the article. But I'm sure your memory is a much more reliable source. Oh well, I guess being 95% correct and extremely vocal is just your style ;v) . Potatoswatter (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you’re right about the proper nameplate name being “Mac 512K”. My mistake. However, that tidbit from you (looking towards the nameplate for guidance) pointed out that I am indeed right then about the “Mac 128K”. It is simply “Macintosh”. As for my “style”, well, tough, Potatoswatter. Would Wikipedia be better off if I ventured a guess that being snide is your style? Let’s get the names of these computers correct in the articles, abide by terminology that is widely used by Apple and the rest of the computer industry (512 KB, not 512 KiB). And how about not be so stinking quick to turn everything into a bitchfest over editors personalities and stick to the facts. Huhm? Greg L (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
Potatoswatter’s edits are getting very close to violating Tendentious editing. You must know by now (read the above), that Mosnum states the following:

This article currently uses the conventional prefixes in a manner that is entirely consistent with the computing industry. Further, the units, values, and terminology are entirely consistent with the way Apple Inc. communicates on this subject. If an editor feels that disambiguation is nevertheless required, please do so via any one of the ways prescribed by MOSNUM. Please note in particular that disambiguating by using the IEC prefixes is no longer allowed. Greg L (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You guys violated that guideline years ago—it boggles the mind that you're still on this mission. I'll revert changes on my watchlist and leave comments when it's little effort. [I see that you are fond of giving other editors a dismissive backhand; you used similar language here as if you are anxious to imply that you “have a life” but others don’t and you live by your own rules and do what you darn well want. (You bad boy, you). It doesn’t impress me much—particularly now that I can see it’s standard boilerplate you’re quite fond of using. Greg L (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)] To claim that "consensus" was reached after a multi-year, pathetic flamewar of attrition, and then point to your own partisan rule as gospel, is fascist. [“Fascist”? Heavens. It seems someone is pretty animated about this issue. Maybe if you made yourself a cup of tea and chilled for a couple days before making “contributions” that amount to nothing more than hitting an (undo) link… Greg L (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)] The carelessness of your actual edits and arguments belies your claim to good faith. You are on WP to argue in the first place, and I'm happy to oblige a little if it reduces your volume of mainspace edits. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg is right, IEC prefixes are not to be used on Wikipedia except under some circumstances and this article does not meet one of the exceptions stipulated in the guideline. One of the goals of editing articles is to help make them better understood by the readers and one of the goals of disambiguation is to use more familiar terms to clarify something that someone might be confused about. Consensus was reached that IEC prefixes are unfamiliar (they are very rarely used in the real world) and using them does not help the reader understand the topic when there exist better methods (listed in the guideline) to disambiguate. Potatoswatter I suggest you have a read of WP:POINT. Fnagaton 06:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And rather than “discuss” technical issue via our edits and edit summaries when we revert one another, allow me to raise the issue of the “800 KB” 3½-inch floppy disk. As far as I know, its capacity is laid out in binary cylinders and sectors. However, its formatted capacity is less than 800 × 1024 bytes. The formatted capacity, as communicated by the Mac’s OS was measured and displayed to the user in 1024-byte kilobytes. So I think all we do is clutter up the article by trying to say that the drive is measured in a particular size of kilobyte; it’s all very approximate anyway. As for disambiguating what “kilobyte” (KB) means where the article is discussing RAM and other transistorized memory, it is abundantly clear what 512 KB of RAM means; even the number “512” is binary. This verbiage could have been lifted straight out of any Apple advertisement, brochure, owners manual, or any computer magazine; it confuses no one. Whether other editors like what happened on MOSNUM or not, current MOSNUM policy does have the virtue of having articles written using terminology, units of measure, and unit symbols that are standard throughout the computer industry and are therefore extremely familiar to our readers. Terminology like “mebibyte” (MiB) is not widely recognized by the typical Wikipedia reader. Encyclopedias communicate using verbiage language that reflects the way the world currently works and must not be used as a platform to promote social change in social and language practices. Like Ben Arnold wrote on the very first days of this debate three years ago:




 * But if an editor here still feels that “kilobyte” in “512 KB” needs to be disambiguated, they should do so using techniques that are familiar to a typical reader of computer-related issues. MOSNUM (here) shows a number of ways to explain how kilobyte means 1024 bytes when discussing transistorized memory like RAM. As for hard drive capacity, I don’t have any problem having a footnote in the article explaining that single mentioning of a “20 MB” hard drive refers to a capacity that is best described as decimal math. Even then, I don’t think anyone here really remembers what the true, formatted capacity is. But I’ll bet that it was quite a bit less than 20,000,000 bytes. So the hard drive capacity too, is just an approximation that has a variance much greater than the 4.8% difference between binary and decimal math in this instance. Whether or not an editor agrees with the outcome of the current MOSNUM policy, they should respect that it was the product of a consensus view that was arrived at after boat loads of debate.  Greg L (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL. Potatoswatter (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to make one thing clear... the issue here isn't units, it's the accuracy and necessity of footnotes. The 800k disk drive is a case of a number being used to name a product—Apple made no claim or attempt that any measurement would be precisely 800k, they simply maximized the capacity, rounded up, and probably left the disclaimer to the media manufacturers. Formatted capacity depends on the number of physical defects. Floppy formatting wouldn't be so slow if they were all the exact same capacity. In three years of debating, you guys haven't picked up on the basics of disk capacities. (And Greg L is a lawyer apparently.) And you're claiming that I have a tendency. Potatoswatter (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are (half) wrong. The vast majority of floppy disks format to the exact same capacity. The long time for formatting is the writing and checking of the formatting. Only a rare disk requires a sector to be mapped out. And when that happens, it takes a really long time to format and you’ll know it. And, by the way, I agree with you 100% regarding the necessity of the footnotes. However, I might point out that without them, Thunderbird2 would likely come here and revert the whole thing to the IEC prefixes, citing how he was justified in doing so because the article was “ambiguous” without them. If you don’t believe me, check out this “List of damaged articles” he’s maintaining. I’d be happy to not bother with disambiguating footnotes at all; articles are clear (and accurate) enough without them. I really doubt Fnagaton perceives the need for disambiguation either. Like me, he just wants the IEC prefixes out of Wikipedia; they just confuse readers. We’ll see if T-bird weighs in here and reverts the article because the conventional ones aren’t disambiguated with footnotes. I have no intention of letting myself get caught up in a Catch-22 dilemma where the article gets reverted by you because the unnecessary footnotes are there, and by T-bird because the footnotes are not there. Greg L (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From legal experience you know there is little difference between rarely, and often, and sometimes when guaranteeing facts. Your feuds and stalkers are your own business; I can only assume brought upon yourself. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there isn't any specific need for disambiguation of the 800K floppy drive here. The value is fine being approximate because due to the nature of magnetic media maybe not all of it is able to be formatted or usable. The funny thing is TB2's list is an excellent resource for seeing where IEC prefixes should be removed to make the article better understood, clearer and benefit the reader. Fnagaton 08:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So that list, which is a tool useful only for the things you falsely accused me of, is something you use for the EXACT same purposes. Please take your worthless mission and your cabal away from my watchlist. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Falsely accuse you of"? I see nothing that you have been falsely accused of, your history if edits here shows that. Try writing your post again but this time make sure you are accurate. Fnagaton 09:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This section is named after a bad social practice falsely attributed to me. I simply reverted addition of poorly worded footnotes, which you both now seem to actually agree with. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you or did you not make an edit containing IEC prefixes when you know that IEC prefiex are not to be used? You did. I do not agree with you because your edits contain IEC prefixes. Fnagaton 09:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hit revert. Whereas you only see the word KiB, I see facts, content, and a little style. Incredibly, that sums up who you are and possibly everything you've done here for two or three years. Mind boggling. And the only conclusion you can reach is that I must care which units are used, that it's my "axe to grind." That is not a safe assumption because nobody cares about that except you, and your one-track mind highlights the hypocrisy. Potatoswatter (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm getting a bit out of line, but this wrong on so many levels I must wax poetic. Potatoswatter (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You hit revert knowing full well that what you reverted to was not an according to the guideline and you hit revert instead of improving the article. You left no change comments and no comment on the talk page until after Greg reverted your changes and made talk page comments. The fact that you are wrong doesn't mean you have to get rude at me. Fnagaton 11:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See for an example of making a controversial yet trivial edit without starting a flamewar. And I'm even embarrassed about being that obsessive. Rather than asking why your edit wasn't "sticking," y'all jumped to a conclusion and an ad hominem attack on me. You and Greg are on Wikipedia to fight, and no other reason. I was wrong about "you only see the word KiB"—70% of your edit history is flamewars, like this one, and power plays, resulting from your pigheaded mission. Even your talk page currently consists of a failed arbitration request. And you don't even make minor normal contributions. I have no responsibility to work with you, and won't because you've earned yourself a nasty reputation. Simply because I encountered you long ago and I'm appalled that you're still playing the same psychotic social game. That's also what gives me license to be beyond rude with you.
 * And quit pretending that MOS section means anything. The link you provided demonstrates that you and Greg wrote that and manipulated the system. Disgusting. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Disgusting(?), perhaps; to you. Tony once expressed that he wanted to vomit. But while Fnagaton and I certainly had a voice in writing the current MOSNUM guideline and were the strongest advocates, by no measure did we “write it” (or “force it down everyone’s throats, or anything similar to that). There was simply no way in the world that only he and I could have pushed that guideline through in the face of such determined opposition. It became policy because the majority of editors on MOSNUM agreed it was best. Take a look at the archive record on Talk:MOSNUM. You’ll see 14 archives dedicated exclusively to the “Binary” issue alone, more than any other single issue by far. Three years worth and there was no end in sight. Now that we have aligned our practices with those of the rest of the publishing and computer world, things should settle out soon. Greg L (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking the high road there would be to stop pushing for a guideline. After years of acrimonious sdebate, you can't honestly claim to be pleasing everyone. Your section of MOSNUM stands out alone as being highly specific, and is the only "official" standpoint on any particular kind of unit. I don't think "forcing it down throats" is disgusting, although it's interesting you phrase it in such terms of control and power. What's disgusting is the waste of people's time and the gleeful expression of psychosis of the actors involved. You're serving as an enabler to Fnagaton, and that's something to be guilty about. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When you feel like writing something that is even slightly true then come back and try again because for what you are writing now is complete rubbish. Fnagaton 20:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I note Potatoswatter's continued use of insults which highlights his lack of substantive argument. Fnagaton 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that, since I'm not arguing pro or con MOSNUM at all, you probably haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about. And yet you can't tell that you're playing with less than a full deck. Reminder—you guys connected me with WP:TEND re MOSNUM and I disagreed. Do you still believe I'm pro-KiB at all? (Where are my KiB arguments?) If not, I've made my point. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit history shows edits that go against WP:POINT, where you are rude because you have lost the argument and that is the point. Fnagaton 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What point did I lose? What edits? I'm certainly not a saint here, but... Potatoswatter (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (unindented)

''“Taking the high road there would be to stop pushing for a guideline. After years of acrimonious sdebate, you can't honestly claim to be pleasing everyone.”'' To your first sentence: there has to be a guideline. Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment, where chaos would rule supreme if there weren’t ample rules in its manual of style. To your second sentence: no, we apparently can not please everyone; particularly when some editors are happy with A) having Wikipedia follow a practice of using units of measure that no other publication in the entire damned world uses when communicating to a general-interest audience, and B) where the end result of the previous MOSNUM policy left some articles using “MB” to mean one thing and still other articles using it with an entirely different meaning. The new policy addresses both these shortcomings. Now…

I am rather confused about your position. You’ve stated that you objected only to the footnotes (post 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)). And I agree they are unnecessary but were put there as a prophylactic to another editor. You stated that your revertings were only to remove the footnotes; the restoration of the IEC prefixes were incidental. So that we can be done with this bickering sooner than later, will you please explain why your above writings look so much like an editor who *actually* likes the IEC prefixes? Why all the chaffing at a guideline that deprecates them? May I assume you disliked the footnotes and also dislike the conventional binary prefixes? Because all the above makes it appear that you just want to take out your frustrations on the two major proponents behind the current guideline. I want to get this understood. Because if my assumption is correct, I hope we can advance forward with this understanding: 1) that the article as now revised is satisfactory with regard to its use of units of measure and unit symbols and there won’t be any more edit warring over it, and 2) you don’t like Fanagaton and me (which I can handle). Greg L (talk)


 * Because I don't have a "position" and I know the difference between disagreeing in principle and ordering you around. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on Apple computers but this Apple support note states the 800k disk holds 819,200 bytes. It has 1600 sectors of 512 bytes. This is (800 x 1024) or 800 KB. I added a reference to the article.  -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Very cool, thanks! Although as noted, the size can't be guaranteed. Also HFS structures grow but don't shrink, ... Potatoswatter (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works out nicely. It's because 2 * 16 * (8+9+10+11+12) * 512bytes/sector works out to 800KiB exactly. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed SWTPC6800. Once again you have shown that your strength is in researching and digging up information. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)