Talk:SGI Indy

The picture at the top right is sexist (and, btw, also not representative for an Indy)
Some people can consider this picture offensive - i sent an url of this Wikipedia page to a woman to explain what is Indy about, and i'm feeling a bit ashamed of this... - a desktop showing a bit of Indigo Magic, 4Dwm, etc, would be much more elucidative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.49.95 (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely better pictures around, e.g. showing the IRIX desktop. There's no point in showing an Indy with Linux desktop. But above all, the wallpaper of that Linux desktop is really annoying and in no way representative for the SGI style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.154.181 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It should show an Indy running IRIX using the IndyCam, after all, the IndyCam was one of the Indy's major selling point. Rilak (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What year?
A timeline would add a lot to this article. --Duozmo 17:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be around 1993 and 1994 - but i'm also very curious to be more assured about this as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.49.95 (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * These two sources from the Computer Business Review suggests a late 1993 introduction date: . Rilak (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
It's almost a shame to clean this up, but it probably does need it! Mark Richards 20:30, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

NPOV?
The comments about IRIX5.1 being the Windows NT of Unixes is not NPOV. It would be sufficient to say that it didn't show the full power of the hardware, and avoid the Microsoft-bashing. Agreed? --ChrisRuvolo 19:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * No comments to date. Fixed it up.  --ChrisRuvolo 21:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: last edit by 24.208.247.77
Major rewrite; removed copied personal home page feel and irrelevant information

I find some of the information that was removed relevant. The construction of the case, internal drive bay information, system noise, heat considerations, etc. As an Indy owner, I do not find these topics irrelevant. I think they should be worked back into the article. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 21:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's "FF"?
Under Continued use, it says "being all FFs". This should be explained. 220.237.139.183 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Anonymous


 * I made an edit to explain it. Is the current text clearer?  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Page name?
Shouldn't this page be called "SGI Indy and Challenge S" like this one: SGI Indigo² and Challenge M? Rilak (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.cbronline.com/news/silicon_graphics_indy_sets_multimedia_standard
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 00:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

QED R4600?
I am fairly certain that the processor databook on my desk said IDT R4600. Since I was on the bring up team for the Indy R4600... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.70.198 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

reverted edit
I came to this article because this citation is showing a red error message and is including this article in.

Here is the citation:

This citation suffers from several problems: Because I am attempting to cleanup articles listed at Category:CS1 errors: archive-url, I :
 * 1) the content at the url assigned to archive-url (a scan/ocr/transcription of the paper magazine) is not a snapshot of the content at the url assigned to url (presumably a facsimile of the paper magazine)
 * 2) the google-books url does not require  to read the source; at google-books, the source cannot be read
 * 3)  is not the title of the article written by Smith
 * 1)  is not the title of the article written by Smith

Editor Smuckola reverted with the edit summary: the citation was not damaged. The editor is mistaken as I have explained above. My edit should be restored.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey there, I'm sorry about that. I was flooding this article with tons of citations and writing tens of kilobytes of text, and this citation was really weird. I don't remember previously ever having seen a google books item that wasn't visibly archived at all. This one isn't, as you know. I thought it meant that there was a Google subscription needed to read it online, but I now actually clicked that tab and I see it just links to outside sellers. Secondly, I'm always one who's repairing and completing citations, and I was totally sure that I checked this one for archive-date, and I must have seen access-date instead. So okay, I restored it, and thank you for your work. — Smuckola(talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)