Talk:Xilinx/Archives/2011

Revenue
Is their revenue really ~$1,600 billion/year201.238.87.156 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Yashiv


 * No, it's in the general vicinity of $1.6 billin/year, verified by press releases and trade journal articles. I've corrected it.  --Brouhaha 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Acronyms
Acronyms should be expanded, like ACR (Acronym) or Acronym (ACR). -Mardus 10:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Technology
The "Technology" section is misleading. According to the datasheets on the Xilinx website, there are no Virtex-6 models with a built-in PowerPC core. --129.132.102.71 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Xilinx

 * (discussing merge of Virtex4)

Agree to merge. I doubt there would ever be enough content for this article to justify standing by itself. The only alternative I can think of besides merging it directly to the Xilinx article is to make a "Xilinx family details" article which goes into as much technical detail on each family and contrasts them. This would allow the Xilinx article itself to focus more on the higher level summary without being overly long with extreme details that most readers would not understand. Mrand 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge - Should've put my vote when I slapped that merge tag on in the first place. ;) &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 23:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge - Agree it is greatly ripped from the brochures, and need not be; add some real-life testimonials (academic or industry articles) to explain their use. Peter Ellis 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge - I think the article already has enough content to justify standing by itself. Even if it requires some cleanup. It would look silly in a section on Product Families mentioning lots of details from a single family. --Romanski 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xilinx.gif
Image:Xilinx.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of company name
This page references http://www.xilinx.com/company/history.htm, yet I could not find the quoted information at this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.236.55.37 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
What's the pronunciation? Chvsanchez (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I usually hear it pronounced zi-links --88.106.44.243 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

External link
Hello, I'm working for the So-logic company, located in Vienna, Austria, www.so-logic.net. We have developed the FPGA Database application, www.so-logic.net/en/fpga/table/producers. It is the directory of all FPGA families that have ever existed on the market. It is free of charge and available to everyone. We would like to add the link to our database in the Wikipedia external links on this page. We didn't want to do it before discussing it with you. Thank you for your time. --Maja Gordic (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A good effort, but you require users to register before showing them useful information and have a somewhat confusing interface (it wasn't clear to me how to expand categories). While I wouldn't be opposed in principle to such a link, as it is right now, I don't think it provides enough value to our readers to be linked here. henrik  • talk  13:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The FPGA Database is available to everyone and you don't need to register in order to be able to use it. The registration is only necessary if you want to perform advanced search, which includes sorting data by different specifications. For example, you can compare values from different devices, even different vendors. Please bear in mind that the registration is completely free of charge, you only need to create a user name and supply an e-mail address. What was confusing for you when you tried to use the database and what do you think that should be updated? Thank you for your answer and your time. It helps us a lot.--Maja Gordic (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We are going to put the link to the FPGA Database (www.so-logic.net/en/fpga/table/producers) in the external links section. If you have any comments, please let us know. --Maja Gordic (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the link should be added. It is not our practice to add links to vendor sites or lists of vendors. See WP:EL for more details on what should and should not be linked. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maja, wikipedia strives to have as few links as possible on articles. There are many reasons for this, but the end result is that external links should unequivocally enhance the readers understanding and knowledge of a topic.  It follows then, that since the external link is expected to be highly focused on a particular topic, it is exceedingly uncommon that it would appear more than one article.  An external link to a directory usually frowned upon as well - normally wikipedia would rather that function be picked up by dmoz.org. Having said that, I could envision linking to a site that provided a wealth of useful information, even if the information was arranged in a directory format.  However, simply clicking around on your site, I do not see it having anything beyond a high level list of devices families, so I agree with what henrik said about that it doesn't currently provide enough value to our readers to be linked.  &mdash; Mrand  Talk • C 15:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
I don't know who flagged the article for neutrality, but I have to agree that many sections read far too much like brochure-ware. There are many comparative statistics given (20% bigger, faster, better) where the other side of the comparison is extremely murky or vague, plus short shrift is given to how the betterness was achieved, e.g. by introducing a six stage turbo LUT, or whatever. For the most part I feel fully jargonized, and acutely contemptuous of whatever was being sold in the last product cycle (now entirely lacking in betterness), but not terribly informed. &mdash; MaxEnt 08:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed jargon and comparative statistics with no explanations. Also added explanations to some vague areas (power consumption in newer FPGAs due to HKMG proccess). Should make the article more informative. Jinxynix (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed more marketing language and gave further explanation of why the six stage turbo LUT was better. I also added in more third-party references. Seems to me that several contributers have provided input on this article, perhaps we can consider removing the neutrality dispute. Karebear 1022 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Removed the neutrality flag. Jinxynix (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Xilinx ISE proposed for deletion!
Some deletists want to delete the Xilinx ISE article. Please see the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Xilinx_ISE. Electron9 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead References
The articles referenced from 20 and 21 do not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.237.72 (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

content of TODAY is very misleading/wrong
The section called "Today" is very inaccurate. It claims that Spartan is obsolete and implies that the "7" series was released in June 2010. As it turns out, Nothing could be further from the truth. Here we are a year and a half later, I tried to buy a series "7" Devkit and found out that the chips were still not in production despite early press releases boasting about how quickly they had succeeded in creating the new series. Only samples are available... maybe. But apparently a few very favored companies are expected to start receiving some shipments as of Oct 2011. The date of full production is still uncertain, but not before 2012, with some developers speculating 2013 before *real* availability. Meanwhile, the Spartan chip is still very much in production and widely available. So there is quite a bit of "vaporware" in the claims made as being "Today's" status. old codger 71.217.8.167 (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The above comments also apply to the section on Current Family Lines, the series 7 is NOT an available family line. The series 6 is moderately available (not yet the full line, only certain specific models). and the Spartan series 3 continues to be in full production and widely available. old codger 71.217.8.167 (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)