User talk:Rilak/Archive 1

Workstations
Hi. I should not have implied that workstations were obsolete in the edits to personal computer and I'll have another look at that page. I don't know enough about current workstations to contribute authoritatively to that article. I'll make a note of thir current use in architectural rendering and visual effects, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 discussion from my talk page for context

Hi. Your recent edit to the workstation article has removed much of the historical content, such as the paragraph which discussed the evolution of low cost minicomputers such as the VAX into workstations. This is relevant historical information and should not have been removed. Further more, your edits have also changed the wording of statements, such as that which discussed the networking of workstations. I'm not criticising your contributions, but some of them seem rather unnecessary. Perhaps they should be reverted? Rilak (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the workstation edits thinking that I'd inadvertantly cut out more than I had intended. Aside from a spelling error that someone has corrected, I stand by my edits. The history of workstations part is still there.  I don't know why all the stuff about 8-bit home computers was there; it has nothing to do with workstations (it is not the history of workstations!) and is better covered in personal computer or even home computer. Not to say that a TRS 80 Model 1 didn't have any engineering or scientific applications, but not the same sorts of jobs that we associate with workstations. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After having a second more in depth look at the article, I can say that the only part which perhaps should have been left in was the statement that mentioned workstations evolved from mini computers such as the VAX. Perhaps at a later date, that information could be reincorporated back into the article, as its present form is not very presentable. Rilak (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RS64 - Thanks!
Thanks. Great job! -- Henriok (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to CPU Wars has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks.  ✬Dillard421✬ (talk • contribs)  08:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My edit was unconstructive? Really? The article in question is about a underground comic created by DEC employees. The section I removed in question is a comparison of AMD and Intel microprocessors. It consists of misinformation, factually incorrect discussion of computer architecture, is clearly biased (pro AMD, anti Intel) and above all, resembles bad buying information than a proper comparison and discussion of the subject. Even if the section is well written, it does not belong in the article as the article about a comic, not a comparison of microprocessors. Additionally, I do not believe that Wikipedia's policy allows buying advice to be included in articles. Please reconsider your position regarding this matter and restore my constructive edit. Thank you. Rilak (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: DEC 7000/10000
Sure, we could collaborate on that one. There's a DTJ article about these in the same issue as the DEC 3000 & 4000 articles (Vol. 4 No. 4), which should be a good starting point. Letdorf (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC).


 * Awesome! I am aware of the DTJ article and I have a PDF copy from HP. I've already started writing a few short sections which are still in draft stage. For more information, I would recommend these manuals as well if you are interested:
 * DEC 7000/10000 AXP KN7AA CPU Technical Manual
 * DEC 7000/10000 AXP VAX 7000/10000 Platform Technical Manual
 * MS7AA Memory Technical Manual
 * VAX 7000/10000 KA7AA CPU Technical Manual
 * These can be found here: http://vt100.net/manx/ (just enter the names in the search field) and mostly contain content intended for programming these systems. However, I am just really after the chapters that deal with the hardware. Rilak (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a page where the draft of the article is to be worked on, the link to that is in the To do list at the bottom of the user page. I'll put something up soon, when it's ready. Rilak (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've now created the article, with the addition of a "See also" section. I've also created a few obvious redirects. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to work together on this. Letdorf (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC).

Binary prefix in DEC 3000 AXP
Rilak, I gave you a good reason, which is to explain to the reader the meaning of the terms KB, MB, GB. In what sense is that silly?. Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to explain a universal meaning. There are hundreds of computer related articles with KB, MB, GB and so far there are no complaints, with the exception of media such as hard drives, about what the units mean. As stated by editors before in discussions concerning other articles, you are more likely to confuse readers with two alternate units. I also belive that Wikipedia does not use IEEE binary prefixes in any circumstances. For the record, I personally support IEEE binary prefixes and I use it myself when I can, but not when I confuse others or violate MOS. Rilak (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In what sense is it confusing to provide an unambiguous definition? And what part of MOS would it violate to do so? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In the hope of getting input from other editors, I have moved this dicussion to the DEC 3000 talk page. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rilak, it's me again. The discussion at DEC 3000 AXP makes interesting reading. There are usually strong feelings when the words "binary" and "prefix" appear in the same sentence (to which I am not immune myself). I think there will be a few more opinions expressed over the next 12 hours or so. I just want to make clear that I will be happy with any outcome that permits an unambiguous explanation of the terms MB etc in this (and any other) article. Happy editing. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Rilak, I noticed Thunderbird2 didn't mention it here on your talk page (and you are a recently involved editor so it would have been polite to draw your attention to the topic) but Thunderbird2 has opened the debate on this particlar topic here and there have been a couple other proposals following on from this section here, here and here where some of the proposals do mention the argument similar to your point about "you are more likely to confuse readers with two alternate units". Fnagaton 11:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice! Rilak (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On a closely related article I hope you found this edit to be helpful? Fnagaton 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MPQ
Hello, it seems that you want to Keep this article. I am not that familiar with file extensions so I'll just leave this book ref (page 89) here. I haven't found anymore useful hits in Google News and Google Scholar so I won't boldy say keep in the afd. Maybe you could find better sources out there. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes
Since you voted on a proposal to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. I must admit, I haven't really been following the discussion as of late, but I am happy with the general direction in which it is going in. Rilak (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll vote on binary prefixes
I note that you voted on a proposed MOSNUM policy for Wikipedia to use the common binary prefixes like “kilobit” rather than the IEC prefixes (“kibibit”). Since you took an interest in the issue at that time, I thought it proper to let you know that the proposal has since morphed into a broader policy (MOSNUM #Follow current literature). A straw poll on whether the basic principle underlying that policy is sound is currently ongoing here at Talk MOSNUM #Straw poll. I hope you read the policy and vote as you see fit. Hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rilak for weighing in to state your opinion on the matter. I think Wikipedia will come across as a more professional, mainstream encyclopedia after the details of this have been worked out. The vote was getting close and your single “strong support” vote made a difference. Greg L (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of help. Rilak (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Rilak, you weighed in and now there is another (and probably final) vote going on here at MOSNUM #Figure of merit. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * votestacking

DEC press releases
I generally just search Google Groups and look for the earliest official postings mentioning the model in question, usually found in newsgroups such as biz.dec or comp.sys.dec (or equivalents for other vendors). Letdorf (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks. I had been using this one for most of the dates: biz.digital.announce. Unfortunately, the earliest post in this group is on April 5, 1994. Rilak (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

SGI External Links
Hello. I keep removing those because WP:LINKS states: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." and "Links to open wikis, " and "discussion forums/groups" are normally avoided because they are not verifiable, and more importantly, not encyclopedic. Another thing...external links should relate directly to the article in question. The article is about SGI as a company, not its individual products. So, in that case, links relating only to the company's products should be removed (such as the technical specification links). — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have never heard of Futuretech, Nekochan or Ian Mapleson's SGI Depot? From memory, Nekochan, Futuretech and the SGI Depot was featured in a Wired article, and the SGI Depot has even been sued by SGI for selling refurbished SGI equipment. Any SGI enthusiast knows that these sites, while not 'official', they are important and provide a lot more factual information than SGI's official site does anyways, notable in regards to the subject and should be featured. These resources are not 'technical specifications' as you so bluntly put them, Nekochan, the user group and Futuretech are gathering points for the community. They would not fit in any of the more specifi articles for this reason. Anyways the SGI article is about the hardware as much as it is about the company. I only see two links, the tech specs for the IRIS and the silly refigerator projects, as being in violation of guidelines. Rilak (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the link to the article: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/11/65834 Rilak (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenbox
There's been a Complete rewrite of section 4 (greenbox) of the MOSNUM in the last few days. Could you give feedback and vote?

While your at it, check out the bluebox and purplebox proposals.

Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work helping to reach consensus for the MOSNUM guideline. We now have a target upload date where editors can give their final thoughts. Fnagaton 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ping!, thanks, and accepted. // Fra nkB 22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Da Vinci Systems
I removed the Digital film link from this article because the article was merged with digital cinematography and is focused on shooting live-action motion pictures with digital cameras. Da Vinci to my knowledge always been a post-production equipment company, so the relevant links are post production and digital intermediate. You state "I believe this company made video and film equipment as well as post-production equipment", but do you have any reference? The article only lists post-production equipment. --Onejaguar (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Regarding the Columbia (supercomputer) and ASCI Blue Mountain
Thanks Rilak, for reverting this edit. Appreciated.. It was a false postive ... --  Tinu  Cherian  - 06:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I overlooked the Category:One-of-a-kind computers ( as given in the project page ) as containing only early computers. Reverted the false postives ... Thanks for bringing this to our attention --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. We all make mistakes from time to time. Would you be removing the tags or shall I? (after all, I did offer to do so) Rilak (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Which Apple computer was the first to have 3D graphics?
Please try doing your own research. Try typing apple computer into the search box and reading the results.87.102.5.5 (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

eg try reading Apple II series, there's a list of computers made by apple at the bottom of that page.87.102.5.5 (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Atari Page
Please be advised, the link was removed per Wikipedia policy on WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:COPYRIGHT. The link was added by an acknowledged staff member of the museum (coi), whose sole contributions have been to place links to the museum across Wikipedia (spam, advertise). Likewise, direct links to copyrighted material (brochures, manuals, etc.) are strictly forbidden. This has been well discussed at the video games project and elsewhere on Wikipedia. And while a company (such as DEC) may be defunct, the ownership of its IP and related materials is not. Permission must be granted by HP/Compaq for said materials. Regardless, the editor understands his violation of policies, and the matter has been resolved. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In regards to the violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM


 * Would it make any difference if I were to add such external links?


 * In regards to the violation of WP:COPYRIGHT


 * Quote: "Linking to copyrighted works


 * Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content.


 * However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site."


 * The policy does not mention linking to historical documents archived at a museum. Considering that statements of the staff member who added the links, when the companies archived their documents at the organization, the rights were passed on. Your claim that these have violated copyright is now looking less likely.


 * Finally, you should know that if you are to mention policies, you should also mention the section, paragraph and sentence. Thank you. Rilak (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to add them your self, that's fine. However, as the user was told on their talk page, they have to clearly demonstrate they have the rights to digitally copy and display said material.  To date they have not, they have simply stated on their talk page they have the rights to it.  That is not proof of rights.  They were in turn told by another editor to provide material on their site relating to proof of said permission and have yet to do so. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As was stated elsewhwere..


 * i) If they have full permission from the rights holder, Then thier site should clearly include

the orginal (C) notices AND a link to the formal terms of the permissson granted by the relevant rights holder.
 * ii) They should also give contact details where said rights holder can be contacted to confirm the permission and terms.
 * iii) If linking via Wikipedia (Or indeed any WMF site) the permissions should be lodged with with the OTRS queue.


 * Wikipedia takes the issue of copyright VERY seriously, even more so than some commercial entities, therefore it must be certain

that when someone claims permission for the use of copyright material, that such permission actually exists. This also applies to links because in the US, linking to sites that knowingly host material in violation of copyrights, can be considered contributory infringment.


 * Anyone can claim they have the right to use copyright materials, but this is meaningless unless they can credibly prove it

to evidential standards.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I get that. I get that since the very beginning of this dispute. The current course of this dispute is heading towards unpleastness. It is clear that we need to contact the Computer History Mueseum to encourage them to get a proper statement regarding the copyright status of their materials displayed somewhere on their website. I suggest that we, being involved in the dispute, create a user subpage on one of our user pages and draft an email that can be sent. Since I am supporting the inclusion of the disputed external links, I feel that I should provide this resource. It can be accessed here. However, if you wish to not use mine, that is fine, just let me know where it is.

I also propose a halt to all edits to articles in response to the external links in question. If you choose not to, that is fine, but as a demonstration of good will, I will halt all edits of such nature until this dispute has been resolved. Rilak (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Citect AfD
I believe I've fixed the Citect article. Care to review the AfD? WikiScrubber (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments
Your opinion on hardware inclusion criterion is requested on the Personal Computer discussion page. Alatari (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: AlphaStation improvements
Hi - personally I find chronological ordering most logical for this kind of table, especially when the naming/numbering convention has changed over time (eg. 200, 400, XP1000, DS10 etc). But I guess the important thing is that there is some kind of logic to it...

Do keep me posted on your major DEC-related work - if I haven't been active much in these articles recently it's probably because I haven't found much to take issue with. Letdorf (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC).


 * I now understand why the table uses chronological ordering. I think that your scheme is more logical than the one I am proposing, so I'll keep it. As for future major DEC-related edits, I'll keep you informed. Rilak (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * New tables look good. We need to try to fill in some of the question marks though... I'm not sure if you are aware, but the "family" names mostly refer to chipset codenames. Chipset details are not easy to find but this article is quite useful. I would be inclined to refer to the "Avanti" family as the "Apecs" family, as only the 400 was codenamed Avanti, and the 2107x chipset was codenamed Apecs. Letdorf (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC).


 * AFAIR, the 205 was introduced around the same time as (or not long after) the 255 and superceded the 200; it used the new desktop enclosure that 255 also had. It may not have been a popular model though. Letdorf (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC).

Irisvision - on second thought...it's okay
I want to apologize before hand as I am relatively new to collaborating the contents of articles on Wikipedia. I did not know you posted something in the Irisvision discussion page until you went on the edit out the paragraph sometime ago (I had not put any artcile on my watchlist until a week ago). I'm sorry that you found my personal speculation offending but I have little to draw on since I was only 10 years old and a lot of people don't like to publish much about these things. You are the first such veteran of that time that I encounter. What I was trying to emphasize with the paragraph was the fact that little of the3D revolution actually happened on the intel PC platform. Nowadays most people blatantly assume Windows was always the platform on which 3D was done (That seems more offending to me as a UNIX fan than erring on a few concepts). I've learned frommy bad and I won't undo the commenting of the paragraph. I would prefer to get an idea on what it was like, back in the day, from you. I won't write it on the article but you've piqued my interest. The number of articles you've written suggest you either have journalistic knack or you've actually lived through them (enough to have a very authoritative way about your editing). I myself have just barely come to know the SGI platform and they tell me very little about the Onyx 350 and it's InfiniteReality 4's innerworkings. Where I work most details about how these machines functioned are omitted (because the public is largely a happy ignorant bunch and don't demand that much information) or kept within the working circle as a secret. I have my own Octane and O2 (just for professional curiousity) but there are plenty of original articles on them so I don't feel the need to write about them. Again sorry and I hope we can start on the right foot. I'd like a chance to correspond with you via e-mail if that is okay with you.Dm-jp (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't find your personal speculation offending, so there isn't any need to apologize for anything. The reason why I removed the personal speculation was because I believe that they violated a Wikipedia policy: WP:NOR. More precisely, the following sections of the policy:


 * WP:NOR: "Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."
 * WP:NOR: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.
 * So, once again, there is no need for you to apologize as I believed that you acted in good faith and because, as you have said yourself, you relatively new to Wikipedia. If the tone of my edit summaries and messages gave you the impression that I found your contributions offending, then I must apologize, for it was never my intention to do so.
 * As for you thinking that I have experienced Silicon Graphics' glory days personally, I don't want to dash your hopes, but I didn't experience those days personally. I think the reason why my contributions seem to be authoritative is because I've got the sources from which I provide citations to statements, and I am confident that my sources are of the reliable kind and that I have a reasonable understanding of the subject I'm working of. Of course, I welcome corrections and suggestions.
 * If you don't agree with my ideas on how the article should be written, that is fine. We can always work out at the talk page how we can improve on the article. I've considered your reasons for why the removed statements were added in the first place and I've made added to my task list to attempt to incorporate them back in the article in a modified form (sourced properly, passes WP:NPOV, etc.).
 * Anyways, I never consider that we were on the wrong foot to begin with, so there isn't a need to apologize. Of I gave the impression that we were on the wrong foot, I must apologize. I consider everything to be fine, as it was from the start. As for my email, well, I don't really know how to put thus, but I'm sorry, I prefer to remain relatively anonymous. You probably know this already, but if you want to get in contact with SGI veterans, there is the forum at nekochan.net, which also a less restrictive (in terms of the content that can be added) Wiki. Lots of interesting first-hand accounts of SGI tech at the forums. Regards. Rilak (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I am relieved there are no hard feelings. As for the article itself, I'm fine with it for now - anything new I will properly cite my sources. I often go to nekochan as a source (for free IRIX stuff) but I feel somewhat belittled, nonetheless I will resolve to participate in the forums. Keep up the good work though, I think we need more people like you in Wikipedia. I will read up on WP:NOR and all the relevant guidelines. Thanks again and kudos for taking my article seriously. Dm-jp (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

POWER stuff
My RS/6000 prototype was made on your initiative. It's probably OK to use as a beginning of a fork, but it's not that good :) It's better than the RS/6000 stuff in IBM System p though. -- Henriok (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

POWER6+
I noticed on the specs page at IBM that the Power 560 Express uses "POWER6+" but I can't find any other reference to it. Is this a typo, a new packaging (4 chip MCM?), 45 nm parts, all of the above or something else? -- Henriok (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I mailed they guy at the Register. He had noticed that too and asked the IBM rep who confirmed the error, it's notPOWER6+. They've doubled the sockets and 560 is using DCMs, one Power6 chip and one L3 cache. -- Henriok (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RSC
Very cool. There's a lot of stuff hiding in the archives of IEEE. Out of reach for the likes of me though. I'll follow your progress. -- Henriok (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: AlphaStation tables
I've tried a few browsers, and in all of them, depending on the width of the browser window, the tables can end up with slightly different widths if the browser has to wrap text in the tables. This also happens in other articles, eg. SPARCstation. If the window is wide enough, the tables look all the same width. I don't know if there's much that can be done about it. Letdorf (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

VAX articles
Seems like a reasonable approach to structuring the articles; I've left a few suggestions on the appropriate talk pages. Letdorf (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC).

Linkspam from User:Zeffie to zeffie.com
You may want to push back on this, since it was your removal that he reverted. --Fo0bar (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Thanks for the notice. Rilak (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

32 Bit
My phrasing was clumsy, I didn't mean to say that the newer x86 cpus had instructions that were 64 bits long, I meant to say that they had instructions that used a 64 bit word size. However the article can live without this information.

Personally I feel that the whole 8 bit, 16 bit, 31-bit, 32 bit, 64 bit series of articles and the word (computing) article are a horrible mess. HughesJohn (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, they are a horrible mess but near impossible to resolve. Statements such as, "Also, 16-bit CPU and ALU architectures are those that are based on registers, address buses, or data buses of that size," are quite concerning. I can find something to contradict every claim. Are you planning on fixing this? I might make a few corrections to the article if so. Rilak (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't quite work up the courage to start on this one at the moment. HughesJohn (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am a bit busy editing other articles. The problems with the n-bit articles are quite extensive and would likely run into content disputes if major changes were made (such as editing the definition) unless a consensus was developed first with extensive discussion. An attempt was made some time ago, but no interest has materialized. Anyways, remember to be bold and if you do feel up to the task of revising the n-bit articles, give me a shout. Rilak (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:FOSS
Hi... I wondered how long it would be until someone found my collection of quotes :-). Thanks for the pointer to Talk:Chipset, that's a classic example! Yes, it would probably be a good idea to archive the bizarre stream-of-consciousness ramblings on this talk page (and others) to avoid confusing and/or frightening future contributors. Letdorf (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

ANI case (70.79.65.227/Ramu50)
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the specific section here.

To clarify, you are not the subject of the ANI, but you have been previously involved in or have commented on this or a related ANI. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification... I have to say, when I first saw "ANI" I thought User:70.79.65.227 had started one with me as the subject he did to User:Thumperward. Only upon seeing the signature a second later did I realize it in was probaly concerning Ramu50/User:70.79.65.227. I've left a bit on your talk page about User:70.79.65.227 too. Rilak (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I put the clarification in there. :) Jeh (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your work on VAX articles and similar
As a VAX/VMS hacker from way back (former DECcie, former person of middling import in the DECUS VAX SIG, still own three VAXstations and three Alphas) I really appreciate your work here. I wish I could contribute more but you and Letdorf are way ahead of me on these details of model numbers. I did add a bit of detail to the caption on the VAX-11/780 picture though! Jeh (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) Rilak (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Say... would some pictures of older VAXstations, Alpha machines, a BA123, be of any use? I could do that. Jeh (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Pictures of VAXen and Alpha machines would be most helpful. I've tried to find some on Commons, but there was surprisingly little on DEC hardware (or perhaps I was looking in the wrong place). In short, pictures would be great, thanks! Rilak (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ms. Rilak!
Could you mind edit the article about Joe Son? First thanks first!

 Relly Komaruzaman   Talk   11:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

regarding the DEC Alpha architecture section
I assume you intend to add more to the Architecture section of the DEC Alpha article.

Please either do this, or remove the section until the rest of the content is ready. The instruction formats are certainly out of place with nothing else in the Architecture section.

What are your plans? Mattst88 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is my intention to expand the section. However I see nothing wrong with the architecture section containing only the instruction formats section as instruction formats are a part of the architecture and that is what the section is for. Nevertheless, more content will be added shortly. Regards. Rilak (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DEC 2000 AXP
I don't think this is a huge deal as there were probably only a few months between the launch of the DECpc AXP and the DEC 2000 Model 300 AXP (this document mentions both and is dated July 1993). But I suspect the DECpc AXP was better-known than the DEC 2000 AXP so that would also be a justification for renaming the article. And yes, I'm pretty sure the codename came from Jensen Motors. Letdorf (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

Please join the Alpha/Linux community in #alpha
Hi, we're trying to gather people interested in both Alpha and Linux in order to form a small community. We'd love for you to join us in #alpha on irc.freenode.net. I'm mattst88 on IRC. Hope to see you there soon. Mattst88 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Classes of computers
OOps - I was doing more edits, saved file, without seeing your intervening revert. This quick note being saved, hoping to avoid your thinking it's an edit war. Will look at your comments & get back here with more. 69.106.246.15 (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Less panic - seems I picked up the article for additional edits after your revert. So your revert is in place. 69.106.246.15 (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Now for the revert discussion. The article begins "Computers can be classified, or typed, many ways." It does not say "used to be" - the article serves modern readers. Using modern terminology seems appropriate, with the old terminology noted. If the article no longer applies, if the classifications no longer apply, we should make that explicit. If there were other uses of the old terminology that I missed, those should have been fixed. Clearly I've not understood your revert, can you explain some more (here). Thanks 69.106.246.15 (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, computers can be classified in many ways and one of these many ways is the microcomputer, minicomputer, mainframe classification. Your edit was reverted because the classification was never known as the "microcomputer, midrange computer, mainframe" hierarchy. As this classification generally does not apply to modern computers, I think it should be moved to its own section with a note mentioning its irrelevance to modern computers. Rilak (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I quite agree - historical works. As you've seen I'm only capable of small corrections (sometimes not even that) and quite incapable of what is needed here.  If you can revise the article, great. Otherwise is there a template for "Out of date" that you add, explaining what the problems are?


 * btw, nice catch deleting the data terminal stuff. I'm embarrassed that I missed it. Too focused on word at a time review. 69.106.246.15 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So you would like to have the article have a separate section for the micro, mini, mainframe classification and other section(s) for modern classification(s)? It would require some major changes and probably some discussion at that article's talk page (I am not certain what the consensus regarding embedding modern terms like PCs and mid-range systems in the original classification is), but I will see what can be done. As for the existence of an "out of date" template, yes, there is one: Template:Out of date. Regards. Rilak (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ANDES
It's hard to say what SGI really meant with the acronym. I looked through the R10K HotChips '95 presentation, the uProcessor Report article, User Manual and Product Brief. I seem to remember attending the uProcessor Forum presentation also but I think SGI didn't give out hardcopies. In the product brief, as a sub-bullet underneath ANDES, it says 4-issue. So that would support your idea of it representing the microarchitecture. But its not very clear. Dyl (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)