Talk:TRS-80 Model 100 line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"No current portable computers has the appearance of the Model 100 line. More powerful systems are found as pocket-sized PDAs, or palm tops. Laptop computers with full size keyboards are larger, heavier, and have much shorter battery life than the Model 100 style of machine."

I have no idea what this means. Is it comparing to laptops of the time, or laptops of today? Any info on how much the Model 100 weighed for comparison? --Ntg 07:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The mass is given in the article - 1.4 kg. No current laptop has so little mass. By "current" I mean present-day.

The edit is incorrect in that it says the 100 booted faster than disk-based computers of the time - the Model 100 still boots faster than *any* disk based computer. I will fix the sentence to say what I mean. --Wtshymanski 08:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What to say about the Model100 ?

how-tos? cold starts, recovery, data-on-cassette, telcom, ni-cad replacement, keyboard elastics, "the HOT setup" ? (club100.org) TPDD specs, pinouts and protocols BoosterPac Description of available ROMs, (Super, URII, Cleauseau, XR4, TSDOS, Rombo, etc) Control; servo, cassette motor , X10, using BCR

hey, I could take some photos ! djp

Please do! And add as much information as you can.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 20:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Tandy manuals

What is the status of the copyright of the original owners/service/basic manuals ? Can we HTMLize them and post them here ? They comprise the bulk of required reference for these systems.

Please sign your comments. The manuals don't belong here, because Wikipedia is not a how-to manual (WP:NOT). Put them on a free website, link to them, and all will be fine. I doubt Tandy will care, but don't quote me on that.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 20:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Binary Prefix Edit War

This edit war appears to be over historical accuracy vs. numerical accuracy.

The Manual of Style states that the new binary prefixes are optional. WP:MOSNUM#Avoiding_confusion
"The use of the new binary prefix standards in the Wikipedia is not required, but is recommended for use in all articles where binary capacities are used."

The main page of the Manual of Style covers how to handle style disputes. Wp:mos#Disputes_over_style_issues

"when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

"If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

The Manual of Style is a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Building consensus is a Wikipedia policy.

I would suggest that the contributors to this article try to reach a consensus on this talk page (and not in the edit summaries.)

Perhaps the article could explain that in 1983 memory was expressed as 32K. (Often just 32K not 32KB.) Today the difference in decimal and binary sized have lead to kibibytes and mebibytes. The specification section could state that this is how thing were expressed in 1983. Both points of view could improve the article,

There is not a correct answer but the most weight should go to the major contributors. SWTPC6800 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you can add that in 1983 memory was expressed as 32K, though I don't think it is relevant. Sarenne 12:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a change to the Specifications section. This gives an example of the changes in binary prefixes over the years. Please note the optional new binary prefixes are not a ban on the previous units. Also 8K Model 100 and 24K Model 100 are proper names. SWTPC6800 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok for the models but the specifications are not quoted so it is accurate to use IEC prefixes. Sarenne 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will update the Specification section to exactly quote the 1984 catalog SWTPC6800 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's useless to quote such things in an encyclopedia... It's not an article about the 1984's catalog.Sarenne 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)