User talk:Rilak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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 Your recent edit to the workstation article has removed much of the historical content, such as the paragraph which discussed the evolution of low cost minicomputers such as the VAX into workstations.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)

[edit] RS64 - Thanks!

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
votestacking

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)