User talk:Matt Britt/Archive 1

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, überpenguin. Thank you for your work around the wiki. Judging from the work you've done and your user page, it seems that your forte is in computer science; you can find plenty of articles in need of help in this field or others at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.

You might find these links helpful in starting new articles or helping with existing ones: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, and About 'Show preview'. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you'd like to introduce yourself to the community, you can sign yourself up at the new users log. If you have any particular questions, you can see the help pages, or, for individual help, feel free to add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

You look to be getting along well here, but I thought that one or a couple of the links above might be of use to you. Anyway, thank you for your contributions; I hope you continue to help us.

-- Djinn112 20:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

danke for the os400/i5/os stuff :) (I mentioned the name change) -- Hobart 15:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

I invite you to sign in as a participant to the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses project and add that page to your watchlist. Tom Haws 21:04, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded! The project is just getting properly started now-- feel free to comment on the proposed structure for the JW articles. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

PowerPC processor

in the section for processor companyies you cant find any information on PowerPC all those other link are x86bias theres only three companyies that make powerpc now IBM, Motorola, AMCC. so by adding IBM-Motorola how does that favor on type over the other when it allready favors x86 just trying to balance things out. you only find x86 in computers, you find PowerPC in embedded,computer,routers,military,low power,high performance,game systems,NASA,MRI machines,Boing...........so tell me again how that article which talk about processors doesnt have any links to the number one embedded architecture PowerPC, and how unbiased it is....

The statement "you only find x86 in computers" makes me seriously doubt your comprehension of computer architecture... Would you refuse to call a dual processor Xeon compute node in a cluster a "computer" just because it is part of a distributed system?

If you think x86 chips aren't found in embedded and high performance devices, you're dead wrong. Several of the Top500 supercomputers are x86-powered, and there are plenty of "embedded" devices that use low-power x86 chips like the VIA Nehemiah. The XBox uses an Intel x86 processor, so how exactly is the console market untouched by x86? Furthermore, PowerPC chips aren't very popular for extremely low power applications like routers, where MIPS and ARM designs excell.

While the Processor article is somewhat out of place and really needs to be merged or revised, it talks about processors in VERY general terms, not mentioning ANY particular architecture, x86 or otherwise. There is no reason to add PowerPC over the HUNDREDS of other CPU architectures (why not add links to MIPS, ARM, POWER, IA-32, IA-64, iAPX 432, NEC SX-6, etc etc etc?). I will continue to revert those inappropriate links until you can provide more compelling reasons to keep them. If you think I'm out of line please don't hesitate to contact an administrator. -- uberpenguin 01:28, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Additionally, you mention non-bias, but how exactly is calling PowerPC the "number one embedded architecture" a non-bias, especially without any sort of cited usage statistics? In my experience I have seen ARM, MIPS, Zilog Z80, and M68k used in embedded applications many many more times than the relatively new PowerPC. Your level of awareness of embedded systems seems to completely ignore all of the other extremely popular architectures. -- uberpenguin 15:01, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

x84-xeon clusterFuck is a danm computer

you've heard of cisco systems right....they use PowerpC in all there systems... GM PowerPC ..... over 80 percent traffic signal Powerpc... NASA land rover PowerPC.....why didnt they choose MIPS or ARM... ARM is not a versital as PowerPC... MIPS not as prevlent.. PowerPC runs on the smallest of application such nasa's land rover to the larges t such IBM' Blue/gene supercomputer........ why do you think microsoft chose PowerpC ....because the die is 1/3 the size X86 so in 2 more years at 45nm IBM can put 10 core....x86 die to large to much heat... a but dont worry now that microsoft has licensed PowerPC x86 system dies because you'll run foghorn on your next box.....itel suck.... and about thet via chip it was just release like a year and a halve ago because at 90nm x86 starts to become low power...PowerPC at 180um was allready low power...15 years ago.......... oh and architecturs there only PowerPC=4HighPerformanceApps/lowPowerApps(everyWhere)x86=computersOnly(shitXscale),68000=shiftTowardPowerPC,MIPS=popularEurope,PA-RISC=mergedIA-64,ia-64=onlifesupport,alpha=dead and who the hell are you to decide what defines a processor...and exlude every thing else....this project is about spreading information...to peaple who dont know.....like your self just how pevasive PowerPC is ...it not about Apple(suck to like i got a shity ibook because my ThinkPad broke, and i'm not about to buy another intel chip while there going from 130nmto90nm because theyll sell all there test crap to before 90nm is refined, i hate it, but its got a PowerPC in waiting for FreeBSD it got a 7 hour battery life) it about performance best of bread.... powerpc's die is so small that ......mevermind...

LOGIN and SIGN your comments please. An identity keeps your accountability in check. Profanity is not necessary either thanks. -SV|t 22:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

So your justification for your edits is profanity and more nonsense? Consider your edits reverted and yourself reported to an administrator. -- uberpenguin 13:56, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Every single thing you have mentioned is available in other processors, it seems that you would have the world believe that PowerPC is the best CPU architecture ever conceived. x86 IS used in high performance AND low power applications, the 68000 series still sees extremely large usage in the embedded sector, MIPS is an incredibly popular CPU family that is found in everything from the Playstations to embedded devices to SGI high performance workstations and rack units.

IBM doesn't even USE PowerPC processors in their biggest systems; for that they use POWER. PowerPC was used for BlueGene because single, very powerful processors aren't necessarily needed for a good cluster computer. Take a look at the current Top500 list and specifically the top 5. The first and fourth are based on PowerPC, the second is a MIPS-based machine, the third (which held the top position for a few years) is based on NEC's SX-6 architecture, the fourth is Itanium 2 based. Look down the list farther and you'll find many many super computers that are x86 based; number 10, 13, 17, 18, etc. It is nothing more than a total fallacy to say that x86 isn't used in the high-performance computing sector.

x86 is often a very desirable choice because of the availability and low cost of the hardware. If you honestly believe that the only measure of a computer's merit is its performance and power consumption, and that cost has absolutely no bearing on its popularity, you are fooling nobody but yourself. Again, I ask you to justify why we should mention PowerPC on the Processor page when NO OTHER ARCHITECTURE is mentioned. It's inclusion is totally inappropriate. What's more, PowerPC is a more or less open spec designed by the AIM alliance. Companies do NOT have to license it from IBM to produce their own PowerPC-compatible processors. Frankly, I do not believe statements like "itel suck... [sic]" are indicative of unbiased, encyclopedic, and appropriate writing. -- uberpenguin 14:40, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Please try to justify your edits by reasonable means that don't resort to name calling and citation of general facts that apply to several microprocessors. Otherwise someone else will have to get involved in this. -- uberpenguin 00:17, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

I have requested mediation for these edits. If you truly believe that your edits merit keeping and are willing to discuss this with a neutral party, please post on the mediation page and indicate whether or not you accept third-party mediation. -- uberpenguin 14:42, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

As a direct rebuttal to your continued claim that companies must license PowerPC from IBM, an IBM DeveloperWorks article outlining the history of POWER and PowerPC directly states "... one of the best things about the PowerPC architecture is that it is open: it specifies an instruction set architecture (ISA) that allows anyone to design and fabricate PowerPC-compatible processors ..." [1]. I can't imagine you requiring more direct evidence of PowerPC's open nature than that, but if you would like, I can also provide links to places where IBM provides free download of the entire ISA specifications for PowerPC and plenty of extra documentation on its internals. I say again: PowerPC is an OPEN standard, one does NOT have to license it from IBM to produce a PPC-compatible chip (companies that DO license it are licensing IBM's own implementations of PowerPC). PowerPC was indeed derived from IBM's POWER, but in the process of collaboration with Apple and Motorola, IBM allowed PowerPC to be an open standard. I continue to await your response. -- uberpenguin 04:58, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Response to WP:RFM request

I think this argument is rather misguided. There's no reason to exclude the links, unles they are strictly commercial - or any information --links or otherwise about specific prominent architechtures. While its a good idea to explain things in general terms, this does not preclude going into any degree of detail, using specific real-world examples. In this case, listing all architechtures is not necessary - there should be a separate article for lists - but there are only a few very prominent and ubiquitous architectures, and thats fair enough to deal with. If youre talking about hybrid RAM-dependent architectures its fair to point to point to Transmeta for example. The processor article should be merged with CPU - theres no apparent justification for being separate.

The anon user appears to be young and lacking in spelling and other coherence skills - but he makes (appears to allude to) the very' valid point that material should be included, rather than excluded. Excluding material here is called "m:exclusionism." An assertion of the superiority of one architecture over another is of course POV if its not based on independent benchmarking. Also- this discussion should not be here - it should be at the talk page for the article. -Thanks -SV|t 22:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC) (WP:MC)

rv CMOS Akidd_dublin

hello, please notice it was only a notice.

reason: the explanation is too long, unnecessary technical and difficult. there was a request for a more simple explanation. would not edit or change existing sentences of this article.

now, my notice explains the NOT gate clearly. probably it needs to be placed at a different position whatever.Akidd_dublin 200502060949

If you feel your revisions should be included, please post something like this on the talk page for CMOS, not here. My main problems with what you included were stylistic; they broke the flow of the article. Including an example of one basic CMOS logic implementation is a good idea, but it probably should be put in its own section, not in the introduction, and should be formatted a little bit more clearly. -- uberpenguin 13:50, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Leaving G4 boards?

Hey there uber... been a while since we've seen you over at the G4 boards. Still alive? :-D --Mrmiscellanious 21:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mostly, I'm still getting a few things together... I'll probably make a brief appearance again soon before disappearing in time for finals. -- uberpenguin 22:19, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Oakland Gallery

All the uploaded pics are now on my Oakland Cemetery Gallery. I also reuploaded the two with the cemetery misspelling and will be listing the misspelled version on Imager for Deletion. Enjoy! Autiger 17:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cell processor

Image from IBM website [2]

User:Eyesopen

Hi Uberpenguin!

I had an encounter with Eyesopen some weeks ago which I thought was serious enough to make a log out of it on a subpage. It appeared at first that Eyesopen had chosen to leave Wikipedia, and I was about to request this subpages deletion, when I noticed that Eyesopen had returned. I'm just informing you in case you're interested, although my hope is that this can be solved peacefully. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello uberpenguin. It's curious. I thought you might just be a bit paranoid so I checked. Eyesopen made about 33 edits on WP beginning on 10 April 2005 and ending 6 June 2005. With the exception of two edits regarding Pound sterling articles and a few edits to his own User page every other edit was only to the Jehovah's Witnesses page and its Talk page. User Central began editing on 10 June 2005. 21 of 22 edits are to the Jehovah's Witnesses page or its Talk page. You were right! That guy's out of control!!! --DannyMuse 8 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)

Totally uber... in Germany

Hello Uberpenguin, I thought you'd be pleased to see the Oakland Cemetery article being suggested as the subject of a small editor-to-editor prize award, in a new german-WP project. See Wikipedia:Kopfgeld for details. Congrats on getting some fantastic images since the end of the International Writing Contest, btw.

As one of the top 10 in that contest, your article will be automatically entered in the Wikimania Media and Writing Contest next month; please nominate other great articles and media you have come across.

Cheers, +sj + 8 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)

The dialogue is cool; the project idea is : you offer some "brain-food" prize in exchange for others doing cool wiki-work. It's a more focused effort along the lines of Wikipedia:Wikimoney; I might offer my new copy of the "New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge", or something from the wikishop of up to $10, for the first person to write a featured article about librarianship or archiving. One of the prizes is being offered for someone to translate Oakland Cemetery and Spring Heeled Jack, presumably b/c they were two supercool entries in the IWC that have no German equivalent. +sj + 8 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

Actually most of the specific Okaland-dialogue is about what I get for translating the article :-) But anyway. Since I need the pictures too, now I've uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. -- gruss southgeist 16:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Billions

Before reverting PlayStation 3 to remove the clarification of the meaning of "billion" (thousands of millions, in this case), did you bother to read the Billion article? A billion is 10E9 only for Americans, and the PS3 article as it stands is ambiguous --how do you propose to clarify the usage being made of billion? I agree that the thousands of millions parenthesis is awkward, so what's your suggestion?

Urhixidur 16:32, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

Barnstar!

I, Wulf, hereby award you this Technology Barnstar, for excellent work on CVG and general computer related articles.

Congratulations :)

Feel free to move it to your main userpage.

--Wulf 03:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

ALU

hey,

i like the work you've been doing on Central processing unit. After you finish up with some work on the ALU?

ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm in a hardware class now for Computers. Actually doing a presentation on the ALU and integer representation in a few weeks. If i can help at all with the CPU article, i'd be glad too, just tell me what I'd have to look for and between classes and when i'm not studying for GRE's i'll try and help. Added note, i nominated the ALU for collaboration of the week. if you'd like to vote for it here.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

bleh

It only looks messy if you're editing the article. I'm not going to begrudge you 23 characters, but if the same thing is done throughout WP, it becomes significantly more than a simple 23... It also denies new editors the opportunity to learn complete WML. It's not worth fighting over tho... Tomer ^TALK 21:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

CPU AID

Hey,

I thought since you've done a lot of work on the CPU article that you'd be interested in supporting the CPU nomination on the wikipedia aid drive.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/OpenBSD

Hey, I noticed you like OpenBSD and that you are no slouch with working on articles, so I was wondering if I could drag you into the OpenBSD article to give it a looking over - there had been a peer review and now I hope to bring the article up to featurable status. Unfortunately, noone seems to be willing to comment on the article, only three people have actually given an opinion on the it. Janizary 07:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ken Kutaragi

Hi uberpenguin. Fot the great contributor you are, all work in PlayStation 3, I suppose that you can help the dispute in this article. Thanks.

Semi-protection needed on Kutaragi

Brazil4Linux has returned, again. I think the only viable option is that Kutaragi become a semiprotected article... Daniel Davis 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)