User talk:Brouhaha

Welcome!

Hello, Brouhaha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDP

The issue with "un-authorized" in PDP-10 had nothing to do with getting an OK from DEC - it referred to the film company, which very likely would not have used the name if they knew of the "666" connection. Noel 15:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Brouhaha! I suspect we probably know each other "out in the real world!" In any case, you'd better write that 2000C Timesharing BASIC stuff soon or I may beat you to it! :) (I wonder if I can still find my manual...)

If you want to find me, you can just Google for my name with PDP-11 or some such.

Atlant 21:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the interesting reply on Talk:MOS Technology 6502!

Telebit

It seems you have some knowledge of the Telebit timeline. I have many questions! For starters, though, would you mind a quick visit to the Telebit talk page? Maury 13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateware and G4

CSD G4 (recreated) only applies if the new version is identical / too similar to the deleted version hence it wasn't CSD G4'able. I'm not touching it with my admin stick anymore as its obvious I'm at a conflict of interest there so I'll just let it run its course and see if the (good faith IMHO) editor has a major improvement that can bring it out of the AfD criteria -- Tawker 18:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD criteria was that the term "Gateware" is not in standard industry usage. Only User:Megacz and one company using it for proprietary products are trying to promulgate its use. In fact, it appears that this may be an attempt to use Wikipedia to try to promote the term, since now a significant percentage of the references to gateware on the internet are sites mirroring Wikipedia content.

There was even a deletion review, and the consensus was that the deletion criteria was legitimate and the AfD process was followed properly.

I've proposed it for speedy deletion again. If that doesn't happen, I will start another AfD.

Greetings

Greetings, Brouhaha. I've responded to the question you posed on User Talk:CMaudlin CMaudlin 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style tips

Hi. I have a few small comments. First, per the WP:Mos#Headings, it is good to use lowercase in section headings, so

==Related algorithms==

rather than

==Related Algorithms==

Second, it is nice to have the variables italic or in math tags for math formulas, so $\cos x+i\sin x.$ looks better than just cos x + i sin x. These are again small things, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. I welcome such advice. --09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Howdy, Eric, very nice to see you on Wikipedia. How have you been since we met in the CHM? toresbe 04:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5100 microcode

Over on the Talk:IBM 5100 page you made some comments on the 360 (370?) microcode on the 5100. I am curious if this was "widely known"? I have seen a claim on another page that this was "hidden" until recently, but I have found mentions on older web pages. I'd really like to nail it down though. Any ideas? Maury 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was stated in "The IBM Family of APL Systems" (A.D. Falkoff, IBM Systems Journal vol 30 no 4, 1991) that the 5100 emulates the System/360 to run APL\SV. In "A Microprocessor-Based Portable Computer: The IBM 5100" (D. Robson, Proceedings of the IEEE vol 64 no 6, June 1976), Robson states that the 5100 uses emulation to run the APL and BASIC interpreters, but doesn't explicitly identify the emulated computer(s). --Brouhaha 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Feedback

Hi I was wondering if you could take a minute of your time to provide feedback on my article: Qosmio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolzero20 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Qosmio is of no interest to me. --Brouhaha 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delay line memory

Thanks for adding the memory types template. Could you tweak it so that the picture and template don't squeeze the lead on lower resolution screens? Thanks. Robert K S 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Vantis

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Vantis, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Vantis seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Vantis, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7456 - 7469

I have TI datasheets for those chips. Here is the 56/57:

http://www.allXXXXXXXXXXdatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/88571/TI/SN74LS56.html

(remove the XXXXXXXXXX from the URL. Wikipedia blocks that website for some reason so that's how I'm tricking it.)

And here is the 68/69:

http://www.datasheetXXXXXXXXXX4u.com/html/S/N/7/SN74LS68_TexasInstruments.pdf.html

(remove the XXXXXXXXXX from the URL. Wikipedia blocks that website for some reason so that's how I'm tricking it.)

I'm not exactly sure how to reference those. Feel free to write up a reference with those resources I provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Boldt (talk • contribs) 04:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popek and Goldberg criteria for MC68000

I know it's been four years ago, but do you have a source for this info? Pcap ping 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations of manuals. --Brouhaha (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRS-80 proposed split

Hi there,

I notice that you recently contributed to the TRS-80 article and wondered if you were interested in adding your opinion to the discussion on the proposed article split. If you have no strong opinion either way, or don't wish to contribute, please feel free to ignore this message. Thank you for your time. Ubcule (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dimension (company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dimension (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimension (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Brycehughes (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brainship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Outer Limits (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature of the Apple Lisa OS Multitasking Model

You and I went back and forth about the nature of the Apple Lisa's multitasking back in 2004. I felt that it was preemptive based on things I had read here and there and you felt it was cooperative. You convinced me of the latter, but more recently I have been seeing it described as preemptive, and I see the Wiki page has been update to reflect that since our back and forth. The evidence pointed to in references is on page 50 of the Lisa Operating System Reference Manual.

The relevant portion, I believe, is:

THE PROCESS STACK

Because the Operating System sometimes needs to scan the stack of a process, certain conventions must be observed:

* Register A7 is the stack pointer of the process.

* Register A6 is the link register for the process stack.

* All procedures must execute the LINK instruction using A6 as the link register before any local data is placed on the stack or another procedure call is executed.

These conventions are obviously hidden from the programmer's view in high level languages , but must be followed by assembly language programmers.

Stack expansion is handled automatically by the Operating System.

I am curious if you feel that this clearly points to preemption. I believe that it does, but it is not plainly stated. I wanted to hear what your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakespot (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]