User talk:Pixel8/Archive1

MOS Technology?

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for contributing to the Atari 2600 article! Regarding the MOS name issue, a discussion thread has been started at Talk:MOS Technologies 6502. Feel free to drop by. --Wernher 21:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the issue in all the affected articles. Great! I must admit I'm slightly embarrassed for not having seen it earlier, but what the heck -- that's what Wikipedia is for, I guess. :-) --Wernher 03:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chip variants

Regarding the various chip versions here and there (SIDs, etc; thanks for digging them out, btw) -- I'm not so sure there's a need for a separate article on each of those. In the case of any interesting tidbits of info on the variants, I think such stuff might easily be included right there (in the list of variants within the main chip article). Agree? --Wernher 03:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't proposing to have a article for each chip variant, that would be sheer madness! :-0 As you said, the variants belong to the main article for the respective chip. Pixel8 00:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, that was what I thought you meant all along. Anyway, with all shreds of doubt now removed, I'll just fix the detail of removing the link markers (y'know, the [['s and ]]'s) in those listings, to make the article look tidier. --Wernher 21:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

greetings

Hi. I am looking for people who know a lot about IT. I found you from the history of Central processing unit and I checked your contributions in WP. I found your contributions fabulous and I thought you might be interested to know a bit about my project, which is not related to Wikipedia but it is a wiki for computer technology. If you express interest in this project I will give you the URL and perhaps an Invitation, but if you aren't interested I will not send you any more messages. See User:Npc/List. Thanks! Npc 15:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great job

Great job with those 64 motherboard pictures. Mirror Vax 05:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked them :-) Pixel8 16:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Cool article

I gotta say, that C64 article is pretty darn cool :-) With regards to the 32KB article size restriction: don't sweat it. See Windows 2000 for an FA article that is way over that size. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. :-) Pixel8 13:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Your pictures

Thanks for uploading your great pictures, they look like they were taken by a professional studio photographer, though you don't seem to credit yourself as one. Thanks especially for the Sinclair Spectrum photo. I'm a big fan of Sinclair Research Ltd and Clive Sinclair himself, I did a lot of work on the Sinclair Research article as well. — Wackymacs 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I hope to have more Spectrum pictures uploaded soon. -- Pixel8 22:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amstrad CPC article

Hi there. Looking through your recent contribs, it's obvious where your interested lie! I happened to pop to the Amstrad article as I was loft-clearing recently and just popped my old Arnold into the bin. One downside of the monitor setup is that when a fuse goes in that thing, the computer's no longer useable. And at UK30+ for a repair and a value of UK10 on eBay... Hey ho.

Anyway, I was just querying your re-insertion of the 6845 link. I'd dropped it as it's linked about 8 lines above (though admittedly in another section). In fairness, the relevance of the material around says that maybe it should be linked where you've replaced it, but standard Wiki guidelines do recommend keeping links to the first appearance unless they're separated by a vast distance within the article.

I'm not going to remove the link again, though. Not one for revert wars or anything stupid like that. Don't you love nice, vague guidelines? :)

IainP (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I didn't spot the link above the one I restored! Oops... However, it would seem logical to have a link to the 6845 in the video section of the article though. You binned your CPC!? I'm sure someone on eBay would gladly take it off your hands. But then again, some people's time is worth more than messing about with ebay for a measly tenner. :( Pixel8 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you as regards the link. Stuff it - let it stay! And yes, the old Ammy went in the bin. Much as I have a soft spot in my heart for it (best 8-bit, no competition), it'd not even been powered on in almost 10 years and the monitor had blown a fuse.

RIP Arnold.

IainP (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The CPC was my first choice because a friend had one, but I ended up getting a Commodore 64. The C64 is my best 8-bitter, no competition! :O Pixel8 18:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps from a gaming point of view - the graphics and sound were great. But from a geeky point of view and for programming, there wasn't anything better than the CPC. Best keyboard out there as well. So there. *sticks tongue out*

IainP (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have agreed with you, had Commodore not made the Commodore 128D. :D Pixel8 09:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]