ChristTrekker wrote:This conversation could rightly move to the talk page for the specifications template.
I like that idea a lot!~tl wrote:I agree. Though, how about having an infobox with the essential specs, then a fuller version (possibly in table form) in the text of the page?
Who knows, maybe someone asked. But I doubt it.Quadraman wrote:I wonder if Dan Knight can sue Wikipedia for republishing his material. THat Classic II entry is a direct cut and paste from LEM.
Quadraman wrote:I wonder if Dan Knight can sue Wikipedia for republishing his material. THat Classic II entry is a direct cut and paste from LEM.
funkytoad wrote:Does he know that his material is there?
equill wrote:I favour list form, but with all related specs in the same row, as EveryMac has them, but more so. And I favour completeness ahead of skeletal presentation. Perhaps other sites have specs, not always accurate, and not always complete, but nothing beats having the lot in a single window in front of you, tabs and Exposé (or similar) notwithstanding.
And by complete I mean complete in ways that other sites are not. Max. RAM not as of date of release but as of now. Newer processors that can be supported. All CPU upgrades that ever were. Logic board upgrades and shared board form factors. 68K Macs are a finite group for this kind of thoroughness, and the data need to be preserved before they evanesce into the ether.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests