--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Mike Leimon leimon@gmail.com wrote:
Luke,
I took a quick glance at the Wikipedia entry and saw what I thought was an error and I will fix the problem if you can confirm that I understand the situation correctly.
The wikipedia article says the following:
"""
There are two different physical profiles of EOMA68 (based around the legacy PCMCIA classifications):[2]
54 mm × 85.6 mm; 5mm variant (Type II) 54 mm × 85.6 mm; 3.3mm variant (Type I)
Type I is reserved for up to 1366x768 RGB/TTL video output; Type II is reserved for up to 1920x1080 RGB/TTL video output, on the basis that a Type I 3.3mm card may fit into a Type II 5.0mm socket but not vice versa. Thus, a module with a lower-capacity video output will physically be prevented from being used with incompatible higher-resolution devices, preventing any possible confusion about interoperability.
type I 3.3mm.... no! that's wrong! well spotted. i believe i added that in a hurry without checking.
"""
However, as I understand things, the second part of the article is incorrect and should probably be as follows:
"""
Type II is reserved for up to 1366x768 RGB/TTL video output; Type I is reserved for up to 1920x1080 RGB/TTL video output, on the basis that a Type I 3.3mm card may fit into a Type II 5.0mm socket but not vice versa. Thus, a module with a lower-capacity video output will physically be prevented from being used with incompatible higher-resolution devices, preventing any possible confusion about interoperability.
yep well done for spotting that, please somebody feel free to make the correction. sooner is better.... before yet _another_ person goes and claims "authoritatively" that they're in a position to make factually misleading statements about EOMA68.... *sigh*....
"""
Please respond and let me know if I am understanding this issue correctly and if so, I'll make this correction to the article after I am back home from work for the day.
I'm not sure about any other issues with the article but, when I get a chance I'll try to take a closer look at it (maybe some time tomorrow).
it's not the article itself: it's the fact that... well.... take a look at the wikipedia COI noticeboard, if you dare. we have several people "chipping in" who know "wikipedia rules" but have absolutely f***-all knowledge of what EOMA68 is actually about. they're therefore trying to "clean up" the page... but are substituting factually completely WRONG information in its place.