Something like this:

[[File:Canopus_Pure3D.jpg|200px|thumb||Canopus Pure3D]]

mwdmeyer wrote:

Something like this:

[[File:Canopus_Pure3D.jpg|200px|thumb||Canopus Pure3D]]

Ok, thanks. I got it working with a bit of URL hacking. 😁

Is there a possibility to include a template for citations?

I made a page I would be glad if someone checked out [I'm no native speaker]:
http://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Matrox_Mystique

So who wants to write a PC/PCI aka SB-Link connector article to enlighten me? 😁

RacoonRider wrote:

I made a page I would be glad if someone checked out [I'm no native speaker]:
http://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Matrox_Mystique

Yes, I saw it already! I think it's very well done, keep up the good work!
What I also like is how you included information as to how those cards are these days.
Particularly the 3dfx page is very well done considering how short a time we've had to create our articles!

I'm also not a native speaker, so any feedback is always welcomed 😀

I wrote some articles mainly about older motherboards and even though I tried to include as much relevant data as I could and should, I'm pretty sure I did miss something. I could always include a couple links to some of the discussions here on Vogons and I haven't included any links to the really extensive stuff here on Vogons yet (like the ultimate 486/686 benchmark threads), but I'm working on it.

I'm off and on this project this entire day 🤣! Still have a couple ideas, but first I'm uploading a few pics 😁

I merely took most of the information from wikipedia... 😉 but yeah, everything is coming together quite nicely so far. If a lot of people contribute some stuff, especially for some of the more exotic topics, this will come out really great 😀

I just started two new articles:
http://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Yamaha
http://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Useful_DOS_utilities

I'm no native English speaker either, but it's (= it is) "its own advantages", "its competitors", "its good 2D performance"... 😀

I like this!! 😎

Just a suggestion to the articles about the different HARDWARE items:
- how about adding DATES (month year /first half of 199x, early in... etc...) when describing the different variants and models ?

When did it first appear/release year/time, and when did the latest models go on market/beeing phased out. (main/normal timeline, so to speak)

As to get a grip of what era software could be run on these things.
Or something like that. And general info/interest as well.

OR.... does this better suit the "Recommended Builds" pages ?

If I have information about the dates I try to include it, but you probably understand yourself that it's not that easy to get dates for all of the hardware, especially with obscure stuff

...but if you know something that's not listed feel free to fill it in, I'm sure now that I suggested this to you we will have precise DD-MM-YYYY dates for everything by tomorrow 😁

Guys I would rather not see this be some duplicate Wikipedia. I think we should instead go for sharing practical experiences with hardware and games.

Wikipedia won't even accept information of that sort because they refer to it as original research. Well we are supposedly the experts at using this old junk so I say that's what we should do with our Wiki. That's what gets lost in the forum after all.

This ^^^^^

The Sierra driver hacking stuff comes to mind. The OPL3->DB60XG Chorus/Reverb mod too.

Stuff that's stored on these forum pages, that you can't find anywhere else.

iulianv, thanks, I sometimes forget stuff 😀

On the topic: I think that every article should at least have "Today" section. It's very good if it's written entirely from this angle, but if it's more of a historical reference, at least several words should be said from our perspective.

RacoonRider wrote:

iulianv, thanks, I sometimes forget stuff 😀

On the topic: I think that every article should at least have "Today" section. It's very good if it's written entirely from this angle, but if it's more of a historical reference, at least several words should be said from our perspective.

I think this is a good idea. I didn't include a "Today" section in any of the articles I wrote but tried to write about the practical use of it while including as much relevant data as I could. And I'll probably be rewriting my article about Athlon in the CPU section as I'm not totally happy about it 🤣.

But it's going quite well considering most of us are probably wiki newbs right now 😁

Edit:Or perhaps we should only include information that's relevant for today?

swaaye wrote:

Guys I would rather not see this be some duplicate Wikipedia. I think we should instead go for sharing practical experiences with hardware and games.

Wikipedia won't even accept information of that sort because they refer to it as original research. Well we are supposedly the experts at using this old junk so I say that's what we should do with our Wiki. That's what gets lost in the forum after all.

For the record, I agree. The history stuff is more of an added bonus in this article, since for starters, I wanted to get at least one article with a decent amount of text and depth going. I think I added enough information to make it still a worthwile read for new users that are asking the same questions about these cards over and over again.

Frankly if everyone is going to just criticize what should be in the wiki and what not without contributing themselves, not much is bound to happen 😜 (not directed at you)

How is all of this stuff being backed up? Can it be easily restored somewhere if the host disappears?

Well it is stored on a dedicated server on hardware that I own in a data centre that I frequently visit (I know the owner of the data centre). The server is backed up each night.

So I think it should be fine 😀

I have some objections to the current article layout.

f.e. if you take the Yamaha article, there is a paragraph for each card. If you consider adding example initialization setups and maybe even example wavetable recordings one page would grow rapidly.
I see also some lack of exact writing, f.e. for the SW60XG is written "Not a fully-featured soundcard."
What does this mean? Do you really want to introduce a feature distinction?
I guess it would more correct to mention that there is no codec for digital out.

There is also the page Useful DOS utilities, which does not only present Utilities but also drivers and TSRs.
Especially for the TSRs and drivers there should be at least a small description why they are better and which additional features they have as well as limitations (f.e. requires 386, or f.e. for UMBPCI requires supported chipset + floppy access won't work anymore)

You are right with some of your criticism, but you have to take into account that this wiki is only a few days old. As for the SW60XG, I added this sentence since I thought by saying it's a standalone DB50/60XG the rest should be evident...