Too many redundant pages!

[Mechcozmo]

Please read! There seems to be an urge with creating multiple pages that do the same thing. iTunes has six pages for six versions.

There should be ONE PAGE per item, with SUBTOPICS in that page. Example: iTunes page, and on the iTunes page are 6 different sections dealing with each of the different versions of iTunes.

Same can be done with computers. Does every single iBook revision need its own page, or can all the colored iBook models have their own page, the white iBooks have another, the iBook G4s have their own? This will prevent confusion later on when someone gets 20 results for the same thing-- iBooks.

This doesn't mean that all the PowerMacs have to share one page. Far from it. But the Quicksilver PowerMacs should have their own page, not 6 different pages for the 6 different machines in that era!

Please, read this and we can work on this issue NOW before it becomes too big to ignore.

 

[arn]

Please read! There seems to be an urge with creating multiple pages that do the same thing. iTunes has six pages for six versions.

There should be ONE PAGE per item, with SUBTOPICS in that page. Example: iTunes page, and on the iTunes page are 6 different sections dealing with each of the different versions of iTunes.

Same can be done with computers. Does every single iBook revision need its own page, or can all the colored iBook models have their own page, the white iBooks have another, the iBook G4s have their own? This will prevent confusion later on when someone gets 20 results for the same thing-- iBooks.

This doesn't mean that all the PowerMacs have to share one page. Far from it. But the Quicksilver PowerMacs should have their own page, not 6 different pages for the 6 different machines in that era!

Please, read this and we can work on this issue NOW before it becomes too big to ignore.

heh....

Ya. the iBook revisions did get a bit much.

I think that major revisions should get their own pages.... since I suspect that's how things will go in the future. For example.... when iBook x86 comes out I expect there will be a page for them.

Just like there's a PowerMac Dual Core page right now.

iTunes could consolidate into one page probably. Thought I did get a kick out of someone posting screenshots of iTunes 1.

arn

 

[Mechcozmo]

I think that major revisions should get their own pages.... since I suspect that's how things will go in the future. For example.... when iBook x86 comes out I expect there will be a page for them.

Just like there's a PowerMac Dual Core page right now.

iTunes could consolidate into one page probably. Thought I did get a kick out of someone posting screenshots of iTunes 1.

arn

I just consolidated all the iTunes pages into one.

I'd suggest this as a page creation convention:

PowerMacG5 should all be one. They haven't changed all that much.
PowerMacG4 should also all be one.
PowerMacG3 should all be one as well.

They're called product lines for a reason, eh?

iBookG3 and iBook G4 should be seperate. They are different products.
iPods should have their own page. I'll be damned if I need to tell people to go to the "iPod 3rd generation 15GB" page.

Oddities, like the G3 AIO and the Cube should be seperate pages but link into the main G3 PowerMac and G4 PowerMac pages respectivly.

Mac Mini has its own page.

Etc. Let me look up the code for flagging pages to be merged and I'll start getting on it.

 

[arn]

some weird issues when we both tried moving itunes page at the same time.

Anyhow...

Can we do PowerBook G4 and PowerMac G5 - with a space in between computer and processor?

arn

 

[arn]

Let's keep the PowerMac G5 Dual Core article seperate

 

[Mechcozmo]

some weird issues when we both tried moving itunes page at the same time.

So THAT is what happened...

Can we do PowerBook G4 and PowerMac G5 - with a space in between computer and processor?

See what I've done already. PowerBookG4 is off to a good start. I'm making them like the EMac page. Nice neat and orderly.

 

[Mechcozmo]

Let's keep the PowerMac G5 Dual Core article seperate

I can see why... despite not seeming like a big change, it really is I suppose.

Alright, keep it seperate but have them link to each other.

 

[arn]

I can see why... despite not seeming like a big change, it really is I suppose.

Alright, keep it seperate but have them link to each other.

well, it's not that .... but part of what I envision the use for the site to be is for new product releases. In that I think people will want to follow information specific to this particular PowerMac release. and by the end, it will be a rather rich resource. Of course we go through it all again in the future. In the end, we probably can consolidate historical pages into more of a cumultive page and only keep the most recent products seperate.

For example, iPod 1G might not need its own page now, and can be lumped in. But iPod 5G has a lot of interest and relevant topics that could be posted surrounding it.

arn

 

[Mechcozmo]

well, it's not that .... but part of what I envision the use for the site to be is for new product releases. In that I think people will want to follow information specific to this particular PowerMac release. and by the end, it will be a rather rich resource. Of course we go through it all again in the future. In the end, we probably can consolidate historical pages into more of a cumultive page and only keep the most recent products seperate.

For example, iPod 1G might not need its own page now, and can be lumped in. But iPod 5G has a lot of interest and relevant topics that could be posted surrounding it.

arn

I see what you mean to do with this, have a "Product History" page and a "Current Product" page, but it could be a bit messy with people duplicating work unknowingly, by creating a "PowerBookNew" page and a "PowerBookRevG" page.

Make as few exceptions as possible, methinks.

 

[kalisphoenix]

Sorry -- dumb of me to not put this in the forums to begin with.

I just consolidated all the iTunes pages into one.

I'd suggest this as a page creation convention:

PowerMacG5 should all be one. They haven't changed all that much.
PowerMacG4 should also all be one.
PowerMacG3 should all be one as well.

They're called product lines for a reason, eh?

I cannot believe that you said this.

Here's a list of changes that were made in the iMac G3 line:
Amount of VRAM
tray-loading or slot-loading optical drive
type of optical drive
type of CPU (PPC 750 or PPC 750CXe)
bus speed
ability to accept Airport cards
dimensions
weight
color
the clock speed
the presence or absence of a fan
hard drive size,
acceptable hard drive size
base RAM
type of RAM accepted
maximum supported RAM
presence or absence of a mezzanine slot
the type of video card
the supported Operating Systems and OS versions
presence or absence of Firewire
ability to connect an external CRT, and so on.

Here's a list made between the Power Macintosh G3 (All-in-One) and the Power Macintosh G3 (Blue and White):
Complete change in form factor, from an all-in-one monitor-inclusive machine to a tower setup.
Complete change in colors -- from beige to blue and white.
Additional PCI slot.
No more floppies!
iMac keyboard and mouse.
No serial.
Only one ADB port; added USB.
No SCSI.
Added Firewire.

Here's a list of changes made between the Power Macintosh G4 (Yikes!) and the Power Macintosh G4 (Sawtooth), two models sharing identical clock speeds and released at the same time:
Added Open Firmware ability to select boot device at boot.
Added Airport socket.
Yikes can boot from USB, but not Firewire.
Sawtooth can boot from Firewire, but not USB.
Changed from PCI video to AGP video.
Changed motherboard completely

If you look at it this way, the Power Macintosh G4 (Yikes!) actually has more in common with the Power Macintosh G3 (Blue and White) than it does with the Sawtooth machine. By your logic, since practically the only thing changed was the CPU, the Yikes! should be on the same page as the Blue and White!

I think this argument is ridiculous. This wiki is not going to bankrupt anyone by having too many articles. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that this location serves as a good repository for clear information, efficiently presented. Combining multiple different machines into a single page is a fantastically efficient way to confuse the hell out of whoever reads it.

If there are no differences between two models, then by all means redirect one to the other -- but I think it's fundamentally wrong to assume that all Power Macintosh G3's are the same critter. That's the sort of poor scholarship that results in people unknowingly buying 1st Revision B&W G3's and then wondering why their hard drives get corrupted, or wondering why they can't boot a G3 in Firewire Target Disk Mode or boot a G4 from a firewire disk like an iPod.

 

[kalisphoenix]

Arn: I deleted the content of the page where I attempted to start this discussion (in a moment of brain-dead-ness) and fixed the links in my complaints to point here. Could you delete that page? Thanks

 

[LimeiBook86]

If there are no differences between two models, then by all means redirect one to the other -- but I think it's fundamentally wrong to assume that all Power Macintosh G3's are the same critter. That's the sort of poor scholarship that results in people unknowingly buying 1st Revision B&W G3's and then wondering why their hard drives get corrupted, or wondering why they can't boot a G3 in Firewire Target Disk Mode or boot a G4 from a firewire disk like an iPod.

Good show, I think everything should be like the following:
(Note: details are just used for an example)

Newton
PowerMac
iBook
PowerBook
iMac

Clicking on "iMac" brings you to a list of the major different models (G3, G4, G5)

iMac > iMac G3, iMac G4, iMac G5

Clicking on iMac G3 for example leads you to it's list of models:

iMac G3: Rev A (Bondi 233mhz), Rev B (Bondi 266mhz), Rev C (Raindbow Colors 333mhz)

I think this would be the best way to display and store the information.

-Limey

 

[shamino]

I'd suggest this as a page creation convention:

PowerMacG5 should all be one. They haven't changed all that much.
PowerMacG4 should also all be one.
PowerMacG3 should all be one as well.

I'd agree with that. Take a look at how I've started off the PowerMac G4 page.

Within a product-line page, there can be links to model-specific pages if there is a lot to write about. (For instance, the Cube has a lot to say on its own page. I need to insert a link into the PMG4 page for it.)

One more thing, don't be afraid to put whitespace in page titles. The Wiki engine doesn't have a problem with it, and it makes the page titles easier to read.

 

[TMA]

Posted on kalisphoenix's user page:
"These are just a few examples of the harmful effects that can result from incorrect or poorly conveyed information. It is my opinion that combining information on substantially dissimilar models into single pages is never a good policy. There is no noticeable benefit to acting in accordance with that idea.

What's more is that the same ethic is being applied to every other facet of this wiki. Therefore, I'm getting the hell out of here. The whole experience has just been too frustrating, and I only worked on it for a couple of hours!"

Don't bale on us! please we need you!

Don't take this the wrong way, as I think it's cool you're passionate about this project, but from what i've read that Arn has to say and from how it's developed in just under a day, there's plenty of room for changes, undo's and for evolution. We start off small and develop however we like from there.

Why do we need such strong ethics and enforcements when we can take a 'take it as it comes' attitude?

 

[kalisphoenix]

Off-Topic and TMI:
* Well, I'm also getting married November 12th and spending many hours a week planning that.
* Linked to the above: one of my groomsmen STILL hasn't gotten measured for his tux!!!
* I have to turn in a completed story to workshop on Wednesday and I haven't begun writing it.
* I'm working on a book right now (rather, a series of books).
* I'm working a full-time job to support myself and my wife-to-be, in addition to my other full-time job (I spend at least 40 hours a week solid writing).
*We have a young dog with whom I need to spend more time training and playing.
* I'm battling a nicotine addiction. Yeah, ****ing LOL.
* I recently discovered that I'm not going to be able to graduate college this semester, and since I can't take classes this Spring and we're moving this Summer, it looks like I'm going to be dropping out of college for a record-breaking third time. At the age of 25, I have over 200 credit hours, about $60 000 in debt, and 0 degrees to show for it.
* I've recently begun having migraine headaches, complete with aura.
* I've developed hypertension.
* I'm obsessive-compulsive in respect to computers, which I am going to need to go into treatment for, at some point. I've owned 45 in the past three years, all of which I've seriously believed I was going to own forever. While I owned them, my behavior consisted of repeatedly wiping the hard drives, installing one operating system, tinkering with it, wiping the hard drive, installing another, and repeating for up to thirty hours straight without food or diversion before collapsing in exhaustion. I would then sell the machine, generally at a loss, after repeating this cycle over a period of a few weeks.
* I'm obsessed with the idea of unraveling the symbolic foundation of all literature and writing a book that serves as a perfectly simplified expression of that foundation (much like Animal Farm is a simplified expression of the Stalinist USSR) -- but to the point where I view any data of mine, however innocuous, as a miscategorized, misexpressed, misarranged miscarriage that must be deleted so that I can progress with my life and the expression of my ideas. To that end, I've deleted and restarted the wiki upon which I store my writing over thirty times in the past three months. Each deletion is followed by a frenzied period of research and writing (often forty hours or more in length), a period of depression and a sense of futility, a period of exhausted sleep, and then a period of tranquility
* I also try to sleep now and then.

So, as you can see, I have a lot of stuff outside this Wiki to worry about right now. It's probably best for my mental health for me to avoid taking on any new "projects," especially when I'm passionate about them.

Sure, I'm passionate about the project -- but I'm passionate about everything. I'm insane.

 

[Mechcozmo]

Sorry -- dumb of me to not put this in the forums to begin with.



I cannot believe that you said this.

Here's a list of changes that were made in the iMac G3 line:
Amount of VRAM
tray-loading or slot-loading optical drive
type of optical drive
type of CPU (PPC 750 or PPC 750CXe)
bus speed
ability to accept Airport cards
dimensions
weight
color
the clock speed
the presence or absence of a fan
hard drive size,
acceptable hard drive size
base RAM
type of RAM accepted
maximum supported RAM
presence or absence of a mezzanine slot
the type of video card
the supported Operating Systems and OS versions
presence or absence of Firewire
ability to connect an external CRT, and so on.

Here's a list made between the Power Macintosh G3 (All-in-One) and the Power Macintosh G3 (Blue and White):
Complete change in form factor, from an all-in-one monitor-inclusive machine to a tower setup.
Complete change in colors -- from beige to blue and white.
Additional PCI slot.
No more floppies!
iMac keyboard and mouse.
No serial.
Only one ADB port; added USB.
No SCSI.
Added Firewire.

Here's a list of changes made between the Power Macintosh G4 (Yikes!) and the Power Macintosh G4 (Sawtooth), two models sharing identical clock speeds and released at the same time:
Added Open Firmware ability to select boot device at boot.
Added Airport socket.
Yikes can boot from USB, but not Firewire.
Sawtooth can boot from Firewire, but not USB.
Changed from PCI video to AGP video.
Changed motherboard completely

If you look at it this way, the Power Macintosh G4 (Yikes!) actually has more in common with the Power Macintosh G3 (Blue and White) than it does with the Sawtooth machine. By your logic, since practically the only thing changed was the CPU, the Yikes! should be on the same page as the Blue and White!

I think this argument is ridiculous. This wiki is not going to bankrupt anyone by having too many articles. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that this location serves as a good repository for clear information, efficiently presented. Combining multiple different machines into a single page is a fantastically efficient way to confuse the hell out of whoever reads it.

If there are no differences between two models, then by all means redirect one to the other -- but I think it's fundamentally wrong to assume that all Power Macintosh G3's are the same critter. That's the sort of poor scholarship that results in people unknowingly buying 1st Revision B&W G3's and then wondering why their hard drives get corrupted, or wondering why they can't boot a G3 in Firewire Target Disk Mode or boot a G4 from a firewire disk like an iPod.

I understand all of this. I forgot to mention that the G3 AIO should be a seperate page linking into the main page like the G4 Cube should. However, I disagree with this: "Combining multiple different machines into a single page is a fantastically efficient way to confuse the hell out of whoever reads it." If done correctly, it is a far better way to organize data than multiple seperate pages. If done incorrectly, then you are correct. I am making an effort to consolidate correctly. If needed, once all the data is in one place it is not that hard to spin off the pages if needed. I don't think we will, however.

 

[Mechcozmo]

I'd agree with that. Take a look at how I've started off the PowerMac G4 page.

Within a product-line page, there can be links to model-specific pages if there is a lot to write about. (For instance, the Cube has a lot to say on its own page. I need to insert a link into the PMG4 page for it.)

I was about to wonder why there was a Quicksilver page, but now I see what you are doing. That is the perfect culmination of what I am trying to work on and seperate pages. A page that gives you information and allows you to see more if you want to. Very very very nice.

 

[kalisphoenix]

I understand all of this. I forgot to mention that the G3 AIO should be a seperate page linking into the main page like the G4 Cube should.

But other than the name, the Power Mac G4 Cube has more in common with the Mac mini than it does the G4 towers. The G3 AIO, aside from the CPU and the name, has more in common with with the Performa 5400 than the Yosemite.

I don't see Apple's products being rolled out in distinct "lines," like how you see it. There's a wild level of variation between machines that are supposedly identical on the surface. I think that the desire to call a Yikes a Sawtooth and vice-versa is really, really dangerous.

Perhaps we've been arguing past one another -- what I originally envisioned (but didn't take the time to note) was that certain pages (like [[iBook]]) would be a summary and list of all iBooks. I put in some vestigial descriptions (like "The G4 Powerbooks were based on the Motorola G4 CPU") but you might have assumed that I didn't see the need for any information beyond that.

Having cooled off a bit, I see that your Power Mac G4 page (for instance) is fairly close to what I originally envisioned, except it's a primary content page. The easiest way to explain what I mean is probably to cite an example of what a section of a completed [[iBook]] page would look like.

==Clamshell iBooks==
The clamshell iBooks were based upon a brightly-colored toilet seat design that was big with Reese Witherspoon.
*[[iBook G3 (300MHz)]] -- The original iBook sported no firewire, a 4GB HD, and a base 32MB RAM. It was introduced on such-and-such date.
*[[iBook G3 Firewire (366MHz)]] -- The iBook that debuted in Paris in 2001 sported a larger 10GB HD, a base 64MB RAM, a larger video card, and a faster CD-ROM.
*[[iBook G3 Firewire SE (466MHz)]] -- Also debuted in Paris was....

And so on. Of course, we still disagree about having speeds (or anything else) in parentheses, but I have no clue of how to solve that. I don't think anyone's suggested a really pleasing alternative to that.

Anyway, my point is that I was arguing with you for trying to combine all Power Mac G4s into one amorphous blob of an article, and you were arguing with me for creating unnecessary distinctions. It matters little at this point, but I apologize for being tedious.

However, I disagree with this: "Combining multiple different machines into a single page is a fantastically efficient way to confuse the hell out of whoever reads it." If done correctly, it is a far better way to organize data than multiple seperate pages. If done incorrectly, then you are correct. I am making an effort to consolidate correctly. If needed, once all the data is in one place it is not that hard to spin off the pages if needed. I don't think we will, however.

Perhaps it's just based on my personal opinions. If I see a page, I'm going to read the entire thing. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the respective qualities of two different machines. For some machines, the differences are fundamental, to the point where someone might gloss over a seemingly unimportant detail, make a bad purchase, and then feel completely screwed (as I have in the past). I put a lot of stock in Mac Rumors as a buyer's guide, and I have a strong belief in giving people the best advice that I possibly can. I think that treating different machines as anything but different machines is risky and possibly dangerous to shoppers.

This argument's essentially over -- I've made my point the best I can, you've proven yours adequately. I've arrived at the conclusion that I've blown up minor aesthetic differences into a really big pointless argument, made an ass out of myself, and that I should now have a milkshake and work on my book for the next thirty hours.

Sorry if I incited any hard feelings by being a strident twit -- I'm just worried about people getting screwed on @#$%ing eBay

 

[arn]

What if we link to lowendmac or another site for detailed specs for the respective speedbumps and changes in various lines and stick to the overall lines. The specs are nice to have access to, but I don't think we need to recreate these databases which seem to exist. It also makes the wiki harder to browse. search for "ibook" and most people are looking for the current ibook. if they come up with 30 entries of old ibooks, it's hard to sift through.

on the other hand, someone who is looking for very specific specs on their ibook, will go to the ibook link and scroll down and get linked to everymac with all the detailed specs.

arn

 

[Mechcozmo]

But other than the name, the Power Mac G4 Cube has more in common with the Mac mini than it does the G4 towers. The G3 AIO, aside from the CPU and the name, has more in common with with the Performa 5400 than the Yosemite.

However, Apple called it the Power Macintosh G4 Cube. That directly links it to the Power Macintosh, no matter how much it may be similar to a Mac Mini or anything else. Same goes with the AIO G3. It is the Power Macintosh G3 All-In-One. I would place it as related to the Power Macintosh and have a paragraph on the page explaining how it is very closely related to the Performa 5400 as well. That way, the innards are dealt with and the name is linked to how it will be seen by most people, and apparently Apple too.

I don't see Apple's products being rolled out in distinct "lines," like how you see it. There's a wild level of variation between machines that are supposedly identical on the surface. I think that the desire to call a Yikes a Sawtooth and vice-versa is really, really dangerous.

But they aren't being called by the wrong name in the current setup. They are listed as Yikes! and Sawtooth, perfectly correct. And they are both Power Macintoshes, despite being wildly different computers. A Power Macintosh G5 is still a Power Macintosh, despite being different than a Power Macintosh G3, right?

Perhaps we've been arguing past one another -- what I originally envisioned (but didn't take the time to note) was that certain pages (like [[iBook]]) would be a summary and list of all iBooks. I put in some vestigial descriptions (like "The G4 Powerbooks were based on the Motorola G4 CPU") but you might have assumed that I didn't see the need for any information beyond that.

Having cooled off a bit, I see that your Power Mac G4 page (for instance) is fairly close to what I originally envisioned, except it's a primary content page. The easiest way to explain what I mean is probably to cite an example of what a section of a completed [[iBook]] page would look like.

I envisioned the PowerMacG4 page to have information on the models, and if you wanted more information you could retrieve it. The iBook page has very little data, a lot of links, and will confuse someone who doesn't know what kind of computer they have. Whereas, in the PowerMacG4 page, they can look to see the speeds listed, optical drives, etc. But if they want to know the nitty-gritty once they have I.D.'ed their computer, they click on the link and start the learning.

And so on. Of course, we still disagree about having speeds (or anything else) in parentheses, but I have no clue of how to solve that. I don't think anyone's suggested a really pleasing alternative to that.

Don't use them? Why do you need the speed in parentheses?

Anyway, my point is that I was arguing with you for trying to combine all Power Mac G4s into one amorphous blob of an article, and you were arguing with me for creating unnecessary distinctions. It matters little at this point, but I apologize for being tedious.

It seems we both misunderstood each other. I see that your idea was very similar to mine, however I prefer mine because it includes more information on the machines instead of forcing the users to look at the secondary pages first.

I've arrived at the conclusion that I've blown up minor aesthetic differences into a really big pointless argument, made an ass out of myself, and that I should now have a milkshake and work on my book for the next thirty hours.

Sorry if I incited any hard feelings by being a strident twit -- I'm just worried about people getting screwed on @#$%ing eBay

No hard feelings. I think that if people read a short article here and then get screwed on eBay... they should have done more research. We can't give them everything.

What if we link to lowendmac or another site for detailed specs for the respective speedbumps and changes in various lines and stick to the overall lines. The specs are nice to have access to, but I don't think we need to recreate these databases which seem to exist. It also makes the wiki harder to browse. search for "ibook" and most people are looking for the current ibook. if they come up with 30 entries of old ibooks, it's hard to sift through.

Good idea. We can work up a database of our own later. And I worry too about 30 entires for iBooks and not knowing which one.

on the other hand, someone who is looking for very specific specs on their ibook, will go to the ibook link and scroll down and get linked to everymac with all the detailed specs.

Or the MacGuides page that some thoughtfull person with nothing else to do created.

 

[shamino]

I was about to wonder why there was a Quicksilver page, but now I see what you are doing. That is the perfect culmination of what I am trying to work on and seperate pages. A page that gives you information and allows you to see more if you want to. Very very very nice.

I didn't write the QS-2002 page. I just linked it into the main PowerMac page, to hopefully establish a precedent.

Ultimately, we might want to set up some templates for Mac configurations. So each model can have a separate page listing all the minute details, all formatted identically. Then a main product-line page (one for each series) can list them all with brief summaries and link to the detail pages.

 

[shamino]

But other than the name, the Power Mac G4 Cube has more in common with the Mac mini than it does the G4 towers. The G3 AIO, aside from the CPU and the name, has more in common with with the Performa 5400 than the Yosemite.

Absolutely correct, but you should remember that a wiki is not a scholorly thesis. You want to group items where those who don't already know are likely to look.

Apple calls the Cube the "Power Macintosh G4 Cube". As such, someone who knows nothing about it will first go looking among the PowerMac pages. If you put the link on the mini's page, it won't be found nearly as easily.

If you want to emphasize the similarity, you can put a writeup about this on the Cube's page or on the mini's page and link to it from the summary on the PM page.

Having cooled off a bit, I see that your Power Mac G4 page (for instance) is fairly close to what I originally envisioned, except it's a primary content page.

I was writing it with the intent of it being a summary. Outline the distinguishing features of each successive generation, pointing out those that established trends (like introducing AirPort or dropping audio-in). I deliberately refrained from including all the details - preferring to leave that to other per-model pages, when and if they should be written.

==Clamshell iBooks==
The clamshell iBooks were based upon a brightly-colored toilet seat design that was big with Reese Witherspoon.
*[[iBook G3 (300MHz)]] -- The original iBook sported no firewire, a 4GB HD, and a base 32MB RAM. It was introduced on such-and-such date.
*[[iBook G3 Firewire (366MHz)]] -- The iBook that debuted in Paris in 2001 sported a larger 10GB HD, a base 64MB RAM, a larger video card, and a faster CD-ROM.
*[[iBook G3 Firewire SE (466MHz)]] -- Also debuted in Paris was....

This works too. But I wouldn't bother making separate pages for clock speeds. Rather, I'd go by generations.

For example, when Apple updates the PowerBook, they tend to update all three sizes at the same time, with most features being the same for all three. So it makes sense to list the three together, pointing out the differences on a summary table somewhere.

Or, as was mentioned, just link the product-line/summary pages to the pages at lowendmac or apple-history and avoid reinventing the wheel.

 

[kalisphoenix]

*beats dead horse*

This works too. But I wouldn't bother making separate pages for clock speeds. Rather, I'd go by generations.

But the clock speeds are not the entirety of the differences between the iBook G3 Firewire (366MHz) and the one that was a 466MHz -- unless I'm greatly mistaken, the 466MHz can accept a DVD drive, while the 366MHz is incapable of it.

But this is completely a dead horse. I think I'll write lowendmac and suggest that they start a wiki that is entirely devoted to older models of Macs (the ones I like, since I can't afford a high G4 or G5 anymore). Either that or I'll find another one that is already devoted to the subject (I'm sure one exists) and start helping out there.

As much as I'd like to write howtos on services or cute Bash prompts and crap like that, it's not my field of interest (or passion). I use computers like a classic car collector uses cars -- I admire them for their physical beauty, their architecture, their capabilities and weaknesses, and their distinct identities.

It's a bit like blasphemy to tell me to group a Cube with a Sawtooth -- sure, Apple groups them together, and I can dig it on one level... but what sets companies like Apple, NeXT, Amiga, SGI, Sun, DEC, et cetera apart from the PC world is that each machine often possesses a distinctive character all its own.

Bleah 8) Goin' to class.