Talk:Elonex ONE

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elonex ONE article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

LNX Processor

any info about the "LNX Code 8 Mobile 300MHz Processor" ?

Elonex are being secretive about this one :) more about the specification will become public as they move nearer to the delivery date. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Aware Electronics.--Kozuch (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The model shown at the NEC was a re-badged A-View or AW-300, this uses a Aday5F. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operating System

The operating system is debian based, I think the "Linos" thing may be a typo, I can't find anything about that distribution and the version number looks very much like a Linux kernel version number.80.189.65.98 (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right about the typo. My guess is that it is what they are calling their version of Linux. And I saw somewhere a mention of debian too. Until it becomes clearer I suggest we stick with the form of words I put on the main article The ONE's operating system is called Linos, based on Linux kernel 2.6.21. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review and pictures

I went to the launch and did a review of the system comparing it to the OLPC XO and Asus EeePC and took some photos, feel free to incorporate any of the text and photos as appropriate within the original research guidelines [[1]]80.189.65.98 (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful comments and info, please feel free to add to the article yourself. As for images; it would be best for you to upload from the original. You will need to state the licence which should not be a problem if you own the copyright.

Also, why not register on wikipedia so that you become a person rather than an IP address?

Let me know if you need any wiki help

--Brian R Hunter (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Product or already on Sale?

I have added back the future product tag as it is not currently available, hence the lack of detailed information. The company is taking advanced reservations for a £10 deposit, with expected delivery in June 2008. Customers placing an advance order will be higher in the queue for the product once it starts shipping. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--Kozuch (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that LNX Code 8 be merged into Elonex ONE. The LNX Code-8 processor appears to only have been used in Elonex ONE. The small amount of information gathered about the processor could easily be integrated into the Elonex ONE page. --Daniel Dunér (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the LNX Code 8 article, and in my opinion there's not ever going to be enough to justify a separate article. I'll move that info here and prod LNX Code 8. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elonex ONE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308042206/http://www.aware.com.tw/about.php to http://www.aware.com.tw/about.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

Hi Brian_R_Hunter, would you like to discuss your reversion. I'm not against including some of that information, but much falls afoul of Wikipedia guidelines, and is not sourced to secondary sources so would need to be trimmed or removed. Standards were very different when you contributed to it, and I'd like to have the article in line with current guidelines. Thanks. StarM 13:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for accurate entries and trimming superfluous waffle is valid. But your "trim" removed most of the article leaving a shell article. If the information is wrong, correct it. If you doubt it is correctly sourced, look for sources that either support it or show it to be invalid. This is an encyclopedia and articles need to be as complete as possible, not just summaries. Please do not turn Wikipedia articles into stubs. Brian R Hunter (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super helpful, thanks. The primary issue is the relative lack of secondary, independent and reliable sourcing, which is unlikely to be found a decade later especially with respect to the tech specs, but will see how best to navigate. I'm sure we can find a middle ground StarM 02:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]