Talk:PowerBook 100

message: Have a look at the photo, and if I should take a different shot please tell me.--Klaus with K 11:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PowerBook 100 photo

message: Altough the PowerBook 100 is often considered the FIRST PowerBook beacuse of its name and CPU, it really isn't. It was the entry level PowerBook in a group of three introduced simultaneously. As such, much of the History section and some other general aspects of the article pertain to the PowerBook line as a whole and are out of place in an article about the 100 specifically. The question is whether such detailed information needs to be included here,or if it should consist of a brief summary that refers to the PowerBook article instead for the more detailed background history of the family of products? My concern here is that information will ultimately be repeated between closely associated articles and that its inclusion in the PowerBook 100 section helps perpetuate the myth that the 100 was the first PowerBook, when in fact it was simply salvaging the Portable investment and offering it to a market who could otherwise not afford the higher end 140 & 170, which were the real focus of Apple's PowerBook efforts and true successor in market position to the Portable.--Mac128 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was removed, the article would be rather bare. Plus, the 100 was as much a major part of the original development of the line as were the 140 and 170 models. I did have these thoughts myself when writing the section, but I think it's definitely interesting and of relevance. It's not as if it is off-topic info. I don't mind if some of this information is duplicated for the main PowerBook article. Nowhere does the article specifically say it was the "first" PowerBook. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PowerBook History and General Information 

message: Since the 3 simultaneous PowerBooks are mentioned, and the price, I thought it wouldn't be amiss to mention that the PowerBook 100 was the low-end model of the 3. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-edit of lead section 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: Considering that Macintosh Classic was an FA as recently as July 4, was this really a wise choice? I mean, keeping in mind that you want to preserve the concept that the FA process is not guided by commercial interests? Lampman (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that featuring two different old computers from Apple would have any significant impact on their sales. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The PowerBook 100 is from 1991. Apple discontinued the PowerBook line in 2006. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PowerBook 100 

message: Should it be mentioned that the layout of having the keyboard close to the screen and the trackball in front of it was an innovation introduced by the Powerbooks and then imitated by virtually all laptops since then? APW (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source for it, sure. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, and I'd say "touchpad or trackball", as the now-ubiquitous touchpad placement is a direct descendent of these PowerBooks' trackball placement.  If, again, you can find a citable source.  24.16.78.154 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout of subsequent laptops 

message: In the lead, it was disappointing the line made it to the main page summary saying the 100's features were similar to those of the Portable.  True for the CPU and the overall speed, but really the 100 was radically different from the Portable in size, weight, screen, battery life, appearance, ports.  I rephrased the line to reflect this in the article - too bad I can't rephrase the line on the main page.  Tempshill (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "features similar" 

message: Noticed mainpage article today has several broken cites... don't have time to research/fix, but I hope this note helps.  ;-)  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They look fine to me, which ones? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken cites 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on PowerBook 100. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040721000003/http://developer.apple.com:80/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-68K_Portable/PowerBook_100.pdf to http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-68K_Portable/PowerBook_100.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey, as part of a review of old FAs, I'm leaving some comments on places I think this article might not meet current standards. I've got a few high level thoughts on the article at present:
*There seems to be a focus on technical minutiae and pricing versus reception and more general information. For how important the lead suggests this model is, there's fairly little about its reception, either then or its enduring legacy (is its performance opening Word documents really so important?) 
*It's possible part of the problem here is that it's discussed separately from the other PowerBook 1XX line? So much of the history covers them together, there's very little talking specifically about the 100—I dunno if that means the content is better judged in the context of the rest of the line, or there just needs to be more fleshing out the 100 apart from them.  
*Referencing has formatting issues (for example, the tech specs are cited to one "Christine Joannidi" but that name doesn't appear on the cited archived URLs, magazines are cited in the publisher field instead inconsistently) and it also feels a bit thin in terms of coverage; a large part of the content is cited to primary Apple sources rather than secondary sources that would demonstrate the importance of the information.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be added to WP:FARGIVEN if not much effort has been done since then. George Ho (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Now listed in WP:FARGIVEN since I see not much effort has been made to address certain issues. George Ho (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have your concerns been resolved? If not, would either of you be interested in working on the article, or nominating it to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, I've yet to see much work done since I listed the article at FARGIVEN. Dunno whether I wanna be notified a lot if I nominate the article for review, but I'd like to see it taken to review right away. —George Ho (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

text: There hasn't been any movement on the issues. I will put it up at FAR soon if no one else preempts me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] sweeps comments