Talk:PowerBook 100

PowerBook 100 photo

PowerBook 100

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)

System 7.0

At a later stage, the PowerBook 100 was certainly sold with System 7.0 preinstalled.

PowerBook History and General Information

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)

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)

Copy-edit of lead section

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)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

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:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

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)

PowerBook 100

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)

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)

The PowerBook 100 is from 1991. Apple discontinued the PowerBook line in 2006. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Layout of subsequent laptops

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)

If you can find a reliable source for it, sure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

"features similar"

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)

Broken cites

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)

They look fine to me, which ones? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PowerBook 100. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 sweeps comments

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)

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)

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)