Semiconductor & Computer Engineering
From WikiChip
Difference between revisions of "Template talk:main/chips"
(→Change layout) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk header}} | {{talk header}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Change layout == | ||
Rather than basing the list on implementing company it seems likely that grouping by ISA family would be more useful, avoiding artificial splits. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[WikiChip:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paul A. Clayton|Paul A. Clayton]] ([[User talk:Paul A. Clayton|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paul A. Clayton|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | Rather than basing the list on implementing company it seems likely that grouping by ISA family would be more useful, avoiding artificial splits. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[WikiChip:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paul A. Clayton|Paul A. Clayton]] ([[User talk:Paul A. Clayton|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paul A. Clayton|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| − | : That sounds good. I was thinking on re-arranging it the same way. One thing I was trying to decide is how much granularity do we want (ISA revisions? companies). There are many many less known companies (they are slowly getting added here [[list of microprocessor families]]). Do we really want to list them all or just put the major players on the front page and link to the full list on a separate page? --[[User:David|David]] ([[User talk:David|talk]]) 16:20, 5 September 2016 (EDT) | + | : That sounds good. I was thinking on re-arranging it the same way just haven't found the time (there are dozens of items missing as well). One thing I was trying to decide is how much granularity do we want (ISA revisions? companies). There are many many less known companies (they are slowly getting added here [[list of microprocessor families]]). Do we really want to list them all or just put the major players on the front page and link to the full list on a separate page? --[[User:David|David]] ([[User talk:David|talk]]) 16:20, 5 September 2016 (EDT) |
| + | |||
| + | :: Would it be better to just break this large box into a number of smaller ones, each box its own ISA. And then maybe another box for "all other" including the ones that do not even implement an ISA (e.g. all the [[BSM]]s) --[[User:At32Hz|At32Hz]] ([[User talk:At32Hz|talk]]) 16:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:58, 8 September 2016
| This is the discussion page for the main/chips page. |
|
Change layout[edit]
Rather than basing the list on implementing company it seems likely that grouping by ISA family would be more useful, avoiding artificial splits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul A. Clayton (talk • contribs)
- That sounds good. I was thinking on re-arranging it the same way just haven't found the time (there are dozens of items missing as well). One thing I was trying to decide is how much granularity do we want (ISA revisions? companies). There are many many less known companies (they are slowly getting added here list of microprocessor families). Do we really want to list them all or just put the major players on the front page and link to the full list on a separate page? --David (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
