Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:22, 16 June 2008

Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

China Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Godson related things

See my comments about generally Godson related things in the discussion section about this Yellow Sheep River develops €123 Linux based computer Wikinews article. Paul Kouwelas 06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pentium 4

This article goes through a lot of trouble to compare the Godson 2E to an Intel Pentium 4. It's probably worth noting that the P4 completely sucks and was a mistake of a processor. Plus, the chips use different instruction sets and are/were intended to run different applications, so performance is not directly comparable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.28.57 (talk • contribs) 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So what is your point then. P4 completely suck? Or this processor should not be compared to it. In both case I have to disagree. P4 was good when it came out and like all things became obsolete. As for comparison, well, I don't really see a better alternative. No two processor are exactly the same, but that is not a condition for comparison. Yongke 16:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Feel free to de-emphasise this comparison should you ever return. Chris Cunningham 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete vaporware?

Does this chip actually exist *ANYWHERE* except in press releases and trade show mockups? I've even asked friends travelling in China to try to find one. Has ANYONE seen a link offering actual coputers for sale, anywhere, ever? —206.124.29.13 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's real machine. Alot of Linux-MIPS leading developers got these machines for free. Look at the http://www.linux-mips.org/Fulong page. See also http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8003782690.html . You may ask #mipslinux@freenode IRC channel for owners. Alecv 06:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Has any Godson/Dragon/etc based system ever been offered for sale to the general public? 71.56.217.150 05:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are so far no actual products in the market anywhere in China. although brochures and news release exist, there is nowhere to buy it. The supposed 'producer', and also financial sponsor for this 'product', is in fact a local Chinese furniture-making company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace aniki (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright/patent infrigement?

IIRC there were some legal problems with this CPU. It was said that was actually an unlicensed copy of western design, not a proper reimplementation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasz (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There was such an incident. The whole thing started when the Chinese claimed that they produced an indigenous CPU that was not based on any western design. but it was later revealed that the chip is very similiar to MIPS architecture. On 29th July 2005, CAS, the Chinese Academy of Sciences openly denied that this family of CPU was 'a 95% copy of MIPS less 4 copyrighted instructions'. However, on 29th March 2007, news releases said that Loongson CPU signed a partnership with ST Microelectronics, which in turn had bought licence from MIPS technologies to build deivatives of their CPU. It is, therefore, without doubt that the earlier allegations were probably true, that this family of CPU are but clones of western technologies. The only thing is that the company made a coverup later on by acquiring the necessary licence through partnership with ST Microelectronics. So now, this CPU, if it is to ever hit the market, is already 'legal'. But it probably has little to do with the claim of it being 'indigenous'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace aniki (talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dutch subnotebook

The Register has an article on a Loongson powered mini notebook computer.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/04/11/dutch_vendor_touts_jisus_laptop/

Hcobb (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversies section

I removed this section because it was badly written, only had chinese language sources, and much of the subject matter was admittedly speculation. If there are verifiable sources on the matter, perhaps discuss them here before adding the section back? --Starwed (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• Stub-Class China-related articles
• Low-importance China-related articles
• Stub-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject China articles