On Jan 10, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Bob Axtell wrote:

> do you consider wiki[pedia] to be a reliable source of PC & Windows  
> information? I was pretty disappointed in the past, some info was  
> really bulls***

Reliable?  I dunno.  But I don't know where else I'm going to find a  
concise summary of what something technical is and how it works.  The  
"popular press" is too full of marketing hype, and the details  
usually concealed by hundreds of pages of specifications requiring  
you to be a licensee.  For instance, I don't know how accurate the  
wikipedia article on U3 is, but it would be an interesting challenge  
to try to find a similarly concise description of how it works ("a U3  
drive emulates a CD drive containing an ISO filesystem") anywhere  
else...

There is an awful lot of technology where it is nearly impossible to  
get the sort of "internal high-level description" that wikipedia  
articles seem to supply.

BillW

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist