Talk:CHIP (computer)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. 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 the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Serial port#Virtual serial port|Serial]] The anchor (#Virtual serial port) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Thanks for enriching the CHIP (computer) page! I find these statements can cause confusion.

• "it would release another SoC board called CHIP Pro"
• "built around the application processor R8"
• "uses the newer version of the SoC chip called GR8. GR8 is a System in Package (SiP) that..."

It appears to me that the first sentence is a typo for "it would release another SiP board called CHIP Pro." Is this correct? I cannot imagine SoC as a qualifier for a board. Even "SiP board" does not seem meaningful. Maybe we should drop the qualifier completely? (Or change sentence structure so SoC/SiP does not go to qualify a board.)

The phrase "application processor" in the second fragment would be a good candidate to be replaced with "SoC chip".

The third fragment can cause the most confusion, as the first part qualifies GR8 as SoC, then the second part qualifies it as SiP. I believe that GR8 is best qualified as the latter. So it would be better to drop qualifiers in the first part and simply state "uses a newer version of the R8 called GR8."

Do you think this makes sense?

Sillyvalley (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "it would release another SiP board called CHIP Pro." statement is correct. It is a board equipped with SiP GR8.

Yes, GR8 best qualified as SiP as indicated in the datasheet (https://github.com/NextThingCo/CHIP_Pro-Hardware/blob/master/Datasheets/GR8_Datasheet_v1.0.pdf)

--Buhadram (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this page grows richer, styling inconsistencies become more visible. For example, the opening sentence uses alternative British spelling "stylise"; some citations use European date format "Day Month, Year", some use international numeric YYYY-MM-DD. (This is particularly obvious in refs, where different date formats are used in different fields. My own updates adopted the original fragmented date formats. At the time inconsistence wasn't obvious as contents were thin.) I remember that one style guide says English Wikipedia prefers U.S. spelling unless dealing with dialects or specific citations. I'm quite confused as to which date format is supposed to be used where, but fragmentation cannot be good. Any experts out there? Sillyvalley (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. - ElectricController (talk page) 13:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone has photos of PocketCHIP?Sillyvalley (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should really do that. Mine is lightly modified, but not excessively so. --scruss (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although https://docs.getchip.com is still up, https://getchip.com has been turned into a news site.

And a company bought all schematics for the original C.H.I.P. boards and has been planning on selling them for a while now.:

https://shop.popcorncomputer.com/products/original-popcorn-computer LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]