Talk:Vulcan FlipStart

Computing Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Is 800x480 a viable resolution? That seems really, really rectangular. I would think that the resolution would be 640x480. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.89.35 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 July 2004 (UTC).[reply]

It is. What I wonder about is how this article's history got merged with the article history for "mini-PC". --Alvestrand 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for "now-unlikely event it should ever come to fruition"? That seems incredibly opinionated to go unattributed.

Also, what is the basis for 800x400? PC World, a usually reliable source, said a 2004 prototype was 1024 x 600. - Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking response, I am removing the uncited material about which I have doubts. - Jmabel | Talk 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page 5 Advert

Anyone else think that the article sounds a bit... page 5 advert? An example is towards the middle - the language of, say, this bit:

All of this has been crammed into a case about the size of a paperback novel (4.0 by 5.4 by 1.3 inches), little more than an inch thick and weighing 1.8 pounds.

Should this be edited? Also, the abundance of links at the bottom, although informative, also feels... weekend magazine. -Will alpha-test for food. 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, i've removed that bit. I think there are a lot of links because the product's been in development for so long that it has had quite a lot of press attention and speculation. Hopefully when it's actually released at the end of this month there will be more solid info for the article and a few definitive links that can be used. --J2thawiki 09:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide some further updates with development history in a while - just finishing off a review which has involved (utterly irrelevantly) a lot of research into the way this little box evolved. And I have one, though I'm told that's not actually a valid source of information... TastyOther 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source of Information

I notice that the price of the FlipStart has been revised for the UK market (which in a non-factual context is very worthwhile, as the initially mooted price point of nearly £1500+VAT was exceptionally poor value) and... UK Distributor Blazepoint has quite a bit of "blurb" in there. Interestingly that has been added by a someone with the username "SuperIan something". And their UK marketing director is Ian Douglas.

My source for the UK price was... Ian Douglas. Pretty much at the time I updated it, given that the news of their distributorship only really broke in the fortnight after announcement at DSEi 2007 (9th September 2007). I suspect a little historical editing may have taken place here... given that the edit took place on 16th October. Perhaps seeking to avert bad press (overpricing is hardly bad press).

I'm removing the Blazepoint blurb and setting the date of the price to 16th October since that is when Ian's edit was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.30.227 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 17th UK pricing

Where is the source for this? I'm not pulling a "citation needed", but Blazepoint are no longer selling the FlipStart, and have never (officially) sold it at that price. UK pricing also reflects the existence of the CE-marked FlipStart. If there is a UK reseller offering the FlipStart for £339 ex. VAT I can't find it, and this is not a straight exchange rate conversion. Please provide further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.230.168 (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Vulcan Inc. Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]