Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Raspbian refs

Re edit 564589088:

• http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/how-two-volunteers-built-the-raspberry-pis-operating-system/
• http://www.raspbian.org/RaspbianFAQ#What_is_Raspbian.3F
• http://wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiPort
• http://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort
• http://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort/VfpComparison

-- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Software

Please correct the wrong link at "RiscOS", thanks. 194.3.247.8 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

USB problems

Nothing I can find on wikipedia mentions the known problems with the USB hardware on the Raspberry Pi SoC chip. Please include details of this problem so that others like myself do not feel burned by purchasing something that does not live up to expectations. Details are available at: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/08/24/2228251/serious-problems-with-usb-and-ethernet-on-the-raspberry-pi http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=39175 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.141.46 (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this an old issue which has since been corrected, or is it current? The material can be added to the article if it is cited in reliable sources and is encyclopedic. -- Trevj (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is the the same issue that resulted in the article being protected here. So far I don't think any reliable sources have been produced - it has so far been mostly POV pushing. Яehevkor ✉ 14:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some sources that cover this:

http://elinux.org/RPi_VerifiedPeripherals

http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/1929

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a link to the organization's own forum where people actively working on the problems are discussing it is not reliable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.141.46 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Largely, no. See WP:SPS. Sources should be both reliably published and ideally independent of the subject. Яehevkor ✉ 19:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me check... Yup, I still have the ability to go on the official Raspberry Pi forum and claim that the Raspberry Pi is made out of actual raspberry pies, and then to make the same claim on Wikipedia using the official Raspberry Pi forum as a source. Do you see the problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

mmmm raspberry pi pie -- Taroaldo ✉ 20:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just licked mine and I can confirm, they're made of raspberry pies. Яehevkor ✉ 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the thread I linked, you might notice it is 6 pages of posts from a large number of people in a locked thread. Several of the people work for the organization and this can be verified.

So, the article will be edited to include at the very least the info from Guy Macon's links above? Or are you too busy treating me like a child to bot her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.141.46 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Insulting the other editors here is unlikely to help. Everybody here wants this article to be accurate, but we have standards for what is and is not acceptable as a source, and neither Slashdot nor the Raspberry Pi forums qualify. Give us some sources that meet the criteria listed in WP:RS and WP:V and we will be glad to add a section to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2013

Hi everyone. I am new to wikipedia edit protection system, which I find very appropriate btw. I would simply like to add my RaspberryPI distro project on the page. It is called pipaOS and you can visit it here: http://pipaos.mitako.eu. I think the "Multi-purpose light distributions" section would be appropiate. Thanks in advance. Albert Skarbat (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Generally we only add something to a lists if it is notable and there is already a Wikipedia article about it. RudolfRed (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2013

The opening paragraph says that: The Foundation's goal is to offer two versions, priced at US$25 and US$35.

This is obsolete, both models are offered. I would suggest the page is edited to: "The Foundation offers two versions, priced at US$25 and US$35" Arthurs (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. I didn't use your exact wording but I think it now clearly shows both prices are offered. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

BLOB problem / device can't boot without

It should be more clear and easier to understand that the device is useless without the BLOB by broadcom, because it can't boot without. At the moment this is not clear for an audience without much knowledge about the problem, like students and kids who make their first "steps" with the RaspPi in school.

I don't know how to do it, because "Driver API" might not be the right place. So a separate section which explains the problem would be better (IMHO).

80.187.109.172 (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for this? Please be aware that Wikipedia articles are encyclopaedia articles and not technical manuals, material must be supported by reliable sources (published news articles for example, not forums). Яehevkor ✉ 13:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is like saying that a desktop computer is "useless without the video BIOS provided by nVidea". Because that is what the "blob" is, it is the equivalent of the video BIOS. and other computers also cannot boot without the video BIOS contained in ROM on the video card. This isn't an issue as the blob is freely distributed with the PI, just as the video BIOS is freely distributed with the video card. Just as normal users do not care about the BIOS in their video cards, why should PI users care about this non-problem. You can remark about this technical difference, but not in the context of a "problem". Mahjongg (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi audio problems

There seems to be numerous and consistent reports that the audio of the first batch of Raspberry Pi boards produce numerous clicks and popping. There are a number of work-a-rounds on the web, a patch that results in some buzzing instead of "clicks", and even a kickstarter project that is a dongle that plugs into the board for an attempt at better audio. I wanted to get other's views and inputs on this before I add a new section to the article. In fact, I originally came to this article looking for information concerning this apparent problem with the boards. Here is a video of apparently loud clicking coming through, Perhaps the section could go into how audio is generated on the Rapsberry Pi (i.e. via the PWMs) Nodekeeper (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The clicking problem was caused by turning the PWM engines on only when analog audio was needed. It was solved with a software update months ago. HDMI audio wasn't affected. Mahjongg (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

FSF free hardware criteria and Videocore

Hi, https://github.com/hermanhermitage/videocoreiv According to other sources the Pi doesn't fulfill the FSF free hardware critera. Maybe that should be included in the article (or at least be included when it will be). I'm not sure the above link shows any indication that they are making any progress on that (maybe not intented to?). But there seems to be some progress in "freeing" (parts of?) the GPU binary blob (bootloader/firmware?). I haven't waded throught this all open source project but there might be something to report from there. comp.arch (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the RPF has never even hinted that they would ever be open hardware. Some of their competitors (Odroid, Wandboard) are open hardware, but they have more features and a higher price. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No new version (Model C or otherwise) of the RaspberryPi until Sept 2015 at earliest

Should a note be placed in the article to state that there will be no new version of the RaspberryPi until September 2015 at the earliest? See http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=56598 "Eben Upton, Founder, has stated in public that he would expect a NEW board between two and three years from now (Sept 2013)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.64.3.2 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Android

It should be noted that android has no working (or rather working well) builds. I don't believe Broadcom ever released the 4.0 image for it either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.1.167 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Open Hardware?

Is it completly open hardware or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.74.104 (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No! there are still remnants of the hardware that are and will stay undocumented, (because the RPF doesn't actually own, nor has the right to release, those IP). It has also never been the intention of the RPF that the PI would become "open hardware". But TBH I would never had thought they would have released the documentation of the VideoCore, so who knows. Mahjongg (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to yesterday's blog entry ("Earlier today, Broadcom announced the release of full documentation for the VideoCore IV graphics core, and a complete source release of the graphics stack under a 3-clause BSD license."):[1]

If you want an open source hardware board roughly comparable to the Paspberry Pi, you might want to look into the Odroid U3 or X2.[2][3] Of course it is worse than the RP in some ways and better in other ways, so it may not meet your needs.

Related question; does this page make the licensing for the Raspberry Pi hardware, software, and documentation clear? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Dead Link

Citation 36 is a dead link (I have no idea where to put this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.178.45 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

solved. Mahjongg (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Credit card sized?

Image1Source1, Image2Source2, Image3Source3. As an aside, look what you can do with a board that small. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The rpi in real life is a little bigger than credit card. I do not have the electronic caliper but it is about 56mmx85mm. I have measured it manually + Source. Therefore I think it should be edited to show true dimensions Armata007 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I take issue with it being described as credit-card sized on the basis that even if it's x and y dimensions were that of a credit card, it's z dimension isn't anywhere near that size. Wallet-sized might be a better description, or perhaps simply rephrasing it to "about the length and width of credit card." Better yet, just list it's actual dimensions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.20.43.154 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's actually about the size of a packet of cigarettes or tampons. It is about the size of 15 credit cards. Greglocock (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

...and to be honest, is its size the most important fact about it, such that it should be in the first line of the lede? Greglocock (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not about the size in millimeters, or the thickness. That's all nonsense, its to give people a mental picture of the relative size of the device, much tinier than previous computers. And at launch time it was big enough a deal that almost all media cared to mention its size which was most easily compared to a credit card, and in fact a credit card was used as inspiration for how big it should be. Obviously, especially with parts sticking out, its not exactly to the mm precisely as big as a credit card, and nobody expects when you say "its credit card sized" next to a picture of it that is only a few mm high, but people can get a much better idea how big it is based on a mental impression of the size of a credit card. It's size was and still is one of the distinguishing features of the raspberry PI. Mahjongg (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Its small size is unexceptional for an integrated mobo, and I really don't think it is the most important fact about the computer so why is it the FIRST thing mentioned in the lede? Surely its low cost, open design, expandability and wide range ofOS available for it are far more significant than a misleading size comparison. Greglocock (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dont flog a dead horse, when it came out (in the current form) almost all the media reported it was "credit card sized", perhaps you don't like it has that reputation, but the fact is that its has. here are just a few links to old articles about its introduction that mention the credit card size of the raspberry PI [4][5][6][7][8] Deal with it! Mahjongg (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

o reely. i bet most people were more impressed by the low cost than the small size. Anyway, you want it your way, I'm not going to bother arguing any mor sGreglocock (talk)

Yes really - this appeared just today on the New York Times website: starting with "Raspberry Pi, a tiny computer the size of a credit card, ..." Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it is inconceivable that a journalist used wiki as a ref when writing the story? Greglocock (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, but the media talked about it even before this article was written. Also its more conceivable that the media are following the official FAQ for the raspberry PI! [9]

If it really isn't credit-card sized - which it isn't - we shouldn't just copy that claim just like any ole newspaper. How about something like "frequently referred to as credit-card sized" or "footprint close to that of a credit-card"? Zac67 (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What would it matter if its a millimeter off from the official size of a credit card, the raspberry PI foundation in its FAQ calls it "credit card sized" not because it claims its size is for some obscure reason precisely identical to a credit card, but simply because calling it that gives the reader an immediate impression of its relative size. All the talk about it not being -exactly- to the millimeter "correctly" sized is simply splitting hairs. There is simply nothing wrong with calling it "credit card sized". Mahjongg (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

With the recent release of the Raspberry Pi Compute module - it is now available in a smaller size - using the DDR2 SO-DIMM form factor. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Manufacturing locations

The lede states: The Raspberry Pi is manufactured in two board configurations through licensed manufacturing deals with Newark element14 (Premier Farnell), RS Components and Egoman. Is this actually the case? my understanding is that manufacture is by Sony at their Welsh plant, on behalf of the Raspberry Pi Foundation, and these are distributed world-wide (except China) by Farnell and RS. Ergoman manufacture for the China?Taiwan market alone. If this is confirmed, I think it should be made clearer. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Versions

We need a clear new section, with explanation and diagrams to show the differences between versions A, B and B+. What will the next one be called? B++ or C- ?

Lehasa (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The RPF has consistently used BBC Micro nomenclature, like models A, B and B+, so if there will ever will be a new model that deserves the title it will be called a "Model C", or perhaps "Master". Mahjongg (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hardware Random Number Generator not yet mentioned

My Raspberry Pi rev. B has a HRNG I do not see mentioned in the article. See: http://scruss.com/blog/2013/06/07/well-that-was-unexpected-the-raspberry-pis-hardware-random-number-generator/ I agree with the author of https://sites.google.com/site/astudyofentropy/project-definition/raspberry-pi-internal-hardware-random-number-generator that this makes the RPi a great (and very cheap) source for obtaining cryptographic quality random numbers. I would have inserted this information but I cannot decide where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N-double-u (talk • contribs) 10:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Under hardware after the para on the real-time clock. --Cornellier (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Core chip : also from Samsung

Broadcom is not the only provider for the core chip. I read a Samsung K4P4G324EQ-RGC2 on my newly bought Pi B+. The B+ used as illustration seems also to be carrying a Samsung chip. The multifunction chip near USB ports is an SMSC LAN9514-JZX. Perhaps some "BOM guru" could enlighten us on hardware details as seen on the B+.

Core CPU chip is NOT memory or peripheral chips. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't actually see the SoC since the RAM chip is stacked on top. 09:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OP, what you call the "core" chip isn't the Broadcom chip! Its the Package on Package (PoP) DRAM chip that is stuck on top of the actual broadcom SoC, which is exclusively from broadcom! The Samsung chip is just RAM. Mahjongg (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Citation overkill

I came to this article because I want to learn about RaspberryP Pi, but the article is difficult to read because of over-referencing. The opening line "Raspberry Pi is a credit-card-sized single-board computer developed in the UK by the Raspberry Pi Foundation with the intention of promoting the teaching of basic computer science in schools" does not need five references. This is out out of line with WP:LEAD and with WP:REFBLOAT. Not only is there severe reference overkill, but their use contradicts WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTMANUAL. I suggest these guidelines be used to make this article more readable. There are 88 references which point into www.raspberrypi.org which goes against WP:USEPRIMARY. --Cornellier (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this change remove a lot of content as well, leaving some sections somewhat garbled. 80.4.146.162 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For example ... ? --Cornellier (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The one that made me look in the first place was "...main programming language, (via the ..." - The text "BBC BASIC" use to be after the comma there. "A lot" may have been an exageration; certainly some content was lost along with the citations. Unfortunately the wikipedia diff makes this quite hard to unpick. Elder pegasus (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. Definitely butterfingers on my part, hopefully no others, I'm usually pretty careful ... but mistakes happen --Cornellier (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Duplication Raspberry Pi Fedora Remix

Raspberry Pi Fedora Remix seems to appear twice in the OS list

1. Pidora; and

2. Raspberry Pi Fedora Remix

is this an error or are there two different Fedora variants that should be listed discretely, but adjacent? --Elmeter (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Raspberry Pi 2

This product is just a different version of the Raspberry Pi. - MrX 13:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• oppose for the time being. Merge in 6 months, when the novelty of the new product is no longer so news-worthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• support - leave the original as a deep-link redir & do the merge/redir soon, before too much effort is wasted on the new article Bazj (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• support - The generation 2 Pi is basically a Pi B+ (or A+) with a new processor. I don't think there is any point wasting effort maintaining two separate pages since they are largely the same. I have edited the original page to include information from gen. 2 tucking them into the original text (unaware of the existence of a separate page) and I think my edit have covered the purpose of the new page. xcvista _{- t} 14:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• weak oppose - I'm not sure on this. We have separate articles for the Nintendo DS and Nintendo DS lite, for example, and those have even less difference. Having separate articles avoids confusion between the different generations and is neater, too. —ajf (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• support - Since most (>95%) of the knowledge about Pi is relevant also for Pi 2 I suggest merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.18.20 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• support - New model should be merged into this article which already cover all the existing models. The "Pi 2" is really an model B+ with a newer CPU and 1Gb RAM. Its really a new rev of an existing model. -MarsRover (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we're getting a consensus here. I'll redir & ask for User:Kinianox's edit to be merged in for attribution. Bazj (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done & histmerge requested. Bazj (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi 2 Model B

Big new release. Model B+ is 6x faster (900Mhz, quad-core and 1Gb ram). http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/2/7954617/raspberry-pi-2-announced-on-sale -MarsRover (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Would like the article to include also a good photograph of R-Pi 2 populated circuit board, like we currently have of R-Pi 1 in the infobox. 80.223.182.224 (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Infoboxes

I added 2nd infobox subset dedicated to new RPi2 to make it easier to understand, because packing too much in ONE infobox is very confusing. I have used this method in other articles, such as Keystone Pipeline, and I've seen it used in some other articles. Some fields won't exist in the 2nd infobox (i.e. logo). I haven't removed the RPi2 info from the 1st infobox yet, just in case everyone threw rocks at the 2nd infobox. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this path is working or not? Should we merge the infoboxes back or keep going on this path? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to look better after I moved 3 photos away from the infoboxes. I also have a feeling the infobox split will look better after someone adds a photo of the RPi2. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I put in a request to move the "power" field in the infobox template to a better location, and it was fixed by another user today. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the article the Power consumption of the RPi 2 is 4.5 to 5 watts "Upton says it uses up to 1 watt more than the BCM2835".[10]. --MarsRover (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There should really only be one infobox. I also think they could do with a trim, especially removing the listing of all the Linuxs distros. As MOS:INFOBOX says, "less is more!" Stickee (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Changed power range, shortened CPU info, shortened Linux info, sent request for RotateBot to rotate the RPi2 photo (so it will take up less vertical space) (actually we need a better photo). It was 1 WEEK until you posted a response about the infoboxes, so I assume most people don't care or feel its ok, otherwise they would've thrown rocks at me sooner. Since this article supports both RPi1 and RPi2, and I assume there will be more RPi2 models, then its worth splitting the infobox now. All the RPi1 info is not easy to tell which is which, so throwing RPi2 into the mix makes it even harder to understand. Thanks for the response. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks a little better now with the long list of distros gone. Although I still believe a single infobox may be better. What's your opinion on how the iPad article deals with this issue? Stickee (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The photosensitivity paragraph

Last night, I made this edit (plus two smaller clarifying edits to the same paragraph right afterward), and User:Sbmeirow reverted it only six minutes later, including restoring a factually incorrect statement that I'd corrected. This is what I wrote:

In February 2015, a switched-mode power supply chip, designated U16, of the Raspberry Pi 2 model B version 1.1 (the initially released version) was found to be vulnerable to flashes of light, particularly the light from xenon camera flashes and green and red laser pointers. However, other bright lights, particularly ones that are on continuously, were found to have no effect. The symptom was the Raspberry Pi 2 spontaneously rebooting or turning off when these lights were flashed at the chip. Initially, some users and commenters suspected that the electromagnetic pulse from the xenon flash tube was causing the problem by interfering with the computer's digital circuitry, but this was ruled out by tests where the light was either blocked by a card or aimed at the other side of the Raspberry Pi 2, both of which did not cause a problem. The problem was narrowed down to the U16 chip by covering first the system on a chip (main processor) and then U16 with opaque poster mounting compound. Light being the sole culprit, instead of EMP, was further confirmed by the laser pointer tests, where it was also found that less opaque covering was needed to shield against the laser pointers than to shield against the xenon flashes. The U16 chip seems to be bare silicon without a plastic cover (i.e. a chip-scale package or wafer-level package), which would, if present, block the light. Based on the facts that the chip, like all semiconductors, is light-sensitive (photovoltaic effect), that silicon is transparent to infrared light, and that xenon flashes emit more infrared light than laser pointers (therefore requiring more light shielding), it is currently thought that this combination of factors allows the sudden bright infrared light to cause an instability in the output voltage of the power supply, triggering shutdown or restart of the Raspberry Pi 2. Unofficial workarounds include covering U16 with opaque material (such as electrical tape, lacquer, poster mounting compound, or even balled-up bread), putting the Raspberry Pi 2 in a case, and avoiding taking photos of the top side of the board with a xenon flash. This issue was not caught before the release of the Raspberry Pi 2 because while commercial electronic devices are routinely subjected to tests of susceptibility to radio interference, it is not standard or common practice to test their susceptibility to optical interference.

References

This is what Sbmeirow reverted it to:

In February 2015, the U16 switched-mode power supply chip of the Raspberry 2 was found to be vulnerable to Xenon light, from for example the flash of many camera phones. The U16 chip seems to be raw silicon without a plastic cover, and since covering the chip with non-conducting shielding still blocks the effect, the effect seems to be due to visible light, possibly based on the photoelectric effect.<ref>http://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=99042</ref>

My version was superior in the following ways:

• It provides more information, explaining the mechanism of the problem and how people investigated it.
• It adds a second reference.
• It wikifies the existing reference (which was just a URL before).
• It corrects "photoelectric effect" to "photovoltaic effect"; the photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from illuminated metal in a vacuum (obviously irrelevant), while the photovoltaic effect is the disturbance of electrons in a semiconductor by light (what's happening in U16).
• It clarifies that the chip is designated U16 in the context of the RPi 2, rather than being a type of chip known as U16.

It was inferior in the following ways:

• It is longer.

I knew at the time that it was long, and I expected other editors to shorten it and/or make a section for it, but I didn't expect anyone to just delete it for being too long, completely ignoring every advantage my version had, especially factual accuracy. This was also time-sensitive: I wanted to get factually correct and complete (as much as was known) info available before news sources started writing articles about the problem. Several such articles were published today. Most of the ones from technical sources didn't mistakenly mention the photoelectric effect (even though the Raspberry Pi Foundation article they quoted did), but the BBC article and the Belfast Telegraph article did. The BBC even explained that the photoelectric effect earned Einstein his Nobel Prize (though explained the effect incorrectly), so they probably came to Wikipedia at least for that. I haven't (can't) read every article written about the problem, but I expect the several I read are representative (first page of Google News results for 'raspberry pi'). Importantly, the two mainstream articles got it wrong, and they're the ones that people who aren't already familiar with the issue (or Raspberry Pi in general, or the two effects) are more likely to read. So, I think if the correct information had remained in the article for the rest of the day, rather than being replaced with a reiteration of the mistaken reference to the photoelectric effect, many laypeople being given incorrect info could have been avoided. (Note that I'm not saying anything about the laypeople's opinions of the Raspberry Pi 2 in light of this issue. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote products, but it is Wikipedia's job to provide correct and reasonably complete information.) I have now reverted it to my version and I expect that my version will be the basis for future edits of this paragraph for the reasons listed above. Ian01 (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This might be a good time for you to take a look at WP:BALASPS and WP:RECENTISM (in reference to the length). The longer version gives undue weight to the the U16 issue, and as such makes it seem like a bigger issue than it is.

There are certainly improvements, but most of them (bullet points 2-5) could be made to the shorter version without increasing it's length. Stickee (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It is excellent information, seriously I love detailed information, but...

1. I reverted it because it was TOO LONG, per WP:BALASPS, not because the previous text was better.
2. If you knew it was too long, then why didn't you shorten it before posting?
3. If you knew it was too long, then why did you restore it a 2nd time without shortening it?
4. It's NOT the responsibility of other Wikipedia editors to be your personal "Copy Editor". It is your responsibility to shorten it.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"credit card-sized" ??

The Rapsberry Pi is small but it's still a lot bigger than a credit card. 122.62.31.25 (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)