This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Acorn Electron article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Acorn Electron" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
The article doesn't mention the dimensions of the Electron. I came here looking for that information, as I needed to render a 3D model of it, but didn't know how big it should be. Would be a useful addition if anyone can find a reference.
The article notes The Electron is widely misquoted as operating at 1.79 MHz after measurements derived from speed testing against the thoroughly 2 MHz BBC Micro for various pieces of 'common software'
I'm guessing, but I suspect the 1.79 figure is much more "real" that this comment suggests. The number is 1/2 the color clock (I think) frequency of a standard NTSC television. If one does NOT use this speed, the processor will end up accessing memory at the same time as the video circuitry. This is why the Electron ran so much slower when running software from RAM for instance.
So basically it's almost certainly true that the Electron DID run at 1.79 on NTSC, slightly slower on PAL, and perhaps 2.0 on a monitor -- but I doubt even that. The same numbers can be seen throughout the home computer world -- the Atari was the same speed, most other machines exactly half at .96ish.
Maury 12:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I am right in thinking that the different clock frequences mentioned in the article misleading? Surely the clock isn't actually switching frequences, which would involve some pretty advance chipped design. And doing it whenever the program counter switches between RAM and ROM seems... impractical. The way other machines of the time handled this was simply to lock the bus when the the video was accessing the memory, which is NOT the same as halving the clock frequency.
On the topic of the CPU frequency, why is there this 0.5897 MHz figure for accessing RAM? Where does it come from and how is it calculated? As far as I know, the RAM is only ever accessed at 1MHz. Although the CPU may be denied access to RAM by the ULA, this doesn't justify the use of some calculated frequency because it doesn't describe the reality (it either accesses at 1MHz or it doesn't access at all) and because such an indicative figure would only describe a particular scenario and not apply generally. Indeed, it is just like the fictional 1.79 MHz that proliferated for the CPU frequency back in the day. PaulBoddie ( talk) 00:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Can I respectfully suggest that, apart from the history section, the article be phrased in the present tense. I note that the article is phrased in the past tense throughout, which is a little confusing, since the machine still exists. FOr example, the article starts "The Electron was able to load and save from cassette..."... It still can! Clearly the history section of the article should be written in the past tense, but I see no reason why the article should use past tense elsewhere. I'm sure there are probably over half a million examples of the Acorn Electron still in existence! I did not edit the article (apart from two words in the opening paragraph) as I did not author it and do not believe in just going straight in and editing without getting a feel for others opinion. ANd anyway, I don't think my Wikipedia skills are up to it. I'm struggling with the user interface!
Image:ElectronBASIC.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There was (for over 2 years) a small gallery of 12 screenshots depicting a selction of the hundreds of games available showing popular games and different styles of graphics available for the machine. Since the vast majority of Acorn Electrons were used to play games, this is extremely relevant to the article. I see no reason why they should be deleted without debate but that is what has happened and no matter how hard I try to get the user to explain to me why, he simply re-deletes the section and threatens with reporting etc. He did quote one policy that seems to me to entirely justify the images:
WP:NFCC#8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
The screenshots DO add significantly to the article. A quick glance gives the reader a much better understanding of the graphical capabilities of the computer and the type of programs that were commonly used. The omission of any screenshots IS detrimental to the understanding of the Acorn Electron. There is no text that could as accurately convey the same meaning.
A variety of shots is necessary. Any more would be excessive as they would not all fit on the screen for comparison but as it is, it is a perfect, descriptive illustration of what the Acorn Electron was (and is!). Retro junkie 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The gallery was used in a similar way to the Gaming history section on Commodore_64_software. Would it be better to structure it like that with a couple of lines of text in between? (btw a seperate Acorn Electron software article would be unnecessary). I see the point raised elsewhere about fitting them into the text where appropriate but I still think an at-a-glance overview of 6+years of screenshots adds a better understanding of the range of software eg the increase in detail from simple early games like Arcadians to the complex Holed Out 6 years later. Other shots showed 3D wireframe graphics, isometric 3D (from a game that probably does not merit its own article so that screenshot will be lost), monochrome, different graphic modes, the memory displayed on screen, conversions of popular multi-platform and arcade games (a quick reference for people familiar with other versions of the games) etc and were laid out chronologically. Retro junkie 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Was the FDC a WD1770 or a WD1771? I moved the WD1770 page to WD1771 because it was describing the earliest WD FDC chip, which was the WD1771. The WD1770 came much later. But I have no idea which the Acorn used. -- Brouhaha ( talk) 21:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You can see the Plus 3 used the 1770 on clearer photos of the board available through your favourite image search engine. The article mentions the 8272. I wonder if this should actually be the 1772. IIRC, that had timings more appropriate to 3.5" drives. The Advanced Plus 4 (surely more popular than some of the other expansions mentioned, notably the Plus 2) used the 1772. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.43.135 ( talk) 19:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The one I have is from Jaffa Systems Ltd. MODE7 Mk I (C) 1987; Same full width as the Acorn PLUS1, used both CRT6845 and SAA5050 was sold as a kit or ready built.
A later revision was the MODE7 Mk II (C) 1989; Smaller card, ONLY used the SAA5050 and not CRT6845.
The Mk II and the MODE7 Emulator ROM both used the Slogger's Turbo or Master 64K for speed!
For pictures of both MODE7 hardware types see:- http://www.bygonebytes.co.uk/Teletext1.jpg then http://www.bygonebytes.co.uk/Mode7.html
To double check this information, look in the Electron User, see the old adverts, then read the reviews!!
There was also another MODE7 add-on advertised in one of many magazines for the BBC / Electron Micros.
>> It's a shame that the main page, keeps deleting this historic facts! << —Preceding unsigned comment added by An Electron User 188.221.111.58 ( talk) 11:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Acorn computers#Proposed move/new title. Trevj ( talk) 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This edit adds two things which either need clarifying or aren't completely correct. First of all, it mentions booting from cartridges using Shift-Break: that may be possible under certain circumstances, but it's perhaps a lot more interesting to know that Ctrl-Break (or just powering on) let users boot into language ROMs provided by cartridges; indeed, inserting such a language cartridge would override BASIC. Secondly, it mentions that the Plus 1 cartridge slot exposes user port lines that the expansion connector does not, to which I am somewhat skeptical and for which would like to see a reference. PaulBoddie ( talk) 16:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph dealing with the memory system in the history section is mostly accurate, as far as I know, but there are no citations in there, and some of the stuff is pretty speculative: introducing more RAM using BBC Model B+ techniques was obviously a possibility (where is the citation about the B+ being designed "[a]t the same time... just metres away"?) but would have changed the cost equations. Similarly, observations like "[t]his reduced the effective CPU speed by as much as a factor of 6" need links to actual measurements. PaulBoddie ( talk) 18:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I added some clarifications and a reference for the memory access details. Nice to see that the reduction in speed went down from 6 to 4, although in many cases it is only 2, as I have now noted. The BBC B+ section has been removed since it became obvious that it has no particular relevance other than to note that things could have been done differently. PaulBoddie ( talk) 00:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
In the section about the Turbo board, there is a remark about the 8K (64Kbit) static RAM chip being as expensive as the four 64Kbit dynamic RAM chips that would be needed to double the memory access bus width. The linked picture shows a 6264P-15 part whereas the DRAM chips are 4164-150 parts. The remark is probably accurate: one price list I have found indicates a price of $16.95 for the SRAM and around $4 for each DRAM chip, but this is from May 1985. Availability of 64Kbit SRAM parts was probably very limited nearer to the Electron's release, meaning that the unit pricing might have been even more prohibitive, whereas the 64Kbit DRAM part pricing had largely stabilised by then. It might also be interesting to consider Turbo board designs involving 6116 chips, their feasibility, and pricing differences. As far as I can tell, once 4164 pricing had stabilised, 6116 SRAM prices were largely similar to 4164 DRAM prices, meaning that the 8K of SRAM would indeed cost about the same as another 32K of DRAM. PaulBoddie ( talk) 23:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I see that there have been some "references" added that don't actually refer to any sources. For example, this one about the flashing cursor. It would be nice if actual source details were included: making something a reference does not make it a source in and of itself. Also, there is a fair amount of content that doesn't have any citations which should be cleaned up. PaulBoddie ( talk) 13:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If the failure of the Electron "ended" Acorn's home computer business, the could somebody please tell me which Acorn it was that sold me an A3000 (Archimedes equivalent to the Electron), plus released the A3010 that was SO aimed at home users that it included a UHF modulator inside?
I find this "ending Acorn's home-computer business" comment to be misleading.
2.14.152.158 (
talk) 18:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I suppose some other word might be more appropriate. Certainly, Acorn disengaged from various retail channels and focused more heavily on dealerships from the mid-1980s, but even then there were still going to be sales to home users, and I imagine that the advertising and promotional literature for things like the Master series (particularly the Compact) would emphasise home or "home office" use. (This wasn't a strategy unique to Acorn: according to "The Amstrad Story", Amstrad also sought to change their retail emphasis from volume retailers like Dixons to more specialised venues.) As for the A3000 and A3010, the latter having a UHF modulator (and being bundled with a game, having joystick ports, and so on) is very revealing about the target audience. The A3000 was also attractive for home use, although I suspect that it was mostly intended as a cheaper and simpler product for education than the three-box models that came before it. PaulBoddie ( talk) 12:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've now replaced the remark about the "home-computer business" (and removed the hyphenation where the term is used), adding a news reference which explicitly mentions the home computing audience intended for the Master Compact which is, of course, a later machine (and probably confused with an Electron successor by the rumour mill of the era). Personally, I think this article (and also the Acorn Computers one) has far too much narrative-peddling with the references not actually substantiating the text, so I guess there will be plenty more edits to come replacing assertions with substantiated observations. PaulBoddie ( talk) 21:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I offer an image of my Acorn Electron with Jaff Mode 7, Slogger Rom Box, Advanced Plus one with Advanced Battery Backed RAM in front socket (had a prototype Serial Port card for fitting here when required) and an Advanced Plus 4 (AP4) interface (one of the first made) in the rear socket of the Plus 1. This AP4 has been used with a succession of flopply drives including double sided double drive 40/80 switchable.
The image is on my web page at:
Lionel Smith's Acorn Electron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.233.26 ( talk) 16:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The release date listed is actually the announcement date. The History section is vague, but it seems as though none were released before Xmas 83, which is the lore. Jerri Kohl ( talk) 17:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
There is some widespread citation of various Register articles about old computers including the Electron. Although apparently thoroughly researched, the storytelling nature of these articles does not always lend itself to verification of various assertions, and this results in a bunch of claims fitting a particular narrative being copy-pasted into Wikipedia without any scrutiny. Given how much people have been leaning on the narrative of the Register piece about the Electron, there may need to be several claims addressed, and these might be discussed below. PaulBoddie ( talk) 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
"How much the retailer paid was never disclosed, but it amounted to less than it had cost Acorn to make them in the first place." But there is no actual contemporary evidence provided in the article. In various places, the disposal to retailers will be mentioned in the contemporary press, and it is probable that machines were acquired below cost, but it would be useful to see the details of such transactions plus evidence of the various sales promotions that occurred. PaulBoddie ( talk) 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I've added a reference to the "Elk" nickname to the history section. Feel free to improve this if there's a way to mention it less clumsily, but please don't remove it altogether as over-zealous wikipedia editors kept removing a listing for the electron on the 'Elk' disambiguation page. In my view the listing in the 'Elk' disambiguation page is needed because whilst I've no wish to promote the nickname, people often talk about "The Elk" and if people have never heard of the nickname they may be confused what computer it refers to and look it up on wikipedia. The page for the BBC micro does include a similar reference for its "Beeb" nickname. Thanks. 82.27.207.101 ( talk) 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The reference added to the top of the article is strongest, although there should be plenty of contemporary references using the term even from the earliest days of the machine, maybe even from before its release. Interestingly, there is also a referenced article that has "Elk" in its title, which would probably be a form of evidence, but I seem to remember A&B Computing using the term extensively. I'm not sure that any of the other references added later in the article are particularly strong: I would have thought that Wiktionary references would not be good enough for Wikipedia; the TV Tropes article is well written in parts but accuracy issues with some articles there are worrying (check out their Archimedes page with links to completely unrelated games, amongst other things) and it is a bit odd that there are computer articles on a site about TV tropes, but maybe they are branching out; the nosher.net link takes us to an index page and not any particular advert. I also think that introducing the term early is a good idea - having it later on doesn't make as much sense - and we probably don't need to have four references to establish the basis of the term. -- PaulBoddie ( talk) 23:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Acorn Electron article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Acorn Electron" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article doesn't mention the dimensions of the Electron. I came here looking for that information, as I needed to render a 3D model of it, but didn't know how big it should be. Would be a useful addition if anyone can find a reference.
The article notes The Electron is widely misquoted as operating at 1.79 MHz after measurements derived from speed testing against the thoroughly 2 MHz BBC Micro for various pieces of 'common software'
I'm guessing, but I suspect the 1.79 figure is much more "real" that this comment suggests. The number is 1/2 the color clock (I think) frequency of a standard NTSC television. If one does NOT use this speed, the processor will end up accessing memory at the same time as the video circuitry. This is why the Electron ran so much slower when running software from RAM for instance.
So basically it's almost certainly true that the Electron DID run at 1.79 on NTSC, slightly slower on PAL, and perhaps 2.0 on a monitor -- but I doubt even that. The same numbers can be seen throughout the home computer world -- the Atari was the same speed, most other machines exactly half at .96ish.
Maury 12:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I am right in thinking that the different clock frequences mentioned in the article misleading? Surely the clock isn't actually switching frequences, which would involve some pretty advance chipped design. And doing it whenever the program counter switches between RAM and ROM seems... impractical. The way other machines of the time handled this was simply to lock the bus when the the video was accessing the memory, which is NOT the same as halving the clock frequency.
On the topic of the CPU frequency, why is there this 0.5897 MHz figure for accessing RAM? Where does it come from and how is it calculated? As far as I know, the RAM is only ever accessed at 1MHz. Although the CPU may be denied access to RAM by the ULA, this doesn't justify the use of some calculated frequency because it doesn't describe the reality (it either accesses at 1MHz or it doesn't access at all) and because such an indicative figure would only describe a particular scenario and not apply generally. Indeed, it is just like the fictional 1.79 MHz that proliferated for the CPU frequency back in the day. PaulBoddie ( talk) 00:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Can I respectfully suggest that, apart from the history section, the article be phrased in the present tense. I note that the article is phrased in the past tense throughout, which is a little confusing, since the machine still exists. FOr example, the article starts "The Electron was able to load and save from cassette..."... It still can! Clearly the history section of the article should be written in the past tense, but I see no reason why the article should use past tense elsewhere. I'm sure there are probably over half a million examples of the Acorn Electron still in existence! I did not edit the article (apart from two words in the opening paragraph) as I did not author it and do not believe in just going straight in and editing without getting a feel for others opinion. ANd anyway, I don't think my Wikipedia skills are up to it. I'm struggling with the user interface!
Image:ElectronBASIC.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There was (for over 2 years) a small gallery of 12 screenshots depicting a selction of the hundreds of games available showing popular games and different styles of graphics available for the machine. Since the vast majority of Acorn Electrons were used to play games, this is extremely relevant to the article. I see no reason why they should be deleted without debate but that is what has happened and no matter how hard I try to get the user to explain to me why, he simply re-deletes the section and threatens with reporting etc. He did quote one policy that seems to me to entirely justify the images:
WP:NFCC#8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
The screenshots DO add significantly to the article. A quick glance gives the reader a much better understanding of the graphical capabilities of the computer and the type of programs that were commonly used. The omission of any screenshots IS detrimental to the understanding of the Acorn Electron. There is no text that could as accurately convey the same meaning.
A variety of shots is necessary. Any more would be excessive as they would not all fit on the screen for comparison but as it is, it is a perfect, descriptive illustration of what the Acorn Electron was (and is!). Retro junkie 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The gallery was used in a similar way to the Gaming history section on Commodore_64_software. Would it be better to structure it like that with a couple of lines of text in between? (btw a seperate Acorn Electron software article would be unnecessary). I see the point raised elsewhere about fitting them into the text where appropriate but I still think an at-a-glance overview of 6+years of screenshots adds a better understanding of the range of software eg the increase in detail from simple early games like Arcadians to the complex Holed Out 6 years later. Other shots showed 3D wireframe graphics, isometric 3D (from a game that probably does not merit its own article so that screenshot will be lost), monochrome, different graphic modes, the memory displayed on screen, conversions of popular multi-platform and arcade games (a quick reference for people familiar with other versions of the games) etc and were laid out chronologically. Retro junkie 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Was the FDC a WD1770 or a WD1771? I moved the WD1770 page to WD1771 because it was describing the earliest WD FDC chip, which was the WD1771. The WD1770 came much later. But I have no idea which the Acorn used. -- Brouhaha ( talk) 21:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You can see the Plus 3 used the 1770 on clearer photos of the board available through your favourite image search engine. The article mentions the 8272. I wonder if this should actually be the 1772. IIRC, that had timings more appropriate to 3.5" drives. The Advanced Plus 4 (surely more popular than some of the other expansions mentioned, notably the Plus 2) used the 1772. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.43.135 ( talk) 19:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The one I have is from Jaffa Systems Ltd. MODE7 Mk I (C) 1987; Same full width as the Acorn PLUS1, used both CRT6845 and SAA5050 was sold as a kit or ready built.
A later revision was the MODE7 Mk II (C) 1989; Smaller card, ONLY used the SAA5050 and not CRT6845.
The Mk II and the MODE7 Emulator ROM both used the Slogger's Turbo or Master 64K for speed!
For pictures of both MODE7 hardware types see:- http://www.bygonebytes.co.uk/Teletext1.jpg then http://www.bygonebytes.co.uk/Mode7.html
To double check this information, look in the Electron User, see the old adverts, then read the reviews!!
There was also another MODE7 add-on advertised in one of many magazines for the BBC / Electron Micros.
>> It's a shame that the main page, keeps deleting this historic facts! << —Preceding unsigned comment added by An Electron User 188.221.111.58 ( talk) 11:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Acorn computers#Proposed move/new title. Trevj ( talk) 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This edit adds two things which either need clarifying or aren't completely correct. First of all, it mentions booting from cartridges using Shift-Break: that may be possible under certain circumstances, but it's perhaps a lot more interesting to know that Ctrl-Break (or just powering on) let users boot into language ROMs provided by cartridges; indeed, inserting such a language cartridge would override BASIC. Secondly, it mentions that the Plus 1 cartridge slot exposes user port lines that the expansion connector does not, to which I am somewhat skeptical and for which would like to see a reference. PaulBoddie ( talk) 16:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph dealing with the memory system in the history section is mostly accurate, as far as I know, but there are no citations in there, and some of the stuff is pretty speculative: introducing more RAM using BBC Model B+ techniques was obviously a possibility (where is the citation about the B+ being designed "[a]t the same time... just metres away"?) but would have changed the cost equations. Similarly, observations like "[t]his reduced the effective CPU speed by as much as a factor of 6" need links to actual measurements. PaulBoddie ( talk) 18:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I added some clarifications and a reference for the memory access details. Nice to see that the reduction in speed went down from 6 to 4, although in many cases it is only 2, as I have now noted. The BBC B+ section has been removed since it became obvious that it has no particular relevance other than to note that things could have been done differently. PaulBoddie ( talk) 00:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
In the section about the Turbo board, there is a remark about the 8K (64Kbit) static RAM chip being as expensive as the four 64Kbit dynamic RAM chips that would be needed to double the memory access bus width. The linked picture shows a 6264P-15 part whereas the DRAM chips are 4164-150 parts. The remark is probably accurate: one price list I have found indicates a price of $16.95 for the SRAM and around $4 for each DRAM chip, but this is from May 1985. Availability of 64Kbit SRAM parts was probably very limited nearer to the Electron's release, meaning that the unit pricing might have been even more prohibitive, whereas the 64Kbit DRAM part pricing had largely stabilised by then. It might also be interesting to consider Turbo board designs involving 6116 chips, their feasibility, and pricing differences. As far as I can tell, once 4164 pricing had stabilised, 6116 SRAM prices were largely similar to 4164 DRAM prices, meaning that the 8K of SRAM would indeed cost about the same as another 32K of DRAM. PaulBoddie ( talk) 23:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I see that there have been some "references" added that don't actually refer to any sources. For example, this one about the flashing cursor. It would be nice if actual source details were included: making something a reference does not make it a source in and of itself. Also, there is a fair amount of content that doesn't have any citations which should be cleaned up. PaulBoddie ( talk) 13:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If the failure of the Electron "ended" Acorn's home computer business, the could somebody please tell me which Acorn it was that sold me an A3000 (Archimedes equivalent to the Electron), plus released the A3010 that was SO aimed at home users that it included a UHF modulator inside?
I find this "ending Acorn's home-computer business" comment to be misleading.
2.14.152.158 (
talk) 18:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I suppose some other word might be more appropriate. Certainly, Acorn disengaged from various retail channels and focused more heavily on dealerships from the mid-1980s, but even then there were still going to be sales to home users, and I imagine that the advertising and promotional literature for things like the Master series (particularly the Compact) would emphasise home or "home office" use. (This wasn't a strategy unique to Acorn: according to "The Amstrad Story", Amstrad also sought to change their retail emphasis from volume retailers like Dixons to more specialised venues.) As for the A3000 and A3010, the latter having a UHF modulator (and being bundled with a game, having joystick ports, and so on) is very revealing about the target audience. The A3000 was also attractive for home use, although I suspect that it was mostly intended as a cheaper and simpler product for education than the three-box models that came before it. PaulBoddie ( talk) 12:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've now replaced the remark about the "home-computer business" (and removed the hyphenation where the term is used), adding a news reference which explicitly mentions the home computing audience intended for the Master Compact which is, of course, a later machine (and probably confused with an Electron successor by the rumour mill of the era). Personally, I think this article (and also the Acorn Computers one) has far too much narrative-peddling with the references not actually substantiating the text, so I guess there will be plenty more edits to come replacing assertions with substantiated observations. PaulBoddie ( talk) 21:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I offer an image of my Acorn Electron with Jaff Mode 7, Slogger Rom Box, Advanced Plus one with Advanced Battery Backed RAM in front socket (had a prototype Serial Port card for fitting here when required) and an Advanced Plus 4 (AP4) interface (one of the first made) in the rear socket of the Plus 1. This AP4 has been used with a succession of flopply drives including double sided double drive 40/80 switchable.
The image is on my web page at:
Lionel Smith's Acorn Electron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.233.26 ( talk) 16:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The release date listed is actually the announcement date. The History section is vague, but it seems as though none were released before Xmas 83, which is the lore. Jerri Kohl ( talk) 17:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
There is some widespread citation of various Register articles about old computers including the Electron. Although apparently thoroughly researched, the storytelling nature of these articles does not always lend itself to verification of various assertions, and this results in a bunch of claims fitting a particular narrative being copy-pasted into Wikipedia without any scrutiny. Given how much people have been leaning on the narrative of the Register piece about the Electron, there may need to be several claims addressed, and these might be discussed below. PaulBoddie ( talk) 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
"How much the retailer paid was never disclosed, but it amounted to less than it had cost Acorn to make them in the first place." But there is no actual contemporary evidence provided in the article. In various places, the disposal to retailers will be mentioned in the contemporary press, and it is probable that machines were acquired below cost, but it would be useful to see the details of such transactions plus evidence of the various sales promotions that occurred. PaulBoddie ( talk) 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I've added a reference to the "Elk" nickname to the history section. Feel free to improve this if there's a way to mention it less clumsily, but please don't remove it altogether as over-zealous wikipedia editors kept removing a listing for the electron on the 'Elk' disambiguation page. In my view the listing in the 'Elk' disambiguation page is needed because whilst I've no wish to promote the nickname, people often talk about "The Elk" and if people have never heard of the nickname they may be confused what computer it refers to and look it up on wikipedia. The page for the BBC micro does include a similar reference for its "Beeb" nickname. Thanks. 82.27.207.101 ( talk) 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The reference added to the top of the article is strongest, although there should be plenty of contemporary references using the term even from the earliest days of the machine, maybe even from before its release. Interestingly, there is also a referenced article that has "Elk" in its title, which would probably be a form of evidence, but I seem to remember A&B Computing using the term extensively. I'm not sure that any of the other references added later in the article are particularly strong: I would have thought that Wiktionary references would not be good enough for Wikipedia; the TV Tropes article is well written in parts but accuracy issues with some articles there are worrying (check out their Archimedes page with links to completely unrelated games, amongst other things) and it is a bit odd that there are computer articles on a site about TV tropes, but maybe they are branching out; the nosher.net link takes us to an index page and not any particular advert. I also think that introducing the term early is a good idea - having it later on doesn't make as much sense - and we probably don't need to have four references to establish the basis of the term. -- PaulBoddie ( talk) 23:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)