![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This page contents originate from History section of Personal computer.-- Kozuch ( talk) 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see this article created, I spent 2 solid days formatting and putting together much of this and hated seeing it wasted when it all seemed notable to many people. Alatari ( talk) 13:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"The result was massive sales of the 64, albeit at almost no profit."... - entire paragraph is NOT TRUE! There is no reference for claims in that paragraph. Not single one! Here is reference about stock price from 1983.: "Which is what he did in those early years for computers, leading Commodore to $700 million in sales in fiscal 1983 and $88 million in profits. At its peak price in those days, the stock that Tramiel had sold in 1962 at a price of $2.50 a share was up to $1,200, and his 6.5% slice of the company was worth $120 million." http://www.commodore.ca/history/people/jack_tramiel_starting_over.htm If 6.5% worth $120 millions than market CAP of Commodore in 1983. was $1,846 millions! ...yes, he drove commodore out of business. So please, fix this paragraph! -- Calimero ( talk) 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
See A Chronology of Personal computers. Not much analysis of the significance of events, but lots of key dates and references. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposed merge of the content from an article called Home computer. Most of the content there overlaps or is redundant.
When I originally put this together I used the benchmark that a machine had to sell over 1,000,000 units or introduced some significant new development to the market as the game cartridge, floppy drive, CD-ROM. Also breaking new marketing territory or driving new important user applications could be considered if they fail the 1m in sales mark. Alatari ( talk) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The article still needs work but the main complaints in the rewrite tag appeare to be corrected and the article seems in much better shape. I'm replacing the text with the next biggest problem of regular citation failures throughout. Alatari ( talk) 13:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You've got to talk about the Elder Days. We don't want people thinking Bill Gates invented the PC in 1981 to improve sales of Windows. My literary skills are not up to describing the raw thrill I had walking up to a PDP 11/45 in 1979 and having it at my complete disposal - a personal computer, indeed, but no "microcomputer" or "home computer". Imagine the feelings of the first buyers behind the wheel of a Model T - no more waiting for the train! You've got to retain some of that feeling of the impact personal computers had - only a very few people had the experience in the early days, but now it's so commonplace that no-one respects how magical it is. If the term "microcomputer" means anything at all, then this mumblety-mumble gigahertz/gigabyte box sitting on my desk is every bit as much as microcomputer as an Altair. A "history of personal computers" articles that ignores the LINC and night-shift debugging is like a history of England that doesn't talk about anything before teh Beatles broke up. A dull recitation of catalog numbers is not history. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"it is important to include only those machines that had some sort of influence on the history and evolution of the PC." That's wildly inappropriate. The title is "History of personal computers." To restrict it to "the PC," which I assume means IBM's model 5150 and its architectural descendants, is like saying an article on music should only include events that influenced the history and development of rock. As far as I know, the first significant use of the phrase "personal computer" was in Xerox's description of the Alto. Well, I see the article mentions two earlier uses. It should mention the Alto, too, though!
Dpbsmith
(talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is a thoughtful article on personal computing Before the Altair. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I have twice removed the Heath section, arguing that it's influence on the history of computing is simply unimportant, and not worthy of inclusion here. The goal of any article on the Wiki is to balance the need for detail with the need to keep things short, so we don't overwhelm the reader. In this case, it is important to include only those machines that had some sort of influence on the history and evolution of the PC, which I argue the Heath did not. The section has been re-inserted both times now, so I guess it's time to bring the discussion here.
Wtshymanski, if you wish to argue that the Heath was historically significant, and deserves a three paragraph inclusion, you will need to demonstrate:
1) documentary evidence of widespread use in common magazines of the era, like Compute!, Creative Computing, Byte, Dr. Dobbs, etc. Not advertising, not reviews, articles about using the machine. Thousands of such articles exist for the Apple II, PET, Atari's, C64 and so on, which clearly demonstrates their importance at the time. In fact, all of these companies had multiple' magazines devoted to just these machines. Is there a wide body of general articles on the Heath? I don't recall any. I don't recall there ever being a magazine devoted to it either.
2) documentary evidence of the claim that the "The H-8 was successful". This article is about machines that sold millions of units, not thousands, and any "successful" claim will need to demonstrate those sorts of numbers.
3) a demonstration that any of features the Heath systems contributed to the history of computing. Was it the first widespread kit-built machine, like the Altair? Were they the least expensive, like the Sinclair? Most widely sold, like the C64? Best performing, like the Atari? Or perhaps they were the first all-in-one machines like the Sol-20 and PET? Or the first with built-in color support, like the Apple II? Does the Heath have any notable "first" or "best" at all? Anything that is even remotely historically notable?
I remember the H8 from when I was a kid, because I had a Heath catalog. I recall them being expensive, limited in terms of capability (no color, sound, etc.), being completely non-standard, and as a result, having a limited software library. At the time, I knew people with a wide variety of machines; various S-100 machines, Apples, PETs, Ataris, I even knew someone that had a CompuColor. I never met a single person that owned a Heath. Ever, even now 25 years later. The fact that they don't even have an article on the wiki is a good reason to believe their influence is extremely limited.
If you think they have any reason to be in an article on the history of personal computing, you're going to need something more than a personal opinion.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The significance of the Heath H8 and H11, besides being very early entrants (1977) is that Heath was considered to be a "real" company of stature, not a tiny startup whose first product was a computer. Heath was known as the first company to market affordable analog computers, so its involvement with personal computers signaled that they had arrived. Perhaps people do not understand the reputation that Heathkits had among hobbyists. Yes, this is only my personal testimony, but I never used these machines and have no personal agenda in touting them. Nevertheless, I and everyone else was well aware of their influence at the time. Building a microcomputer was considered to be a risky business and not for the faint-of-heart. But Heathkit? Well, if they Heathkit was offering them, you knew they would work, that there was really was such a thing as a $500 computer. It had the same sort of effect on the hobbyist community that IBM's introduction of the PC would later have on the general public.
I wouldn't be surprised if the H11 was the first 16-bit microcomputer.
Advertisements for the Heath H8 and H11 appeared in Interface Age, a major trade publication.
The Heath H8 had a users' group.
"I don't recall there ever being a magazine devoted to it either." Of course not. In 1977, computer magazines... BYTE, Personal Computing, Dr. Dobbs' Journal... covered the whole world of computers. The single-brand magazine didn't emerge until several years later.
In 1979, BYTE devoted an article to "Building the Heath H8 computer," written by Dr. Paul R. Poduska.
According to Make magazine, the H8 was "a huge Heathkit success."
Dpbsmith (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Every one of these responses fails to address even one of the issues I mentioned. I was accused of "astonishing truculence" and it was claimed that I was confusing "computers" with "personal computers", and even the claim that I was stating that my personal memory was supposed to be some sort of evidence. In other words, lots of personal attack. Sadly, there was almost zero effort to address the actual issues. Let me address those attempts:
1) Cuvtixo article is exactly what I said was not the sort of thing that demonstrates importance. There were literally hundreds of computers released between 1976 and 1980 that would have articles of this sort. In order to demonstrate historical importance, one needs to demonstrated continued widespread coverage. The existence of entire commercial magazines (as opposed to newsletters) demonstrates this. Continued coverage in major generalist magazines, like the Atari columns in Creative Computing for instance, are also a good example. Can someone demonstrate that?
2) Advertisements absolutely do not count. Again, one can trivially find advertisements for hundreds of different machines that left absolutely no mark on the history of personal computers.
3) With the exception of the 16-bit claim, which is wrong (demonstrated here, no less), there hasn't been a single attempt to demonstrate any reason to believe this machine is in any way interesting to the history of personal computers.
Is someone going to try to address the issues here? Or just keep attacking the messenger?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz: "My concern is that unless we have some sort of objective filter this article will stop being about the 'history of personal computers' and turn into 'a list of every personal computer in history.'" Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. If it becomes too listy, cut the descriptions down to single sentences and wedge 'em into a section entitled "list of historical personal computers" or something. I'm skeptical about the usefulness of "objective filters" in writing good articles about history. The filter should be the same filter we use throughout Wikipedia: if someone says a computer was important, and someone else challenges it, the person who says it was important has to come up with a rationale for why it's important, and some reasonable source citation that support the rationale. That's enough of a filter. WP:RS is a good enough metafilter on the references themselves. By all means, keep 'em honest by insisting on a citation, but then let go, even if you don't personally agree with other editors' judgements.
At root, Wikipedia depends on consensus, good faith, and mutual respect between editors. Rules are useful in helping consensus gel, but there's no algorithm for what's "important" and what isn't, and editors must sometimes agree to disagree... and should err on the side of inclusion. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A random item: one of Microsoft's first eleven employees, Gordon Letwin, was a Heath alumnus, and the (apparently sole) author of HDOS. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A random item: a 1993 USENET posting comments that "At the time, the Heath H11 was about the most powerful 'PC' you could buy." Random Googling turns up some evidence that it was popular among researchers, presumably researchers who couldn't afford real PDP-11's, for interfacing to lab equipment. One article, for example, published in Instrumentation Science & Technology, Volume 13, Issue 2 1984 , pages 117 - 134--that is, a substantial article in a real journal (not a hobbyist publication)--says
“ | A low cost interface for a DEC LSI-11/2 based minicomputer (Heath H11-A) is described which allows Noise Power Spectra (NPS) to be obtained. The interface consists of signal processing and data acquisition units operated in conjunction with modified commercial software (Decus library number 11-368) through a Heath Parallel Interface Module (PIM) on the LSI-11 bus. In addition interfacing techniques are described which allow a Commodore Pet Computer to acquire data from a photon counter and perform simple noise studies by measurement of the standard deviation of signals. | ” |
Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
""Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. "
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress on Agricultural Engineering, Dublin, 4-8 September, 1989. An article on measuring tractor field performance, reviewing previous work, mentions a 1980 system that "used a Heath H8-8080A microcomputer. An analog Real-Time Interval (RTI-1200-016) interface board was used [to acquire signals measuring] drawbar loading, axle loading, and axle torque." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
To see the evolution of the microcomputer in technical terms or sales figures is to miss most of the reasons why things happened as they did. What I'm about to say is in the nature of legitimate opinion that should be fairly noncontroversial to those who lived through the period. Obviously none of this can go in the article as it stands, but I'd submit that this can be a sort of rough outline of a part of the historical context, that could guide addition of properly referenced future content.
Personal computing is the confluence of several trends. One was the invention of personal computing itself, specifically the development of Whirlwind-style, short-word-length, integer-only computing, with direct console interaction... as opposed to Princeton-style computing. This largely took place before the development of the personal computer. PDP-1 hackers in the 1960s were already using computers for many mainstream PC purposes: word processing (Flexowriters were fully letter-quality printers, and TJ-1 justified the lines), impromptu numeric calculation (Expensive Desk Calculator), and games (Spacewar! and a flight simulator).
Another was a hobbyist community that knew about and wanted to engage in personal computing. People who knew why you would want a home computer. (Not for recipe planning!) If it hadn't been for the hobby community, microprocessors would have remained dedicated devices embedded in other systems. The idea of using a microprocessor as a general-purpose computer was not only alien to, it was actively resisted by the computing establishment. IBM and others knew quite consciously that microprocessors posed a threat to their established business and did their best to create artificial walls between microprocessors and computers.
An enormously important part of personal computer history was the legitimization process. This occurred rather quickly, over a period of perhaps five to ten years. Personal computers have now been legitimate for decades, but IBM would never have produced a PC if they hadn't been inexorably drawn into the riptide of legitimization.
The first hobbyist machines, including the Altair, were poorly engineered, if indeed they were engineered at all. Many did not work if peripherals were added to the bus. Many did not work even before they were added! The "kits" were not complete. The finished computers were science fair projects. Everyone knew some enthusiast who had a computer that worked fine except on whatever particular day you came to look at it.
Legitimization proceeded in stages. Heath was important precisely because of the enormous influence of the company and its catalogs. It did not legitimize the microcomputer to the public at large, but it legitimized it to the world of electronic hobbyists in general. It spread the idea beyond the wild-eyed Computer Faire types. Whether or not you actually bought one, if it was in the Heath catalog you knew that it was going to work, and had "adult supervision" and support behind it. The Heath was a breakthrough machine in the Altair, Cromemco, KIM-1 era.
The next stage was the fully-assembled, working unit. There were of course many but Apple was a standout here because of the general standard of fit and finish. (Of course, the first time I saw one, I was initially impressed by the brilliant thermal engineering that allowed it to operate reliably with no fan... only to discover quickly that what we had here was a total lack of thermal engineering, almost as it had never occurred to Apple that there was such a thing). This was the Apple, Commodore Pet, TRS-80 era. You could buy one and it would work, but what exactly could you do with one besides program it yourself, or type in programs from David Ahl's book and play "Hunt the Wumpus?" Of course the ads implied these were business machines, but they weren't.
The next stage was the emergence of Visicalc and the smuggling of these machines into businesses, a process that many will remember clearly. Purchase orders for Apples that not only avoided calling them computers but might have misleadingly called them "desktop calculators." Price negotiations and trying to convince dealers to cut a price to $4995 instead of $5025 because then it wouldn't need to go through the capital equipment committee.
The next stage was the mini and mainframe companies being dragged kicking and screaming into the picture. As I recall, several big companies... Xerox was one of them... introduced pedestrian computers all at about the same time, very uninteresting machines whose only significance was the big names on them. That is, the big companies, including IBM, realized that the pain of introducing microcomputers, while large, was going to be worse than the pain of missing the boat altogether. Then came 1981, and that strange machine with the deliberately underpowered processor, and schizophrenia about whether it should have a professional 80-column monochrome character generator or an Apple-like toy color graphics card... and the rest is familiar history. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
CP/M systems were a significant phase of personal computer development, but they are entirely missing from the article. Here are some examples. If there are no objections, I will try to help fill in this obvious gap... -- Blainster ( talk) 03:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on the grammar problem now. -- Sci-Fi Dude ( talk) 19:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
He was an editor of Computer Shopper for 4 years during the '80's and the site http://www.pc-history.org/index.html is based off his knowledge about the period. He claims all the TRS-80 models outsold the other machines until IBM and C-64. No numbers though. He did explain the FCC interference issues with Apple and TRS-80 plastic cases. I hope that this puts the issue over TRS-80 interference to bed? Alatari ( talk) 12:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The design of the Programma 101 began in 1962, making it one of the earliest designs for an integrated desktop stored program calculator, a primitive but very succesful sort of PC Magnagr ( talk) 22:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The very first sentence in the article says "The history of the personal computer as mass-market consumer electronic devices effectively began in 1972 with the introduction of the HP 9820 PC[1]microcomputers, although some mainframe and minicomputers had been applied as single-user systems much earlier."
The very first sentence in the Overview section says "The history of the personal computer as mass-market consumer electronic devices effectively began in 1977 with the introduction of microcomputers, although some mainframe and minicomputers had been applied as single-user systems much earlier." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.24.11 ( talk) 12:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the reference to the HP's calculator (see eg: http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp9820.htm) as "the first PC" together with its unverifiable reference. Sorry, but there is now no inline tag available for unverifiability (the trade catalogue out of print for 40 years).
As far as I know the term Personal Computer was coined by IBM to market their IBM Personal Computer (or IBM PC for short) 1981. If you couldn't afford the real deal of an IBM PC then many manufacturers e.g Sanyo offered what were marketed as "PC clones". It was this computer that marked the watershed between calculators and "PCs" (as this group of devices, that were "personal" and were "computers" though of a "hobbyist" kind then became known) and the IBM PC and clones that swept these all almost entirely away within a few brief years. During the "war that wasn't" (it was won if not before then as soon as IBM fired their first shot) there were "many" technically inclined folk who championed the BBC MIcro, or the Sinclair QL (I confess to having been one who rushed out and bought one - d'Oh!) but whatever the technical arguments the war was over. Resistance was futile. Even the Mac struggled to get a decent share of the market (1984)! Currently Windows OS (the symbion that devoured IBM's PC) has about 90% of the market and Apple less than 10% http://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0. Of course in the mobile space things are very different.
The Wiki articles on the "PC" seem revisionist, i.e they attempt to write history in a form that accords with the writer's ideological viewpoint rather than to stand as a record of facts and context. Is this tide in wiki editing now irreversible?
Anyway, the evolution of computing UP TO the point of the IBM PC is one thing, interesting and relevant, BUT the deal that IBM made with Billy the Kid is what counts and the rest, as they say, is history - i.s THE HISTORY of the PC.
LookingGlass ( talk) 07:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of personal computers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_1.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of personal computers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I find some problems with the article:
The firt persona computer was invented by Olivetty La Programa 101, please make the corrections... 201.162.236.204 ( talk) 18:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This segment is flawed in fact and format and reads like a footnote. There was no 'microcomputer revolution' .... perhaps the author is referring to the microprocessor?
I was there, from 1977 to 1993. It's an incredible story and it certainly was a revolution but there is a long ladder of events; mayhem, brilliance, bluster, good guys, bad guys, eureka moments, beta tests that crashed airlines, the Apple/DOS schism and the proselytizing vertical market campaigns...
it's a dense and fascinating story. I wonder if anyone would like to tell it with me, before it disappears.
Humanity is shaped by invention; Invention is nonlinear and organic; intellectual, emotional, competitive or collaborative, driven by unusual peopl
The workday is often prosaic⁶ and repetitive. Take the GPS we rely on - it exists because hundreds of people across the planet spent their entire day scanning every intersection of a roadmap into a FORTRAN program which turned the visual data into X's and Y's... A process measured in months and years. And that's just the database. We digitized the unfoldable maps, we digitized the air (radio frequencies) and we harnessed outer space (satellite) to transmit the information.
Not even the smartest guy in the room would have foretold a future where 'regular humans' would benefit - we built GPS for cops, first responders and Fortune 50 courier companies - who paid US $40 million(ish) for the initial license.
At Microsoft (early 80s) we promulgated a theoretical home computer market; (apocryphal marketing) but our development was strictly office-corporate. Bill Gates wanted Word Perfect to disappear so we could install Word in every office on the planet but we literally couldn't give it away. Nobody wanted to give up Word Perfect. It's almost scary. Bill Gates 'disappeared' the world's most widely installed word processing app. It's gone
When this was going on, a PC cost as much as a new car, cars were the sole habitat for mobile phones; this was our elitist reality until the world was democratized through the holy union of DSL, affordable modems, and Usenet.
It wasn't called the Internet back then and, like GPS, wasn't developed for real people.
Too few 'real people' had PC's at home. But that was about to change forever
..... perhaps that's the miracle within the miracle; software developers of that era were myopic giants. Their profit motives kept them focused on vertical markets, narrowing the field to the point of exclusivity, like color television in the 1960s. When IBM lost the architecture battle, the compatibility wall was breached and PC 'clones' entered the market, and the Revolution began in earnest.
The history of the personal computer is a war story, love story, legal thriller, economics treatise, and elegantly documented social anthropology. If you were there, you're an historian.
m Findlaigh ( talk) 11:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be allot of research/claims in this article but little in the way reliable sources to back it up, making much of it a work of WP:OR. Part of the "Etymology" section seems to be observation derived from primary sources, "The beginnings of the personal computer industry" has no overall history sources or rational for inclusion, and further sections are sparse on references or totally unreferenced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
In History of personal computers I replaced the IBM 610 with LGP-30. The Edit History stated my reason: "Deleted IBM 610 as redundant. The LGP-30 is similar, was shipped first, cost less, and was made in greater quantity." I could have gone-on with more reasons: The LGP-30 was manufactured for more years, was fully programmable and did not use paper tape when running a program. LGP-30 also a drum memory about 12x the capacity. The IBM 610 was obsolete when it was introduced...a year after the LGP-30. Fountains of Bryn Mawr reverted my good faith edits. I attempted to avoid an editing war by contacting him on his talk page. He indicated that he would not consider error of his revert by reverting my second comment on his talk page! He likes reverts! (My comment can still be seen in history.)
Objectively the LGP-30 was "was shipped first, cost less, and was made in greater quantity." Specifically 1956 v. 1957, $47,000 v. $55,000, 320~493 v. 180 units according to their respective Wikipedia article cites. Both machines represent the beginning of an era where a computer was built for a single user to sit at a typewriter and operate the computer. Both machines are referenced by reliable sources in their respective articles, though the IBM 610 only has 3 cites v. the LGP-30 which has 20. Can anybody think of a reason to not delete the IBM 610 in this article? RastaKins ( talk) 00:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
"you have set an impossible hurdle" -- yes, I have, Its called WP:V. Your observations of what came before what and in what form are just that -observations, i.e. original research. I am not advocating for the IBM 610 - sources are pointing to the deletion of both - this article has to be based on sources that overall cover the history of the personal computer like that, that, that, or that. BTW a Caltech article on a Caltech computer is not a third party source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 02:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
err, we do not describe what makes the two computers not similar or which exhibits a new technology step, thats the job of secondary sources. If its not in secondary sources we don't cover it here. Again, this is probably a case of deleting allot of whats there and rewriting the rest. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 01:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The stock and trade at Wikipedia is reliable sources, not your WP:OR. Sources have their reasons and, hopefully, that can be figured out. If sources disagree we cite both, maybe as opinion. We definitely do not discount one and support another (is there another?) (see WP:YESPOV again). Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Multiple references around the web state that the original 8008 Q1 Corp computer did not have a plasma display but was housed in a Daisywheel style typewriter. This is reminiscent of the PDP-1 user interface. I have not been able to find an actual photo of the 8008 Q1 so it seems somewhat of a unicorn. Djmips ( talk) 10:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This page contents originate from History section of Personal computer.-- Kozuch ( talk) 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see this article created, I spent 2 solid days formatting and putting together much of this and hated seeing it wasted when it all seemed notable to many people. Alatari ( talk) 13:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"The result was massive sales of the 64, albeit at almost no profit."... - entire paragraph is NOT TRUE! There is no reference for claims in that paragraph. Not single one! Here is reference about stock price from 1983.: "Which is what he did in those early years for computers, leading Commodore to $700 million in sales in fiscal 1983 and $88 million in profits. At its peak price in those days, the stock that Tramiel had sold in 1962 at a price of $2.50 a share was up to $1,200, and his 6.5% slice of the company was worth $120 million." http://www.commodore.ca/history/people/jack_tramiel_starting_over.htm If 6.5% worth $120 millions than market CAP of Commodore in 1983. was $1,846 millions! ...yes, he drove commodore out of business. So please, fix this paragraph! -- Calimero ( talk) 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
See A Chronology of Personal computers. Not much analysis of the significance of events, but lots of key dates and references. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposed merge of the content from an article called Home computer. Most of the content there overlaps or is redundant.
When I originally put this together I used the benchmark that a machine had to sell over 1,000,000 units or introduced some significant new development to the market as the game cartridge, floppy drive, CD-ROM. Also breaking new marketing territory or driving new important user applications could be considered if they fail the 1m in sales mark. Alatari ( talk) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The article still needs work but the main complaints in the rewrite tag appeare to be corrected and the article seems in much better shape. I'm replacing the text with the next biggest problem of regular citation failures throughout. Alatari ( talk) 13:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You've got to talk about the Elder Days. We don't want people thinking Bill Gates invented the PC in 1981 to improve sales of Windows. My literary skills are not up to describing the raw thrill I had walking up to a PDP 11/45 in 1979 and having it at my complete disposal - a personal computer, indeed, but no "microcomputer" or "home computer". Imagine the feelings of the first buyers behind the wheel of a Model T - no more waiting for the train! You've got to retain some of that feeling of the impact personal computers had - only a very few people had the experience in the early days, but now it's so commonplace that no-one respects how magical it is. If the term "microcomputer" means anything at all, then this mumblety-mumble gigahertz/gigabyte box sitting on my desk is every bit as much as microcomputer as an Altair. A "history of personal computers" articles that ignores the LINC and night-shift debugging is like a history of England that doesn't talk about anything before teh Beatles broke up. A dull recitation of catalog numbers is not history. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"it is important to include only those machines that had some sort of influence on the history and evolution of the PC." That's wildly inappropriate. The title is "History of personal computers." To restrict it to "the PC," which I assume means IBM's model 5150 and its architectural descendants, is like saying an article on music should only include events that influenced the history and development of rock. As far as I know, the first significant use of the phrase "personal computer" was in Xerox's description of the Alto. Well, I see the article mentions two earlier uses. It should mention the Alto, too, though!
Dpbsmith
(talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is a thoughtful article on personal computing Before the Altair. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I have twice removed the Heath section, arguing that it's influence on the history of computing is simply unimportant, and not worthy of inclusion here. The goal of any article on the Wiki is to balance the need for detail with the need to keep things short, so we don't overwhelm the reader. In this case, it is important to include only those machines that had some sort of influence on the history and evolution of the PC, which I argue the Heath did not. The section has been re-inserted both times now, so I guess it's time to bring the discussion here.
Wtshymanski, if you wish to argue that the Heath was historically significant, and deserves a three paragraph inclusion, you will need to demonstrate:
1) documentary evidence of widespread use in common magazines of the era, like Compute!, Creative Computing, Byte, Dr. Dobbs, etc. Not advertising, not reviews, articles about using the machine. Thousands of such articles exist for the Apple II, PET, Atari's, C64 and so on, which clearly demonstrates their importance at the time. In fact, all of these companies had multiple' magazines devoted to just these machines. Is there a wide body of general articles on the Heath? I don't recall any. I don't recall there ever being a magazine devoted to it either.
2) documentary evidence of the claim that the "The H-8 was successful". This article is about machines that sold millions of units, not thousands, and any "successful" claim will need to demonstrate those sorts of numbers.
3) a demonstration that any of features the Heath systems contributed to the history of computing. Was it the first widespread kit-built machine, like the Altair? Were they the least expensive, like the Sinclair? Most widely sold, like the C64? Best performing, like the Atari? Or perhaps they were the first all-in-one machines like the Sol-20 and PET? Or the first with built-in color support, like the Apple II? Does the Heath have any notable "first" or "best" at all? Anything that is even remotely historically notable?
I remember the H8 from when I was a kid, because I had a Heath catalog. I recall them being expensive, limited in terms of capability (no color, sound, etc.), being completely non-standard, and as a result, having a limited software library. At the time, I knew people with a wide variety of machines; various S-100 machines, Apples, PETs, Ataris, I even knew someone that had a CompuColor. I never met a single person that owned a Heath. Ever, even now 25 years later. The fact that they don't even have an article on the wiki is a good reason to believe their influence is extremely limited.
If you think they have any reason to be in an article on the history of personal computing, you're going to need something more than a personal opinion.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The significance of the Heath H8 and H11, besides being very early entrants (1977) is that Heath was considered to be a "real" company of stature, not a tiny startup whose first product was a computer. Heath was known as the first company to market affordable analog computers, so its involvement with personal computers signaled that they had arrived. Perhaps people do not understand the reputation that Heathkits had among hobbyists. Yes, this is only my personal testimony, but I never used these machines and have no personal agenda in touting them. Nevertheless, I and everyone else was well aware of their influence at the time. Building a microcomputer was considered to be a risky business and not for the faint-of-heart. But Heathkit? Well, if they Heathkit was offering them, you knew they would work, that there was really was such a thing as a $500 computer. It had the same sort of effect on the hobbyist community that IBM's introduction of the PC would later have on the general public.
I wouldn't be surprised if the H11 was the first 16-bit microcomputer.
Advertisements for the Heath H8 and H11 appeared in Interface Age, a major trade publication.
The Heath H8 had a users' group.
"I don't recall there ever being a magazine devoted to it either." Of course not. In 1977, computer magazines... BYTE, Personal Computing, Dr. Dobbs' Journal... covered the whole world of computers. The single-brand magazine didn't emerge until several years later.
In 1979, BYTE devoted an article to "Building the Heath H8 computer," written by Dr. Paul R. Poduska.
According to Make magazine, the H8 was "a huge Heathkit success."
Dpbsmith (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Every one of these responses fails to address even one of the issues I mentioned. I was accused of "astonishing truculence" and it was claimed that I was confusing "computers" with "personal computers", and even the claim that I was stating that my personal memory was supposed to be some sort of evidence. In other words, lots of personal attack. Sadly, there was almost zero effort to address the actual issues. Let me address those attempts:
1) Cuvtixo article is exactly what I said was not the sort of thing that demonstrates importance. There were literally hundreds of computers released between 1976 and 1980 that would have articles of this sort. In order to demonstrate historical importance, one needs to demonstrated continued widespread coverage. The existence of entire commercial magazines (as opposed to newsletters) demonstrates this. Continued coverage in major generalist magazines, like the Atari columns in Creative Computing for instance, are also a good example. Can someone demonstrate that?
2) Advertisements absolutely do not count. Again, one can trivially find advertisements for hundreds of different machines that left absolutely no mark on the history of personal computers.
3) With the exception of the 16-bit claim, which is wrong (demonstrated here, no less), there hasn't been a single attempt to demonstrate any reason to believe this machine is in any way interesting to the history of personal computers.
Is someone going to try to address the issues here? Or just keep attacking the messenger?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz: "My concern is that unless we have some sort of objective filter this article will stop being about the 'history of personal computers' and turn into 'a list of every personal computer in history.'" Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. If it becomes too listy, cut the descriptions down to single sentences and wedge 'em into a section entitled "list of historical personal computers" or something. I'm skeptical about the usefulness of "objective filters" in writing good articles about history. The filter should be the same filter we use throughout Wikipedia: if someone says a computer was important, and someone else challenges it, the person who says it was important has to come up with a rationale for why it's important, and some reasonable source citation that support the rationale. That's enough of a filter. WP:RS is a good enough metafilter on the references themselves. By all means, keep 'em honest by insisting on a citation, but then let go, even if you don't personally agree with other editors' judgements.
At root, Wikipedia depends on consensus, good faith, and mutual respect between editors. Rules are useful in helping consensus gel, but there's no algorithm for what's "important" and what isn't, and editors must sometimes agree to disagree... and should err on the side of inclusion. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A random item: one of Microsoft's first eleven employees, Gordon Letwin, was a Heath alumnus, and the (apparently sole) author of HDOS. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A random item: a 1993 USENET posting comments that "At the time, the Heath H11 was about the most powerful 'PC' you could buy." Random Googling turns up some evidence that it was popular among researchers, presumably researchers who couldn't afford real PDP-11's, for interfacing to lab equipment. One article, for example, published in Instrumentation Science & Technology, Volume 13, Issue 2 1984 , pages 117 - 134--that is, a substantial article in a real journal (not a hobbyist publication)--says
“ | A low cost interface for a DEC LSI-11/2 based minicomputer (Heath H11-A) is described which allows Noise Power Spectra (NPS) to be obtained. The interface consists of signal processing and data acquisition units operated in conjunction with modified commercial software (Decus library number 11-368) through a Heath Parallel Interface Module (PIM) on the LSI-11 bus. In addition interfacing techniques are described which allow a Commodore Pet Computer to acquire data from a photon counter and perform simple noise studies by measurement of the standard deviation of signals. | ” |
Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
""Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. "
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress on Agricultural Engineering, Dublin, 4-8 September, 1989. An article on measuring tractor field performance, reviewing previous work, mentions a 1980 system that "used a Heath H8-8080A microcomputer. An analog Real-Time Interval (RTI-1200-016) interface board was used [to acquire signals measuring] drawbar loading, axle loading, and axle torque." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
To see the evolution of the microcomputer in technical terms or sales figures is to miss most of the reasons why things happened as they did. What I'm about to say is in the nature of legitimate opinion that should be fairly noncontroversial to those who lived through the period. Obviously none of this can go in the article as it stands, but I'd submit that this can be a sort of rough outline of a part of the historical context, that could guide addition of properly referenced future content.
Personal computing is the confluence of several trends. One was the invention of personal computing itself, specifically the development of Whirlwind-style, short-word-length, integer-only computing, with direct console interaction... as opposed to Princeton-style computing. This largely took place before the development of the personal computer. PDP-1 hackers in the 1960s were already using computers for many mainstream PC purposes: word processing (Flexowriters were fully letter-quality printers, and TJ-1 justified the lines), impromptu numeric calculation (Expensive Desk Calculator), and games (Spacewar! and a flight simulator).
Another was a hobbyist community that knew about and wanted to engage in personal computing. People who knew why you would want a home computer. (Not for recipe planning!) If it hadn't been for the hobby community, microprocessors would have remained dedicated devices embedded in other systems. The idea of using a microprocessor as a general-purpose computer was not only alien to, it was actively resisted by the computing establishment. IBM and others knew quite consciously that microprocessors posed a threat to their established business and did their best to create artificial walls between microprocessors and computers.
An enormously important part of personal computer history was the legitimization process. This occurred rather quickly, over a period of perhaps five to ten years. Personal computers have now been legitimate for decades, but IBM would never have produced a PC if they hadn't been inexorably drawn into the riptide of legitimization.
The first hobbyist machines, including the Altair, were poorly engineered, if indeed they were engineered at all. Many did not work if peripherals were added to the bus. Many did not work even before they were added! The "kits" were not complete. The finished computers were science fair projects. Everyone knew some enthusiast who had a computer that worked fine except on whatever particular day you came to look at it.
Legitimization proceeded in stages. Heath was important precisely because of the enormous influence of the company and its catalogs. It did not legitimize the microcomputer to the public at large, but it legitimized it to the world of electronic hobbyists in general. It spread the idea beyond the wild-eyed Computer Faire types. Whether or not you actually bought one, if it was in the Heath catalog you knew that it was going to work, and had "adult supervision" and support behind it. The Heath was a breakthrough machine in the Altair, Cromemco, KIM-1 era.
The next stage was the fully-assembled, working unit. There were of course many but Apple was a standout here because of the general standard of fit and finish. (Of course, the first time I saw one, I was initially impressed by the brilliant thermal engineering that allowed it to operate reliably with no fan... only to discover quickly that what we had here was a total lack of thermal engineering, almost as it had never occurred to Apple that there was such a thing). This was the Apple, Commodore Pet, TRS-80 era. You could buy one and it would work, but what exactly could you do with one besides program it yourself, or type in programs from David Ahl's book and play "Hunt the Wumpus?" Of course the ads implied these were business machines, but they weren't.
The next stage was the emergence of Visicalc and the smuggling of these machines into businesses, a process that many will remember clearly. Purchase orders for Apples that not only avoided calling them computers but might have misleadingly called them "desktop calculators." Price negotiations and trying to convince dealers to cut a price to $4995 instead of $5025 because then it wouldn't need to go through the capital equipment committee.
The next stage was the mini and mainframe companies being dragged kicking and screaming into the picture. As I recall, several big companies... Xerox was one of them... introduced pedestrian computers all at about the same time, very uninteresting machines whose only significance was the big names on them. That is, the big companies, including IBM, realized that the pain of introducing microcomputers, while large, was going to be worse than the pain of missing the boat altogether. Then came 1981, and that strange machine with the deliberately underpowered processor, and schizophrenia about whether it should have a professional 80-column monochrome character generator or an Apple-like toy color graphics card... and the rest is familiar history. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
CP/M systems were a significant phase of personal computer development, but they are entirely missing from the article. Here are some examples. If there are no objections, I will try to help fill in this obvious gap... -- Blainster ( talk) 03:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on the grammar problem now. -- Sci-Fi Dude ( talk) 19:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
He was an editor of Computer Shopper for 4 years during the '80's and the site http://www.pc-history.org/index.html is based off his knowledge about the period. He claims all the TRS-80 models outsold the other machines until IBM and C-64. No numbers though. He did explain the FCC interference issues with Apple and TRS-80 plastic cases. I hope that this puts the issue over TRS-80 interference to bed? Alatari ( talk) 12:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The design of the Programma 101 began in 1962, making it one of the earliest designs for an integrated desktop stored program calculator, a primitive but very succesful sort of PC Magnagr ( talk) 22:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The very first sentence in the article says "The history of the personal computer as mass-market consumer electronic devices effectively began in 1972 with the introduction of the HP 9820 PC[1]microcomputers, although some mainframe and minicomputers had been applied as single-user systems much earlier."
The very first sentence in the Overview section says "The history of the personal computer as mass-market consumer electronic devices effectively began in 1977 with the introduction of microcomputers, although some mainframe and minicomputers had been applied as single-user systems much earlier." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.24.11 ( talk) 12:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the reference to the HP's calculator (see eg: http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp9820.htm) as "the first PC" together with its unverifiable reference. Sorry, but there is now no inline tag available for unverifiability (the trade catalogue out of print for 40 years).
As far as I know the term Personal Computer was coined by IBM to market their IBM Personal Computer (or IBM PC for short) 1981. If you couldn't afford the real deal of an IBM PC then many manufacturers e.g Sanyo offered what were marketed as "PC clones". It was this computer that marked the watershed between calculators and "PCs" (as this group of devices, that were "personal" and were "computers" though of a "hobbyist" kind then became known) and the IBM PC and clones that swept these all almost entirely away within a few brief years. During the "war that wasn't" (it was won if not before then as soon as IBM fired their first shot) there were "many" technically inclined folk who championed the BBC MIcro, or the Sinclair QL (I confess to having been one who rushed out and bought one - d'Oh!) but whatever the technical arguments the war was over. Resistance was futile. Even the Mac struggled to get a decent share of the market (1984)! Currently Windows OS (the symbion that devoured IBM's PC) has about 90% of the market and Apple less than 10% http://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0. Of course in the mobile space things are very different.
The Wiki articles on the "PC" seem revisionist, i.e they attempt to write history in a form that accords with the writer's ideological viewpoint rather than to stand as a record of facts and context. Is this tide in wiki editing now irreversible?
Anyway, the evolution of computing UP TO the point of the IBM PC is one thing, interesting and relevant, BUT the deal that IBM made with Billy the Kid is what counts and the rest, as they say, is history - i.s THE HISTORY of the PC.
LookingGlass ( talk) 07:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of personal computers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_1.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of personal computers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I find some problems with the article:
The firt persona computer was invented by Olivetty La Programa 101, please make the corrections... 201.162.236.204 ( talk) 18:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This segment is flawed in fact and format and reads like a footnote. There was no 'microcomputer revolution' .... perhaps the author is referring to the microprocessor?
I was there, from 1977 to 1993. It's an incredible story and it certainly was a revolution but there is a long ladder of events; mayhem, brilliance, bluster, good guys, bad guys, eureka moments, beta tests that crashed airlines, the Apple/DOS schism and the proselytizing vertical market campaigns...
it's a dense and fascinating story. I wonder if anyone would like to tell it with me, before it disappears.
Humanity is shaped by invention; Invention is nonlinear and organic; intellectual, emotional, competitive or collaborative, driven by unusual peopl
The workday is often prosaic⁶ and repetitive. Take the GPS we rely on - it exists because hundreds of people across the planet spent their entire day scanning every intersection of a roadmap into a FORTRAN program which turned the visual data into X's and Y's... A process measured in months and years. And that's just the database. We digitized the unfoldable maps, we digitized the air (radio frequencies) and we harnessed outer space (satellite) to transmit the information.
Not even the smartest guy in the room would have foretold a future where 'regular humans' would benefit - we built GPS for cops, first responders and Fortune 50 courier companies - who paid US $40 million(ish) for the initial license.
At Microsoft (early 80s) we promulgated a theoretical home computer market; (apocryphal marketing) but our development was strictly office-corporate. Bill Gates wanted Word Perfect to disappear so we could install Word in every office on the planet but we literally couldn't give it away. Nobody wanted to give up Word Perfect. It's almost scary. Bill Gates 'disappeared' the world's most widely installed word processing app. It's gone
When this was going on, a PC cost as much as a new car, cars were the sole habitat for mobile phones; this was our elitist reality until the world was democratized through the holy union of DSL, affordable modems, and Usenet.
It wasn't called the Internet back then and, like GPS, wasn't developed for real people.
Too few 'real people' had PC's at home. But that was about to change forever
..... perhaps that's the miracle within the miracle; software developers of that era were myopic giants. Their profit motives kept them focused on vertical markets, narrowing the field to the point of exclusivity, like color television in the 1960s. When IBM lost the architecture battle, the compatibility wall was breached and PC 'clones' entered the market, and the Revolution began in earnest.
The history of the personal computer is a war story, love story, legal thriller, economics treatise, and elegantly documented social anthropology. If you were there, you're an historian.
m Findlaigh ( talk) 11:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be allot of research/claims in this article but little in the way reliable sources to back it up, making much of it a work of WP:OR. Part of the "Etymology" section seems to be observation derived from primary sources, "The beginnings of the personal computer industry" has no overall history sources or rational for inclusion, and further sections are sparse on references or totally unreferenced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
In History of personal computers I replaced the IBM 610 with LGP-30. The Edit History stated my reason: "Deleted IBM 610 as redundant. The LGP-30 is similar, was shipped first, cost less, and was made in greater quantity." I could have gone-on with more reasons: The LGP-30 was manufactured for more years, was fully programmable and did not use paper tape when running a program. LGP-30 also a drum memory about 12x the capacity. The IBM 610 was obsolete when it was introduced...a year after the LGP-30. Fountains of Bryn Mawr reverted my good faith edits. I attempted to avoid an editing war by contacting him on his talk page. He indicated that he would not consider error of his revert by reverting my second comment on his talk page! He likes reverts! (My comment can still be seen in history.)
Objectively the LGP-30 was "was shipped first, cost less, and was made in greater quantity." Specifically 1956 v. 1957, $47,000 v. $55,000, 320~493 v. 180 units according to their respective Wikipedia article cites. Both machines represent the beginning of an era where a computer was built for a single user to sit at a typewriter and operate the computer. Both machines are referenced by reliable sources in their respective articles, though the IBM 610 only has 3 cites v. the LGP-30 which has 20. Can anybody think of a reason to not delete the IBM 610 in this article? RastaKins ( talk) 00:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
"you have set an impossible hurdle" -- yes, I have, Its called WP:V. Your observations of what came before what and in what form are just that -observations, i.e. original research. I am not advocating for the IBM 610 - sources are pointing to the deletion of both - this article has to be based on sources that overall cover the history of the personal computer like that, that, that, or that. BTW a Caltech article on a Caltech computer is not a third party source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 02:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
err, we do not describe what makes the two computers not similar or which exhibits a new technology step, thats the job of secondary sources. If its not in secondary sources we don't cover it here. Again, this is probably a case of deleting allot of whats there and rewriting the rest. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 01:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The stock and trade at Wikipedia is reliable sources, not your WP:OR. Sources have their reasons and, hopefully, that can be figured out. If sources disagree we cite both, maybe as opinion. We definitely do not discount one and support another (is there another?) (see WP:YESPOV again). Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Multiple references around the web state that the original 8008 Q1 Corp computer did not have a plasma display but was housed in a Daisywheel style typewriter. This is reminiscent of the PDP-1 user interface. I have not been able to find an actual photo of the 8008 Q1 so it seems somewhat of a unicorn. Djmips ( talk) 10:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)