![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not great with this whole thing but I think this page should be either renamed peripheral device or at least have the periphery disambiguation link at the top. I came here looking for a desciription of peripheral in the context of something in the periphery of an area. I will try my best to add the disambiguation but may not be able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:9A00:0:107:203:144:40:153 ( talk) 00:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if this article should be merged with the article " Peripheral device". They seem to mean pretty much the same thing, but the Periphery disambiguation page states that a peripheral is not to be confused with a peripheral device without giving an explanation why. The redirect page for Computer peripheral links here.
Also, Peripheral device and peripheral have a different set of other language links. I linked the Dutch version ( nl:randapparaat) to this article, but I did that before I discovered the peripheral device article so I'm wondering if I should have linked to the peripheral device article instead.
Peripheral (this article) should be renamed to Computer peripheral. Also, I have proposed to rename Category: Computer device to Category: Computer peripherals (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_19#Category:Computer_device_to_Category:Computer_peripherals). Mirror Vax 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually I suggests not Cateogrized it or renaming it. The name you give for renaming is incorrect for IT terms. Also peripherials is one of the most commmonly confused term in PC terms, so I guess it should be Computer Device or put it like so: [[Category: Computer Device [Peripherials]]] 23:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I wrote a bit too much
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I propose on deleting the "Peripherial Device," because that articles is almost exactly same as Perpherial in terms of content. The only thing that can be added is possibly the specifications of internal peripherial & external peripherial specifications and portfolio such as ATAPI.
I really doubt, NAS, SAS & Fiber Channel would ever be confused with peripherial, they are only an interface or most technically an architectural system interface for a server. Generally speaking most enterprise buisness consdier them as "Architectural options for SANs."
I don't think you should put the part that you said about "What does it plug into it," because strictly speaking all internal components of motherboard that is irreplaceable by technology uses power from their own internace (CPU, RAM, Graphic Card would almost 98% be limited to their design, no matter how powerful technology is, the only thing you can change is their Gate arrays and nanoarchitectural design for better transfering speeds and the nanotechnology, but no matter what CPU is still limited to the various amount of PLD packaginig avaliable).
While Components that is possibly replaceable by technology, uses power from PSU, such as Hard Drive, because HDD can have multiple interface options, so it wouldn't be too much hassle to reconfigure BIOS all the time, just for power.
PCI Express Graphic Card connnector is an exception and you can't argue about that, because the inital design wasn't intended for easy installation, it was intended for enthusiast.
Transfering power for external I/O are considered more of personal options that is why they are design to plug onto the motherboard in most cases, while portable / mobile external I/O uses port for easier transportation.
I know a lot of you guys might argue that Graphic Card, isn't an essential components, but actually it is consider to be added as one of essential components, since the current CPU-can't be regarded as a true-CPU, because it can't handle a lot of process inefficiently, due to architecture design flaw (see bottom paragraph for summary). One of the reason, is that current CPU design can't handle management efficiently like jsp, cfml applicatons and other object-related operations very well. This research actually lead to a serious of discovery on Microsoft window OS, because much of the Windows OS enviroments is design for Intel. A simple example, is the design flaw in RAM memory protected mode, that causes Buffer Overflow. (If you want to know more, go edit my User Page for questions) see CPU dicussion on CPU Architecture for details and you'll understand why.
CPU in brief In short CPU, the central = management, however, the design today are efficient (because, when you are doing things like abstraction you get 80% ALU, 15%NPU & 5% FPU) usgage, unbalancing management and causes unncessary overheating up to 40~50 degree Celsius is definately not "management" as describe in CPU expectation. Another flaw is CPU rescheduling, since components are already almost at full you can't rescheudle anything, because the more you add the probability of crashing increases. Thus the only true-CPU is MAJC, because the entire components can process anything, thus rescheduling wouldn't be a problem, because each transitor is only using partial usage (also their process in being evenly balanced across each transistor, thus it won't cause overheating and achieveing management).
The reason why MAJC isn't recognized as true-CPU yet, because processors are usually very dependant on chipset technologies stability, but Sun Microsystems (designer of MAJC) hasn't come up that technology. You can see that processor is very dependant on technologies, because Intel Dual Core + Chipset (has a lot of technology, such as speedstep, flex memory access..etc.) While AMD Athlon Dual Core has almost nothing.
Note: the scale / dimension of the components, mostly affect the heat being produced, usually doesn' affect speed, because small volume = larger surface area, but CPU doesn't uses surface area, since they aren't life therefore they don't require to interact any other components, other than the components that they are intended for(in this case is the DDR2, HyperTransport and FSB). -- Ramu50 ( talk) 17:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw the attention that the definition disagrees with the webopedia definition. Monitors are peripherals. Computers are able to function without the need of a monitor even though u would not be able to view the output :-) ! Maltesedog 12:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Aren't CDs and such storage not peripherals, but rather the individual CD DRIVE? technically aren't the CDs and DVDs used IN/WITH the peripheral? -- FranzSS 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
what are you talking about. no idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.204.4 ( talk) 12:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
First I reverts a lot of the edits which are totally incorrect. First Hard Drives isn't a Peripheral, peripherals are referring to add on computer device. (I am still trying to figure out if SSD is a peripheral or not).
You guys should understand the history, before removing a lot of correctly written information.
The only Hardware-related Virtualization that isn't peripherals is probably VLANs. Put it in See Also only for now, because currently they are a lot of controversy in regards of whether Virtualization should be considered as a computing, a technology or it is just another generation that expands from mainframe system.
Take note of the following
-- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat still disagree on HDD, Flash, SSD are peripherals, since all computers need one or the either, we should clarify they are only peripherals when as a standalone add-on or external devices. We should probably consider using the term "Integrated Peripherals" since some source seem to use it.
Much of the peripherals new meaning I think generally lacks the IT attention and lack of contribution, but the terminology is being used in still used in the Hardware Virtualization fields. Look at the patents, it is not WP:OR, though the article controversy section does need some assistance.
The accessories section was just a rewrite, since it was already there on the article and we should included, since they are a lot of acessories article that pertains only to specific topics like Xbox 360, GameBoys, yet they are the same thing under the scope of Computer Peripherals. -- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 06:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(not meant to be a serious talk page content, just side-notes for referencing)
Networking Devices somewhat controversial, I think standalone networking devices are peripherals. However, if they are built collectively to build an infrastructure they probably belongs to others type of Computing. "SOHO Home Networking", "Multimedia Home Networking" or other networking infrastructures. -- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for feedback on my new post for the MoGo mouse. User: Ericrh123. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericrh123 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written indeed. It reads as though it has been written by a non-native speaker or a semi-literate native speaker. It feels like a rough draft transposed directly from a few vague pencil jottings scribbled on the side of a matchbox over after-dinner drinks. Come on folks, this may not be a properly published encyclopaedia, but surely writers here should be endeavouring to establish and maintain some degree of competence in their compositions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.165.129 ( talk) 13:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of user talk:Dsimic was copied or moved into talk:Peripheral with this edit on 2016-04-10. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
I came across the reference to storage devices as I was looking for additional sources. I wouldn't have thought of them either, but that's what the source said and it seems to make sense. Peter Flass ( talk) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This discussion should probably have gone to the talkpage for Peripheral - my fault, sorry. Peter Flass ( talk) 12:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I merged the two definitions and it was reverted. Of course we can edit the quoted definition as long as the quotes are removed. That is how an encyclopedia is written. I think the main problem is that the quoted definition isn't good, and the rest of the lead tries to fix it. How about we drop the quote and the reference. A mouse isn't really inputting information, it is manipulating it. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 17:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the definition has changed over time; this probably means it's current use isn't very precise. I also agree that our current def in the article isn't great, but synthesizing a "better" def without sources isn't a solution. I'm letting the current sourced definition stand until we have more sources. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 13:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
List of computer peripheral companies has been in CAT:NN for over 5 years. It isn't likely to be kept if taken to AfD, but a merge here is a suitable WP:ATD, plus there is room in this article for the list. Boleyn ( talk) 17:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Before I add these the article, I thought I would run them past the brains trust:
Thoughts?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 11:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not great with this whole thing but I think this page should be either renamed peripheral device or at least have the periphery disambiguation link at the top. I came here looking for a desciription of peripheral in the context of something in the periphery of an area. I will try my best to add the disambiguation but may not be able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:9A00:0:107:203:144:40:153 ( talk) 00:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if this article should be merged with the article " Peripheral device". They seem to mean pretty much the same thing, but the Periphery disambiguation page states that a peripheral is not to be confused with a peripheral device without giving an explanation why. The redirect page for Computer peripheral links here.
Also, Peripheral device and peripheral have a different set of other language links. I linked the Dutch version ( nl:randapparaat) to this article, but I did that before I discovered the peripheral device article so I'm wondering if I should have linked to the peripheral device article instead.
Peripheral (this article) should be renamed to Computer peripheral. Also, I have proposed to rename Category: Computer device to Category: Computer peripherals (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_19#Category:Computer_device_to_Category:Computer_peripherals). Mirror Vax 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually I suggests not Cateogrized it or renaming it. The name you give for renaming is incorrect for IT terms. Also peripherials is one of the most commmonly confused term in PC terms, so I guess it should be Computer Device or put it like so: [[Category: Computer Device [Peripherials]]] 23:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I wrote a bit too much
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I propose on deleting the "Peripherial Device," because that articles is almost exactly same as Perpherial in terms of content. The only thing that can be added is possibly the specifications of internal peripherial & external peripherial specifications and portfolio such as ATAPI.
I really doubt, NAS, SAS & Fiber Channel would ever be confused with peripherial, they are only an interface or most technically an architectural system interface for a server. Generally speaking most enterprise buisness consdier them as "Architectural options for SANs."
I don't think you should put the part that you said about "What does it plug into it," because strictly speaking all internal components of motherboard that is irreplaceable by technology uses power from their own internace (CPU, RAM, Graphic Card would almost 98% be limited to their design, no matter how powerful technology is, the only thing you can change is their Gate arrays and nanoarchitectural design for better transfering speeds and the nanotechnology, but no matter what CPU is still limited to the various amount of PLD packaginig avaliable).
While Components that is possibly replaceable by technology, uses power from PSU, such as Hard Drive, because HDD can have multiple interface options, so it wouldn't be too much hassle to reconfigure BIOS all the time, just for power.
PCI Express Graphic Card connnector is an exception and you can't argue about that, because the inital design wasn't intended for easy installation, it was intended for enthusiast.
Transfering power for external I/O are considered more of personal options that is why they are design to plug onto the motherboard in most cases, while portable / mobile external I/O uses port for easier transportation.
I know a lot of you guys might argue that Graphic Card, isn't an essential components, but actually it is consider to be added as one of essential components, since the current CPU-can't be regarded as a true-CPU, because it can't handle a lot of process inefficiently, due to architecture design flaw (see bottom paragraph for summary). One of the reason, is that current CPU design can't handle management efficiently like jsp, cfml applicatons and other object-related operations very well. This research actually lead to a serious of discovery on Microsoft window OS, because much of the Windows OS enviroments is design for Intel. A simple example, is the design flaw in RAM memory protected mode, that causes Buffer Overflow. (If you want to know more, go edit my User Page for questions) see CPU dicussion on CPU Architecture for details and you'll understand why.
CPU in brief In short CPU, the central = management, however, the design today are efficient (because, when you are doing things like abstraction you get 80% ALU, 15%NPU & 5% FPU) usgage, unbalancing management and causes unncessary overheating up to 40~50 degree Celsius is definately not "management" as describe in CPU expectation. Another flaw is CPU rescheduling, since components are already almost at full you can't rescheudle anything, because the more you add the probability of crashing increases. Thus the only true-CPU is MAJC, because the entire components can process anything, thus rescheduling wouldn't be a problem, because each transitor is only using partial usage (also their process in being evenly balanced across each transistor, thus it won't cause overheating and achieveing management).
The reason why MAJC isn't recognized as true-CPU yet, because processors are usually very dependant on chipset technologies stability, but Sun Microsystems (designer of MAJC) hasn't come up that technology. You can see that processor is very dependant on technologies, because Intel Dual Core + Chipset (has a lot of technology, such as speedstep, flex memory access..etc.) While AMD Athlon Dual Core has almost nothing.
Note: the scale / dimension of the components, mostly affect the heat being produced, usually doesn' affect speed, because small volume = larger surface area, but CPU doesn't uses surface area, since they aren't life therefore they don't require to interact any other components, other than the components that they are intended for(in this case is the DDR2, HyperTransport and FSB). -- Ramu50 ( talk) 17:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw the attention that the definition disagrees with the webopedia definition. Monitors are peripherals. Computers are able to function without the need of a monitor even though u would not be able to view the output :-) ! Maltesedog 12:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Aren't CDs and such storage not peripherals, but rather the individual CD DRIVE? technically aren't the CDs and DVDs used IN/WITH the peripheral? -- FranzSS 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
what are you talking about. no idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.204.4 ( talk) 12:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
First I reverts a lot of the edits which are totally incorrect. First Hard Drives isn't a Peripheral, peripherals are referring to add on computer device. (I am still trying to figure out if SSD is a peripheral or not).
You guys should understand the history, before removing a lot of correctly written information.
The only Hardware-related Virtualization that isn't peripherals is probably VLANs. Put it in See Also only for now, because currently they are a lot of controversy in regards of whether Virtualization should be considered as a computing, a technology or it is just another generation that expands from mainframe system.
Take note of the following
-- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat still disagree on HDD, Flash, SSD are peripherals, since all computers need one or the either, we should clarify they are only peripherals when as a standalone add-on or external devices. We should probably consider using the term "Integrated Peripherals" since some source seem to use it.
Much of the peripherals new meaning I think generally lacks the IT attention and lack of contribution, but the terminology is being used in still used in the Hardware Virtualization fields. Look at the patents, it is not WP:OR, though the article controversy section does need some assistance.
The accessories section was just a rewrite, since it was already there on the article and we should included, since they are a lot of acessories article that pertains only to specific topics like Xbox 360, GameBoys, yet they are the same thing under the scope of Computer Peripherals. -- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 06:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(not meant to be a serious talk page content, just side-notes for referencing)
Networking Devices somewhat controversial, I think standalone networking devices are peripherals. However, if they are built collectively to build an infrastructure they probably belongs to others type of Computing. "SOHO Home Networking", "Multimedia Home Networking" or other networking infrastructures. -- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for feedback on my new post for the MoGo mouse. User: Ericrh123. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericrh123 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written indeed. It reads as though it has been written by a non-native speaker or a semi-literate native speaker. It feels like a rough draft transposed directly from a few vague pencil jottings scribbled on the side of a matchbox over after-dinner drinks. Come on folks, this may not be a properly published encyclopaedia, but surely writers here should be endeavouring to establish and maintain some degree of competence in their compositions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.165.129 ( talk) 13:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of user talk:Dsimic was copied or moved into talk:Peripheral with this edit on 2016-04-10. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
I came across the reference to storage devices as I was looking for additional sources. I wouldn't have thought of them either, but that's what the source said and it seems to make sense. Peter Flass ( talk) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This discussion should probably have gone to the talkpage for Peripheral - my fault, sorry. Peter Flass ( talk) 12:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I merged the two definitions and it was reverted. Of course we can edit the quoted definition as long as the quotes are removed. That is how an encyclopedia is written. I think the main problem is that the quoted definition isn't good, and the rest of the lead tries to fix it. How about we drop the quote and the reference. A mouse isn't really inputting information, it is manipulating it. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 17:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the definition has changed over time; this probably means it's current use isn't very precise. I also agree that our current def in the article isn't great, but synthesizing a "better" def without sources isn't a solution. I'm letting the current sourced definition stand until we have more sources. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 13:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
List of computer peripheral companies has been in CAT:NN for over 5 years. It isn't likely to be kept if taken to AfD, but a merge here is a suitable WP:ATD, plus there is room in this article for the list. Boleyn ( talk) 17:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Before I add these the article, I thought I would run them past the brains trust:
Thoughts?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 11:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)