This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've started to work on cleaning up this article. So far I've only touched up the existing content, but it still needs some reorganizing, addition, and deletion. I've added various notes throughout the text where I noticed need for improvement. Hopefully we can steer this away from being a PC enthusiast's guide to something a bit more like an encyclopedia article. If you'd like to lend a hand, feel free, or drop a line here if you'd like to comment on the changes I'm making. -- uberpenguin 06:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Exploded view of a personal computer | ||
---|---|---|
1. Monitor | 5. Expansion cards | 9. Mouse |
2. Motherboard | 6. Power supply unit | 10. Keyboard |
3. CPU (Microprocessor) | 7. Optical disc drive | |
4. Main memory (RAM) | 8. Hard disk drive (HDD) |
It seems that there is a Giant hole where software should be in this article. What do you think? -- Mushroom King 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a rewrite on the Hard disk drive section. I don't see any mention of non-volatile, platters, or write heads anywhere. It gets much into detail about parts that surround the hard disk drive, but it never actually defines it. -- Mushroom King 05:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm starting to try to make sense of what we already have and what we need. Right now I'm merely revising the article for flow and clarity and reworking what is already there. I'm not making too many major content changes as of yet. One thing that is very notable is that the history section mostly talks about minicomputers and just barely skims the explosion of actual personal computers during the mid-80s and beyond. That definitely needs to be changed. I'm going to strip down the "Configuration" section (incidentally, it still needs a better name) to bare bones and expand from there. PC configuration should be relatively short and as general as possible. This article should really concentrate on the history and development of personal computers and their impact, not the details of what goes into your ATX tower. -- uberpenguin 18:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I've been using PC's since the PCjr, I know very little about the history of Personal Computers. But even I know enough to know that Steve Wozniak, the freakin' FATHER OF THE PC, should at least have his own section. Then I discover he isn't mentioned at all. I'm no fan of Apple products, but it's unbelievable that I had to add a reference to Woz. Someone with more in-depth knowledge than I needs to come up with a good, meaty paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.111.235.14 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 April 2006
@ 2006-04-05 23:34Z
@ 2006-07-11 22:22Z
The point of thumbnails is that readers can decide for theselves whether or not to look at the large image, and that page-loading is speeded up for those on dial-up connections. Enlarging an image to 400px defeats the object; it insists that people see the large version. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice there seems to have been a push to completely eliminate real photographs of modern PCs from this page, They are saying see talk page but all i can find is the one comment at the start of this section. I personally find this a little disturbing. Plugwash 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-06-05 03:24Z
I just wanted to know if anyone thinks that th Physics prosessing card should be aded to the hardware list. Maybe we should wait another year or something until they become standard, just seeing what other people thought. -- Mincetro 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-06-21 05:03Z
A key item that I feel is missing is the printer. Many of the systems shown/described are closer to networked business systems using an implied shared printer resource; even historically, the vast majority of "personal" computers either came with a printer or had it as a must-have accessory. Early types were the thermal and impact dot matrix, followed largely by the daisywheel and thimblewheel, and then of course the ubiquitous inkjet (laser printers were never really cheap enough to be offered as a standard option with a truly personal PC that wasn't a business machine).
In addition, today one sees systems for sale that include as "standard" both a NIC (network interface - difficult to call it a card these days when sometimes it is integrated into the motherboard) and a recordable disk device - usually CD/RW but increasingly DVD-RW and variants of both. Modems are increasingly left out of the package, since the rise of broadband in the form of flavors of DSL (mostly aDSL but I've used also sDSL) and the fall-off of ISDN.
"Personal Computer" many years ago (30+) simply meant one that was used exclusively by one individual rather than shared with others (as in a dumb terminal). It was more often found in a mainframe or minicomputer environment. The meaning of the term has evolved just as the machines have.
I'd be happy to chip in sections except that I'm swamped with writing a ton of other stuff and I'm just spread too thin :( AncientBrit 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ugly, ugly composition in the history section now - advent of what? "computer terminal based architectures" is not even correct, nor literate. Could a native English speaker with some time please copyedit this to make it less painful to read? ( I'm adding it to my to-do list). Needs a better sense of the difference between batch mode computing and "personal" interactive computing and the origins back at MIT and so forth; also some contrast to the very first electronic computers which were used in much more interactive a way than the batch mode machines. -- Wtshymanski 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-08-16 18:32Z
from http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link9808/0362.html
email from Owen Hill of Microbee history:
Jim did design EDUC 8 (1979 or so) and legend has it that Jim's computer was probably the first hobby-built PC in the world! It was published in Electronics Australia just prior to the MITS Altair article appeared in Popular Electronics the US. The editors of Popular Electronics did later admit, reluctantly, that EA had published the first home PC design.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Woodward ( talk • contribs) 06:57, 23 August 2006
Hello all. I was thinking that a good addition to the article would be a paragraph about recycling. It is my opinion that most people do not know that they have a recycling option for their computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.248.237 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 October 2006
I have some problems with the Ken Olsen quote as presented. For one thing, according to the Snopes page on this subject, the actual quote is "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
In addition, this quote is seriously taken out of context. According the the previously mentioned snopes page, the "home computers" that Mr. Olsen is talking about are not the same thing as what we currently think of as PC's. In the manner this quote is used it appears untrue.
Really, it ought to be removed, but for now I have just put in a verify tag. If no one can find a contradicting source, then this quote ought to go. Ricree101 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Minicomputers were available to smaller organizations than those that once used mainframes, but were not aimed at individuals, Ken Olsen, founder of DEC, has been widely quoted as saying in 1971 "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home" [2] This was understandable, considering what DEC was offering: only a fairly large organization could use or afford a machine the size of an average home refrigerator that required external terminals to operate and program. A few individuals, such as Steve Wozniak, had differing views, as will be seen below.
It seems to me that the image at the top of the page should probably be of a modern personal computer. Perhaps we could select a model that is particularly iconic or popular. I think the first image should reflect what people think of when they think of personal computers, and the Altair 8800 is probably not it. — The Storm Surfer 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Why a MAC (at least the non-native windows compatible) are not a PC?.
Because PC came from IBM Personal Computer, where "Personal Computer" is a SLOGAN, not a true meaning. It's a fact since almost any PC machine is not a computer but a microcomputer.
So, where a MAC's user say that a MAC is also a PC it's quite false, since a MAC can be called a personal microcomputer, not a personal computer.
What's the difference into a computer and a microcomputer?. In single words if you can lift it then it's a microcomputer!.
May be there are some fuss about "Personal Computer (PC)" (category) and "personal computer" (adjetive).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magallanes ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 May 2007
The term Personal Computer was in usage in 1975 by Byte Magazine. See how casually the term is used while referring to microcomputer field in general: http://www.digibarn.com/collections/mags/byte-sept-oct-1975/one/4.jpg Third Column top half starting "In the personal computing field..."
In the latest IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Shapiro reports what may be the earliest print appearance of "personal computer": It's in an ad for Hewlett-Packard's first desktop computer, published in the 4 October 1968 issue of Science. The ad, which also ran in other journals, beats the earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)--an article in Byte magazine--by nearly 8 years.
Alatari 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've proposed the Home computer article be merged into this one because both articles indicate the terms are interchangeable. In order to avoid creating two conversations, please comment on the merge at the home computer talk page. -- Android Mouse 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
User:A Link to the Past who rated this page said the list were too extensive. These could be moved into the Timeline of computing and refer users there. I'm unfamiliar with how to fix the Timeline template and make it more readable. Alatari 11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of the computers in this list are not even personal computers, such as the SGI Indigo or Onyx. The Indigo was a high end workstation while the Onyx was a visualisation system or graphics supercomputer. The same goes for the SPARCstations which are workstations with up to four microprocessors costing around 30 grand. I have no idea why they would be listed here, should really be edited out -- Rilak 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As for your comments regarding the Indy, I was talking about the Indigo, not the Indy which was SGI's low cost budget computer, which I do acknowledge to be a machine that was designed to compete in the digital publishing market as well as for business use such as video conferencing through the IndyCam.
While I agree with your mention that the Indigo and Onyx as well as other workstations can be purchased second for a cheap price today and be used as a personal computer today, when they were originally released, they certainly did not cost 'a few hundred dollars' nor were they used as a such purposes. A look at the OpenGL Performance section for 1996 at SPEC.org will give an interesting insight into the configurations and cost of workstations compared to PCs. Rilak 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've started to work on cleaning up this article. So far I've only touched up the existing content, but it still needs some reorganizing, addition, and deletion. I've added various notes throughout the text where I noticed need for improvement. Hopefully we can steer this away from being a PC enthusiast's guide to something a bit more like an encyclopedia article. If you'd like to lend a hand, feel free, or drop a line here if you'd like to comment on the changes I'm making. -- uberpenguin 06:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Exploded view of a personal computer | ||
---|---|---|
1. Monitor | 5. Expansion cards | 9. Mouse |
2. Motherboard | 6. Power supply unit | 10. Keyboard |
3. CPU (Microprocessor) | 7. Optical disc drive | |
4. Main memory (RAM) | 8. Hard disk drive (HDD) |
It seems that there is a Giant hole where software should be in this article. What do you think? -- Mushroom King 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a rewrite on the Hard disk drive section. I don't see any mention of non-volatile, platters, or write heads anywhere. It gets much into detail about parts that surround the hard disk drive, but it never actually defines it. -- Mushroom King 05:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm starting to try to make sense of what we already have and what we need. Right now I'm merely revising the article for flow and clarity and reworking what is already there. I'm not making too many major content changes as of yet. One thing that is very notable is that the history section mostly talks about minicomputers and just barely skims the explosion of actual personal computers during the mid-80s and beyond. That definitely needs to be changed. I'm going to strip down the "Configuration" section (incidentally, it still needs a better name) to bare bones and expand from there. PC configuration should be relatively short and as general as possible. This article should really concentrate on the history and development of personal computers and their impact, not the details of what goes into your ATX tower. -- uberpenguin 18:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I've been using PC's since the PCjr, I know very little about the history of Personal Computers. But even I know enough to know that Steve Wozniak, the freakin' FATHER OF THE PC, should at least have his own section. Then I discover he isn't mentioned at all. I'm no fan of Apple products, but it's unbelievable that I had to add a reference to Woz. Someone with more in-depth knowledge than I needs to come up with a good, meaty paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.111.235.14 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 April 2006
@ 2006-04-05 23:34Z
@ 2006-07-11 22:22Z
The point of thumbnails is that readers can decide for theselves whether or not to look at the large image, and that page-loading is speeded up for those on dial-up connections. Enlarging an image to 400px defeats the object; it insists that people see the large version. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice there seems to have been a push to completely eliminate real photographs of modern PCs from this page, They are saying see talk page but all i can find is the one comment at the start of this section. I personally find this a little disturbing. Plugwash 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-06-05 03:24Z
I just wanted to know if anyone thinks that th Physics prosessing card should be aded to the hardware list. Maybe we should wait another year or something until they become standard, just seeing what other people thought. -- Mincetro 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-06-21 05:03Z
A key item that I feel is missing is the printer. Many of the systems shown/described are closer to networked business systems using an implied shared printer resource; even historically, the vast majority of "personal" computers either came with a printer or had it as a must-have accessory. Early types were the thermal and impact dot matrix, followed largely by the daisywheel and thimblewheel, and then of course the ubiquitous inkjet (laser printers were never really cheap enough to be offered as a standard option with a truly personal PC that wasn't a business machine).
In addition, today one sees systems for sale that include as "standard" both a NIC (network interface - difficult to call it a card these days when sometimes it is integrated into the motherboard) and a recordable disk device - usually CD/RW but increasingly DVD-RW and variants of both. Modems are increasingly left out of the package, since the rise of broadband in the form of flavors of DSL (mostly aDSL but I've used also sDSL) and the fall-off of ISDN.
"Personal Computer" many years ago (30+) simply meant one that was used exclusively by one individual rather than shared with others (as in a dumb terminal). It was more often found in a mainframe or minicomputer environment. The meaning of the term has evolved just as the machines have.
I'd be happy to chip in sections except that I'm swamped with writing a ton of other stuff and I'm just spread too thin :( AncientBrit 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ugly, ugly composition in the history section now - advent of what? "computer terminal based architectures" is not even correct, nor literate. Could a native English speaker with some time please copyedit this to make it less painful to read? ( I'm adding it to my to-do list). Needs a better sense of the difference between batch mode computing and "personal" interactive computing and the origins back at MIT and so forth; also some contrast to the very first electronic computers which were used in much more interactive a way than the batch mode machines. -- Wtshymanski 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-08-16 18:32Z
from http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link9808/0362.html
email from Owen Hill of Microbee history:
Jim did design EDUC 8 (1979 or so) and legend has it that Jim's computer was probably the first hobby-built PC in the world! It was published in Electronics Australia just prior to the MITS Altair article appeared in Popular Electronics the US. The editors of Popular Electronics did later admit, reluctantly, that EA had published the first home PC design.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Woodward ( talk • contribs) 06:57, 23 August 2006
Hello all. I was thinking that a good addition to the article would be a paragraph about recycling. It is my opinion that most people do not know that they have a recycling option for their computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.248.237 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 October 2006
I have some problems with the Ken Olsen quote as presented. For one thing, according to the Snopes page on this subject, the actual quote is "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
In addition, this quote is seriously taken out of context. According the the previously mentioned snopes page, the "home computers" that Mr. Olsen is talking about are not the same thing as what we currently think of as PC's. In the manner this quote is used it appears untrue.
Really, it ought to be removed, but for now I have just put in a verify tag. If no one can find a contradicting source, then this quote ought to go. Ricree101 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Minicomputers were available to smaller organizations than those that once used mainframes, but were not aimed at individuals, Ken Olsen, founder of DEC, has been widely quoted as saying in 1971 "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home" [2] This was understandable, considering what DEC was offering: only a fairly large organization could use or afford a machine the size of an average home refrigerator that required external terminals to operate and program. A few individuals, such as Steve Wozniak, had differing views, as will be seen below.
It seems to me that the image at the top of the page should probably be of a modern personal computer. Perhaps we could select a model that is particularly iconic or popular. I think the first image should reflect what people think of when they think of personal computers, and the Altair 8800 is probably not it. — The Storm Surfer 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Why a MAC (at least the non-native windows compatible) are not a PC?.
Because PC came from IBM Personal Computer, where "Personal Computer" is a SLOGAN, not a true meaning. It's a fact since almost any PC machine is not a computer but a microcomputer.
So, where a MAC's user say that a MAC is also a PC it's quite false, since a MAC can be called a personal microcomputer, not a personal computer.
What's the difference into a computer and a microcomputer?. In single words if you can lift it then it's a microcomputer!.
May be there are some fuss about "Personal Computer (PC)" (category) and "personal computer" (adjetive).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magallanes ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 May 2007
The term Personal Computer was in usage in 1975 by Byte Magazine. See how casually the term is used while referring to microcomputer field in general: http://www.digibarn.com/collections/mags/byte-sept-oct-1975/one/4.jpg Third Column top half starting "In the personal computing field..."
In the latest IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Shapiro reports what may be the earliest print appearance of "personal computer": It's in an ad for Hewlett-Packard's first desktop computer, published in the 4 October 1968 issue of Science. The ad, which also ran in other journals, beats the earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)--an article in Byte magazine--by nearly 8 years.
Alatari 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've proposed the Home computer article be merged into this one because both articles indicate the terms are interchangeable. In order to avoid creating two conversations, please comment on the merge at the home computer talk page. -- Android Mouse 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
User:A Link to the Past who rated this page said the list were too extensive. These could be moved into the Timeline of computing and refer users there. I'm unfamiliar with how to fix the Timeline template and make it more readable. Alatari 11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of the computers in this list are not even personal computers, such as the SGI Indigo or Onyx. The Indigo was a high end workstation while the Onyx was a visualisation system or graphics supercomputer. The same goes for the SPARCstations which are workstations with up to four microprocessors costing around 30 grand. I have no idea why they would be listed here, should really be edited out -- Rilak 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As for your comments regarding the Indy, I was talking about the Indigo, not the Indy which was SGI's low cost budget computer, which I do acknowledge to be a machine that was designed to compete in the digital publishing market as well as for business use such as video conferencing through the IndyCam.
While I agree with your mention that the Indigo and Onyx as well as other workstations can be purchased second for a cheap price today and be used as a personal computer today, when they were originally released, they certainly did not cost 'a few hundred dollars' nor were they used as a such purposes. A look at the OpenGL Performance section for 1996 at SPEC.org will give an interesting insight into the configurations and cost of workstations compared to PCs. Rilak 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)