![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This personal computer, engineered between 1962 - 1964, was first presented on 04 october 1965 at New York by Olivetti. The name of the computer was "Programma 101". Hewlett Packard then bought 100 "Programma 101" and, after a while, they launche a PC which was identical to "Programma 101". Hewlett Packard was then accused of violating the "copyright" and had to pay Olivetti 900.000 US dollar for violation copyright.
Here you have some fresh news about that (there is also an HISTORY CHANNELL documentary on that): http://badinicreateam.blogspot.com/2011/05/olivetti-pc-pioneers-badini.html Regards
Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.112.200 ( talk) 11:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The Programma 101 was a programmable calculator, not a computer in the common sense, regardless of what the marketing materials state. Another feature of "personal" computers is affordability - adjusted for inflation the Programma 101 would cost $22,000 - a huge chunk of money for a souped up calculator. The PET 2001 and Apple II cost around $3000 in today's dollars. Jbmcb ( talk) 15:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
How do computer seller compare with US prices and other brands with similar specs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khitani ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
the Introduction as it exists now is terrible. The writing is convoluted and haughty, there is not always a clear connection between ideas, and "commonly" and its synonyms occur too frequently. While in most passages these writing problems are the only issues and they just need to be shortened and clarified, the opening sentence is trickier.
” personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator. “
I think it might be enough to say that a PC is a general-purpose computer, and add maybe that it is intended for individual use. The stuff about "[...] mak[ing] it useful for individuals" is silly. Further information about it being ubiquitous today, used in home and work environments, acting as a hub for other devices, etc, could be provided in the next few phrases. I'm not sure how to tackle the last secriton about end-users with no intervening operator, though. Is it really that necessary to put it here? Is that a standard technical desription of a PC? theBOBbobato ( talk) 14:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to include this thought, but on further reflection, considered it perhaps to be inappropriate. When there were only a few true computers in the world, they were extremely costly, and no lack of tasks for them to perform. Computer operators, in particular, had to "help" the computer do what it did best -- stay as busy as possible with high-speed data processing. As the decades wore on, computers needed progressively less help to do what they were best suited for, but, even today, there are traces (at least!) of this legacy; certain details of their use are still remnants of the earliest era. In some ways, we still need to help computers when, ideally, we shouldn't have to. There's still lots of room for future developments (gaze-location detectors come to mind) that will continue to lessen the need for humans to help computers. I wouldn't mind some encouragement to include this into the main text.
(Off-topic: How come instruction sets are philosophically akin to organ stoplists?)
Regards,Nikevich 14:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
"Recently, tablet PCs have been given operating systems normally used on phones, like Android or iOS. This gives them many of the same uses as a phone, but with more power and functionality."
What does "power and functionality" mean here? How does a tablet do anything more than a smartphone running the same OS? If we're talking about computational power, tablets and phones are very much in the same ballpark, with many phones having more powerful CPUs than many tablets. Since they run the same OS and the same applications and use the same types of peripherals, how does a tablet provide any additional functionality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.121.133 ( talk) 17:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Please show RS that state Apple products are PCs, because if you search through google you can't find a single one. If multiple RS can not be shown to state that they are, it does not matter if Apple products fit the definition of a PC, to classify them as one is OR. Multiple RS can be found that state they are not. 97.88.87.68 ( talk) 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"personal computer" Macintosh
Jun 23, 2003 – Powered by the revolutionary PowerPC G5 processor designed by IBM and Apple, the Power Mac G5 is the first personal computer to utilize ...
Hi everyone. Reading the opening paragraph on the PC article, i find it quite outdated. Todays computers are more or less used by businesses and home owners. Infact some businesses use lower grade computers than home owners. Prices for these machines have dropped so much in the last decade that we are all using high end pc's, with multi processors, high spec graphic cards and ram. Can this article be modified with the times of today? Also parts of it just don't make any sense, certainly in today's high tech world. -- Jonhope123 ( talk) 19:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Bold textComputers Guys,Guys,Guys. PC are office computers. Yes,Tablets are computers,they have microprocessors, like computers. 24.129.70.212 ( talk) 01:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Daniel M ♥
"AMD provides the major alternative to Intel's central processing units." This seems highly irrelevant to the subject and especially in the paragraph where it is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.26.50 ( talk) 23:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody else feel that it should be made clear that despite Apple's desperate attempts to distance themselves from the "PC" name, that OS X is indeed a PC, and that "Mac vs PC" is not a valid statement? DanielDPeterson ( talk) 07:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The first statment in this article's history section is historically inaccurate, misleading, and has no place in the article --
--- "The Z3 by German inventor Konrad Zuse from 1941 was the first working programmable, fully automatic computing machine. Thus, Zuse is often regarded as the inventor of the computer."
point 1 -- Vannevar Bush's work (and that of others) cleary pre-dates the Z3.
point 2 -- Very few knowledegable people consider Zuse the "inventor of the computer"
point 3 -- the Z3 was a calculator made from discarded electronic relays. It was not what we would consider "a computer".
point 4 -- most of the references to the Z3 are from the 1980's and later. There appears to be little or no original documentation and no existing physical components from the Z3. Everything we know about it appears to be retrospectively reconstructed. Is it embellished? We can't be sure.
It is safe to say Zuse was among the pioneers of early computing, and apprently developed many innovative ideas in comptuer architecture, but students who read this article are mislead into believing he is the monolithic "father of computing."
There is a clear pro-Zuse bias here. The article should be correced.
68.80.26.175 ( talk) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Chuck Herbert cherbert@ccp.edu
I'm not sure that an anonymous corporate blog which describes itself as a place where its writers "ramble and muse about technology in general" is a reliable source. Can we get a stronger source for the Programma 101 being "the first commercial desktop personal computer"? The Programma 101 article uses a paywalled and an offline source for the same claim, but I don't want to reuse these without being able to verify them. -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The text in recycling is very rambling and reads like a poorly written history of US EPR initiatives. I fixed some 8/23/14, but the better solution is to rework the Toxicity/Recycling section as a compact reference to the main article 'Computer Recycling' which addresses the issues well. There is no US national EPR Act (as of this date). The reference to 'developing countries' is oblique. The notion that the e-steward program provides a proper mechanism is value statement. (Replaced with orderly). The use of .reasons' in the 'opposing organisations' text was illogical (fixed - but had to make assumptions about original intent). LarryLACa ( talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The statement "Before the Programma 101, computers were as large as trucks and used only by trained specialists" is wrong on both counts. For example, take a look at the Wikipedia page for the "LGP-30". It was first produced in 1956 and was about the size of a desk. I learned to program one in 11th grade (back in the 1960's). I had some help from a high school Math teacher, but that hardly qualified me to be called a "trained specialist".
I recommend you remove this statement since it's completely untrue.
Catgod119 ( talk) 08:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, here are my reasons for why I think that section is inappropriate
ViperSnake151 Talk 17:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Personal computer. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The descriptions in the "History" describing the first desktop computer/personal computer seems to bear no relationship to reality as far as sources go. It claims the first is the Programma 101 and then cites an anonymous blog. Trying to find support for the claim in other articles brought up WP:OR citations of someone making the claim based on 1965 descriptions of it as a "desktop computer" [1]) and the same anonymous blog post [2] used as a source again. Looking up this "question" brings up other sources (one of which is used in Wikipedia) that tell an entirely different story with a long sliding scale, many noting the Altair 8800 as the true first and none give the distinction to the Programma 101 [3] [4] [5] [6]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The claim that it was the first desktop computer seems supported by the two contemporary (1965) sources in the Programma 101 article:
References
If it was called a "desk-top" computer in 1965 how is it not the first desktop computer? —DIY Editor ( talk) 04:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Programma 101 does look and seem like a programmable calculator although programmable calculators are a subset of computers. Even if they are computers, that may leave them distinct from personal computers, without clear evidence they are included in the definition. These articles are about whatever is called a "personal computer" so how can they have something not really called that? There's no room in the article(s) for tangential material and no justification for putting it. There are other notable programmable calculators and other things that are "personal" and technically "computers" that don't belong in the personal computer articles. —DIY Editor ( talk) 10:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the distinction between "personal computer" and "embedded media appliance". You can no more write your own software for an iPad than you can hack the controller on your microwave oven ( it would probably be easier to get documentation for the average microwave oven controller); an iPad (and it's ilk) is pretty much an appliance for running stuff sanctioned by the manufacturer and is in no sense a general purpose personally programmable device. You can buy a lot of different wax cylinders for your Victrola, but you're not really making music. I think we need to observe this key difference in the article. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the distinction too. However as it stood it is a bit of pontificating that really doesn't belong in the lede, not unless there is something in the article about it. The (formerly) preceding sentence comparing PCs with mainframe batch and timesharing environments doesn't really belong in the lede either, for the same reason. I could definitely see putting a contrast with batch and timesharing in the "History" section. Not sure where the comparison with approved-software-only devices would go, unless a new section entitled "Evolution" or something like that was added. Jeh ( talk) 05:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Rebuttal: A personal computer is general-purpose machine that is intended for use by a majority of consumers. General-purpose does not necessarily cover niche uses that a grand majority of personal computer users do not even recognize, such as "run[ning] my vintage Turbo Pascal Version 5 programming environment in a DOS shell." When evaluating the general-purpose tasks that a grand majority of traditional personal computers use, it basically comes down to: checking/writing email, web browsing, watching/listening video/music, playing games, word processing, and other similar basic tasks. Unfortunately for niche enthusiasts, these general-purpose tasks are not only available on the iPad, but also the the reasons for its astronomical growth since it first launched. A majority of traditional personal computer owners do not use their personal computers for the niche tasks outlined here. According to sales numbers if the iPad was considered a traditional computer, it would have already been the most widely sold personal computer in Q4 2012. Niche enthusiasts unfortunately feign ignorance in realizing that an increasing number of consumers are choosing a tablet over a traditional personal computer. Personal computers will continue to prevail in the coming decade with consumers, unfortunately not in the way some niche enthusiasts here would like to predict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.226.102 ( talk) 23:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not a PC Starguy849 ( talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The definition of "personal computer" is certainly elusive. The name implies a computer designed for personal use. Any limitations of that use should be verifiable with a reliable source. Sam Tomato ( talk) 20:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi.
Normally, I am not irritated when I write a talk page thread but this time I am a bit. Ever since I added the § "Personal computer" vs. "PC" section to the article, this section has met with heavy-handed treatment from a couple of editors. And I don't know why. I am fully aware that in a dispute, one sticks to WP:BRD and the same person does not revert twice. However, I am also fully aware that in case of vandalism (especially content removal), one reverts the vandal and he is not welcome. The treatment of this section this time is not like a dispute this time; only the involved editor are people whom I am wiser to commit the folly of calling them vandals. They are not; yet, their treatment is unduly heavy-handed without any apparent reason:
I am here to request a reasonable discussion: It is provable with sources that the world out there uses "PC" in a sense that is far stricter than "a general-purpose computer, whose size, capabilities and original sale price makes it useful for individuals". According to what policy must Wikipedia suppress this fact and even not write a single sentence about it?
I asking users who were directly involved in this to join:
Wtshymanski,
ViperSnake151 and
Lonaowna. I am also asking people knowledgeable in this field to also join in:
Dsimic,
Jeh,
FleetCommand,
Andy Dingley and
Guy Harris. It would be pleasure to have your input here.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
17:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I've reviewed about a hundred revisions of this article and read it carefully (what's also visible by numerous cleanups I've performed while reading). With all that in mind, and based on what's presented in the Personal computer § "Personal computer" vs. "PC" section, I'd say that the content itself is perfectly fine but it should be dissolved into another section; Personal computer § History might be a good destination.
The same should apply to the Personal computer § PC gaming section, which might be dissolved into Personal computer § Applications. Dissolving these two short sections would also benefit the overall layout of the article, which is IMHO pretty nicely written and laid out. Thoughts? — Dsimic ( talk | contribs) 13:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
[Expunged] - Starguy849 ( talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Zachary.Underwood ( talk) 22:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
In my personal opinion I don't see too much of a difference between computer and personal computer it might be worth merging these two articles into one article. They are after all the same thing essentially, although computer is slightly more ambiguous. Zachary.Underwood ( talk) 21:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that more recent data on declining global PC sales aren't being added to the article. 2017 IDC data (-4.3%) [1] and 2017 Gartner data (-3.3%) [2] are available. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Compared to smartphone and other mobile device sales, it appears that computing power is going mobile. [3]
References
Mobile can't replace applications with high hardware requirements yet such as cutting edge games with high specifications required. Not to mention plenty of genres of PC games cant be played comfortably or even effectively on mobile.
Xanikk999 (
talk)
05:11, 23 December 2017 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This personal computer, engineered between 1962 - 1964, was first presented on 04 october 1965 at New York by Olivetti. The name of the computer was "Programma 101". Hewlett Packard then bought 100 "Programma 101" and, after a while, they launche a PC which was identical to "Programma 101". Hewlett Packard was then accused of violating the "copyright" and had to pay Olivetti 900.000 US dollar for violation copyright.
Here you have some fresh news about that (there is also an HISTORY CHANNELL documentary on that): http://badinicreateam.blogspot.com/2011/05/olivetti-pc-pioneers-badini.html Regards
Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.112.200 ( talk) 11:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The Programma 101 was a programmable calculator, not a computer in the common sense, regardless of what the marketing materials state. Another feature of "personal" computers is affordability - adjusted for inflation the Programma 101 would cost $22,000 - a huge chunk of money for a souped up calculator. The PET 2001 and Apple II cost around $3000 in today's dollars. Jbmcb ( talk) 15:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
How do computer seller compare with US prices and other brands with similar specs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khitani ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
the Introduction as it exists now is terrible. The writing is convoluted and haughty, there is not always a clear connection between ideas, and "commonly" and its synonyms occur too frequently. While in most passages these writing problems are the only issues and they just need to be shortened and clarified, the opening sentence is trickier.
” personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator. “
I think it might be enough to say that a PC is a general-purpose computer, and add maybe that it is intended for individual use. The stuff about "[...] mak[ing] it useful for individuals" is silly. Further information about it being ubiquitous today, used in home and work environments, acting as a hub for other devices, etc, could be provided in the next few phrases. I'm not sure how to tackle the last secriton about end-users with no intervening operator, though. Is it really that necessary to put it here? Is that a standard technical desription of a PC? theBOBbobato ( talk) 14:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to include this thought, but on further reflection, considered it perhaps to be inappropriate. When there were only a few true computers in the world, they were extremely costly, and no lack of tasks for them to perform. Computer operators, in particular, had to "help" the computer do what it did best -- stay as busy as possible with high-speed data processing. As the decades wore on, computers needed progressively less help to do what they were best suited for, but, even today, there are traces (at least!) of this legacy; certain details of their use are still remnants of the earliest era. In some ways, we still need to help computers when, ideally, we shouldn't have to. There's still lots of room for future developments (gaze-location detectors come to mind) that will continue to lessen the need for humans to help computers. I wouldn't mind some encouragement to include this into the main text.
(Off-topic: How come instruction sets are philosophically akin to organ stoplists?)
Regards,Nikevich 14:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
"Recently, tablet PCs have been given operating systems normally used on phones, like Android or iOS. This gives them many of the same uses as a phone, but with more power and functionality."
What does "power and functionality" mean here? How does a tablet do anything more than a smartphone running the same OS? If we're talking about computational power, tablets and phones are very much in the same ballpark, with many phones having more powerful CPUs than many tablets. Since they run the same OS and the same applications and use the same types of peripherals, how does a tablet provide any additional functionality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.121.133 ( talk) 17:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Please show RS that state Apple products are PCs, because if you search through google you can't find a single one. If multiple RS can not be shown to state that they are, it does not matter if Apple products fit the definition of a PC, to classify them as one is OR. Multiple RS can be found that state they are not. 97.88.87.68 ( talk) 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"personal computer" Macintosh
Jun 23, 2003 – Powered by the revolutionary PowerPC G5 processor designed by IBM and Apple, the Power Mac G5 is the first personal computer to utilize ...
Hi everyone. Reading the opening paragraph on the PC article, i find it quite outdated. Todays computers are more or less used by businesses and home owners. Infact some businesses use lower grade computers than home owners. Prices for these machines have dropped so much in the last decade that we are all using high end pc's, with multi processors, high spec graphic cards and ram. Can this article be modified with the times of today? Also parts of it just don't make any sense, certainly in today's high tech world. -- Jonhope123 ( talk) 19:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Bold textComputers Guys,Guys,Guys. PC are office computers. Yes,Tablets are computers,they have microprocessors, like computers. 24.129.70.212 ( talk) 01:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Daniel M ♥
"AMD provides the major alternative to Intel's central processing units." This seems highly irrelevant to the subject and especially in the paragraph where it is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.26.50 ( talk) 23:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody else feel that it should be made clear that despite Apple's desperate attempts to distance themselves from the "PC" name, that OS X is indeed a PC, and that "Mac vs PC" is not a valid statement? DanielDPeterson ( talk) 07:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The first statment in this article's history section is historically inaccurate, misleading, and has no place in the article --
--- "The Z3 by German inventor Konrad Zuse from 1941 was the first working programmable, fully automatic computing machine. Thus, Zuse is often regarded as the inventor of the computer."
point 1 -- Vannevar Bush's work (and that of others) cleary pre-dates the Z3.
point 2 -- Very few knowledegable people consider Zuse the "inventor of the computer"
point 3 -- the Z3 was a calculator made from discarded electronic relays. It was not what we would consider "a computer".
point 4 -- most of the references to the Z3 are from the 1980's and later. There appears to be little or no original documentation and no existing physical components from the Z3. Everything we know about it appears to be retrospectively reconstructed. Is it embellished? We can't be sure.
It is safe to say Zuse was among the pioneers of early computing, and apprently developed many innovative ideas in comptuer architecture, but students who read this article are mislead into believing he is the monolithic "father of computing."
There is a clear pro-Zuse bias here. The article should be correced.
68.80.26.175 ( talk) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Chuck Herbert cherbert@ccp.edu
I'm not sure that an anonymous corporate blog which describes itself as a place where its writers "ramble and muse about technology in general" is a reliable source. Can we get a stronger source for the Programma 101 being "the first commercial desktop personal computer"? The Programma 101 article uses a paywalled and an offline source for the same claim, but I don't want to reuse these without being able to verify them. -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The text in recycling is very rambling and reads like a poorly written history of US EPR initiatives. I fixed some 8/23/14, but the better solution is to rework the Toxicity/Recycling section as a compact reference to the main article 'Computer Recycling' which addresses the issues well. There is no US national EPR Act (as of this date). The reference to 'developing countries' is oblique. The notion that the e-steward program provides a proper mechanism is value statement. (Replaced with orderly). The use of .reasons' in the 'opposing organisations' text was illogical (fixed - but had to make assumptions about original intent). LarryLACa ( talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The statement "Before the Programma 101, computers were as large as trucks and used only by trained specialists" is wrong on both counts. For example, take a look at the Wikipedia page for the "LGP-30". It was first produced in 1956 and was about the size of a desk. I learned to program one in 11th grade (back in the 1960's). I had some help from a high school Math teacher, but that hardly qualified me to be called a "trained specialist".
I recommend you remove this statement since it's completely untrue.
Catgod119 ( talk) 08:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, here are my reasons for why I think that section is inappropriate
ViperSnake151 Talk 17:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Personal computer. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The descriptions in the "History" describing the first desktop computer/personal computer seems to bear no relationship to reality as far as sources go. It claims the first is the Programma 101 and then cites an anonymous blog. Trying to find support for the claim in other articles brought up WP:OR citations of someone making the claim based on 1965 descriptions of it as a "desktop computer" [1]) and the same anonymous blog post [2] used as a source again. Looking up this "question" brings up other sources (one of which is used in Wikipedia) that tell an entirely different story with a long sliding scale, many noting the Altair 8800 as the true first and none give the distinction to the Programma 101 [3] [4] [5] [6]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The claim that it was the first desktop computer seems supported by the two contemporary (1965) sources in the Programma 101 article:
References
If it was called a "desk-top" computer in 1965 how is it not the first desktop computer? —DIY Editor ( talk) 04:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Programma 101 does look and seem like a programmable calculator although programmable calculators are a subset of computers. Even if they are computers, that may leave them distinct from personal computers, without clear evidence they are included in the definition. These articles are about whatever is called a "personal computer" so how can they have something not really called that? There's no room in the article(s) for tangential material and no justification for putting it. There are other notable programmable calculators and other things that are "personal" and technically "computers" that don't belong in the personal computer articles. —DIY Editor ( talk) 10:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the distinction between "personal computer" and "embedded media appliance". You can no more write your own software for an iPad than you can hack the controller on your microwave oven ( it would probably be easier to get documentation for the average microwave oven controller); an iPad (and it's ilk) is pretty much an appliance for running stuff sanctioned by the manufacturer and is in no sense a general purpose personally programmable device. You can buy a lot of different wax cylinders for your Victrola, but you're not really making music. I think we need to observe this key difference in the article. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the distinction too. However as it stood it is a bit of pontificating that really doesn't belong in the lede, not unless there is something in the article about it. The (formerly) preceding sentence comparing PCs with mainframe batch and timesharing environments doesn't really belong in the lede either, for the same reason. I could definitely see putting a contrast with batch and timesharing in the "History" section. Not sure where the comparison with approved-software-only devices would go, unless a new section entitled "Evolution" or something like that was added. Jeh ( talk) 05:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Rebuttal: A personal computer is general-purpose machine that is intended for use by a majority of consumers. General-purpose does not necessarily cover niche uses that a grand majority of personal computer users do not even recognize, such as "run[ning] my vintage Turbo Pascal Version 5 programming environment in a DOS shell." When evaluating the general-purpose tasks that a grand majority of traditional personal computers use, it basically comes down to: checking/writing email, web browsing, watching/listening video/music, playing games, word processing, and other similar basic tasks. Unfortunately for niche enthusiasts, these general-purpose tasks are not only available on the iPad, but also the the reasons for its astronomical growth since it first launched. A majority of traditional personal computer owners do not use their personal computers for the niche tasks outlined here. According to sales numbers if the iPad was considered a traditional computer, it would have already been the most widely sold personal computer in Q4 2012. Niche enthusiasts unfortunately feign ignorance in realizing that an increasing number of consumers are choosing a tablet over a traditional personal computer. Personal computers will continue to prevail in the coming decade with consumers, unfortunately not in the way some niche enthusiasts here would like to predict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.226.102 ( talk) 23:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not a PC Starguy849 ( talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The definition of "personal computer" is certainly elusive. The name implies a computer designed for personal use. Any limitations of that use should be verifiable with a reliable source. Sam Tomato ( talk) 20:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi.
Normally, I am not irritated when I write a talk page thread but this time I am a bit. Ever since I added the § "Personal computer" vs. "PC" section to the article, this section has met with heavy-handed treatment from a couple of editors. And I don't know why. I am fully aware that in a dispute, one sticks to WP:BRD and the same person does not revert twice. However, I am also fully aware that in case of vandalism (especially content removal), one reverts the vandal and he is not welcome. The treatment of this section this time is not like a dispute this time; only the involved editor are people whom I am wiser to commit the folly of calling them vandals. They are not; yet, their treatment is unduly heavy-handed without any apparent reason:
I am here to request a reasonable discussion: It is provable with sources that the world out there uses "PC" in a sense that is far stricter than "a general-purpose computer, whose size, capabilities and original sale price makes it useful for individuals". According to what policy must Wikipedia suppress this fact and even not write a single sentence about it?
I asking users who were directly involved in this to join:
Wtshymanski,
ViperSnake151 and
Lonaowna. I am also asking people knowledgeable in this field to also join in:
Dsimic,
Jeh,
FleetCommand,
Andy Dingley and
Guy Harris. It would be pleasure to have your input here.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
17:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I've reviewed about a hundred revisions of this article and read it carefully (what's also visible by numerous cleanups I've performed while reading). With all that in mind, and based on what's presented in the Personal computer § "Personal computer" vs. "PC" section, I'd say that the content itself is perfectly fine but it should be dissolved into another section; Personal computer § History might be a good destination.
The same should apply to the Personal computer § PC gaming section, which might be dissolved into Personal computer § Applications. Dissolving these two short sections would also benefit the overall layout of the article, which is IMHO pretty nicely written and laid out. Thoughts? — Dsimic ( talk | contribs) 13:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
[Expunged] - Starguy849 ( talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Zachary.Underwood ( talk) 22:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
In my personal opinion I don't see too much of a difference between computer and personal computer it might be worth merging these two articles into one article. They are after all the same thing essentially, although computer is slightly more ambiguous. Zachary.Underwood ( talk) 21:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that more recent data on declining global PC sales aren't being added to the article. 2017 IDC data (-4.3%) [1] and 2017 Gartner data (-3.3%) [2] are available. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Compared to smartphone and other mobile device sales, it appears that computing power is going mobile. [3]
References
Mobile can't replace applications with high hardware requirements yet such as cutting edge games with high specifications required. Not to mention plenty of genres of PC games cant be played comfortably or even effectively on mobile.
Xanikk999 (
talk)
05:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)