Talk:Personal computer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Personal computer article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Google Isn't Everything", Forbes, August 15, 2005.

	To-do list for Personal computer:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Reorganize article and remove most of the "x86 PC enthusiast" geared text that is inappropriate for an article about PCs in general. Seriously revamp the history section. It barely skims over big PC milestones like those at Xerox PARC, the Apple Macintosh, and the x86 IBM PC with PC/MS-DOS. Add a well-written section talking about the dominance of various platforms and operating systems over the years. From individual proprietary systems on through the IBM PC and the DOSes, Apple's hardware, OS/2, Windows, etc. The "Non-IBM PCs" section can be nixed and incorporated here. Improve the pictures used by the article. Pictures of peoples' PC desks are terrible; try to replace them with informative diagrams. Need pictures for the history section to show the hardware and software evolution of PCs. Whatever else needs to be done...

(Formerly, "Personal Computers" was redirected to "Home Computers", which discusses early machines like Apple ][s only. We ought to have a more comprehensuve article here linked to "Home Computers" for early history.)

Isn't the term personal computer formalized only after IBM's introduction of the PC? Before then, only home computer was the common name?

Nope. That's what the IBM PC was: the IBM Personal Pomputer, as opposed to all the other personal computers that were already on the market. THere were lots. Tannin 22:05 20 May 2003 (UTC)

---

The article gives a definition of Personal Computer as

"A personal computer is an inexpensive microcomputer, originally designed to be used by only one person at a time, and which is IBM PC compatible - (though in common usage it may sometimes refer to non-compatible machines)."

I would say that only the initials "PC" are ever taken to indicate an IBM/Intel/Windows-standard personal computer. (ex. usage "Do you own a Mac or a PC?" but never "Do you own a Mac or a Personal Computer?") and the rest of the article text would seem to corroborate this, with discussion of many pre-IBM-PC microcomputers. Exia

---

The bottom half of this article is absolutely bad. What's with all the "of"s? Someone needs to fix it. - RadRafe

Quite so. Also, it's not about personal computers in any casse, it seems to be some rough notes about the development of mini computers - which are an entirely different thing. Tannin Text follows:

Contents 1 Press mention 2 History 2.1 first kit PC? 3 Images 4 Components 5 More history 6 Image choice 7 History moved 8 There's one they forgot... 9 Big cleanup / rewrite 10 Exploded view 11 The Woz 12 Image size 13 Hardware - Add PPU? 14 Hardware - Add Printer? 15 Rewrite needed 16 Add recycling section 17 Ken Olsen quote

[edit] Press mention

Forbes has an article claiming an innaccuracy in this article [1] concerning the first mention of the term "personal computer". The author found a reference in a New York Times article from 1962 (the author does not claim that this is the first mention) whereas the Wikipedia entry cited a New Scientist article in 1964. Can someone with access to the New York Times archive please check this out, and have a quick look for any previous mentions of the term.

[edit] History

The first computers that can be called 'personal' were the first non-mainframe computers, the LINC and the PDP-8. By today's standards they were big (about the size of a refrigerator), expensive (around $50,000 US), and had small magnetic core memories (about 4096 12-bit words for the LINC).

However, they were small enough and cheap enough for individual laboratories and research projects to use, freeing them from the batch processing and bureaucracy of the typical industrial or university computing center. In addition, they were moderately interactive and soon had their own operating systems. Eventually, this category became known as the mini-computer, usually with time-sharing and program development facilities. Eventually, the mini-computer grew up to encompass the VAX and larger mini-computers from Data General, Prime, and others. Deployment of mini-computer systems was a model for how personal computers would be used, but few of the mini-computer makers managed to profit from it.

Personal computer - computer (computer) for the personal use.Before the appearance of the first personal computers, the existing computers were very expensive in the price and in the operation, which excluded the possibility of the acquisition of such machines by individual people.Computers could be found in the large corporations, in the universities, in the centers of studies and in the state establishments.Personal computers became possible in the Seventies, when amateurs began to construct their personal computers only in order in principle of having the capability to brag by this uncommon object/subject.Raniye personal computers did not have practical application, and they were extended very slowly.

On 23 December, 1947, three scientific in the laboratories companies Bell, William Shokley, Walter Brateyn and John Bardeen invented the point transistor amplifier (transistor), which allowed decreases in the sizes/dimensions of the computers, which to this moment/torque used electron tubes.

During September 1958, the jack frame Of kilbi from the company Texas by Instruments built the first electronic microcircuit, where five components were integrated on one pay of Germany, with size/dimension in one-and-a-half centimeter into dlinnu and 1-2 millimeters into the thickness.

In 1959, Robert Noys from Fairchyuild Of semichonduchtor, it built the integrated electronic microcircuit where of the component they were soyedeneny with each other alyuminivymi lines on the oxidized surface of silicon (silichon-okhide).

In 1960 the company Of digital Of etsuipment presented the first minicomputer Of pdp-y (PDP - program, date, processor), which was sold for 120000 American dollars.this was the first commercial computer equipped with keyboard and monitor.

In 1963, Douglas engelbart invented computer mouse - the input equipment into the computer by the method of "tyka ':)

In 1964, John Kemeny and Thomas Kyurtts in the college To dartmoutyu, they developed the language of programming BASICH.BASICH this reduction, which is read as Beginners of All -purpose Symbolich Of instruchtion To chode, or the multipurpose language of the symbolic codes of instructions for the novices (MYASKIN?

In 1964 the American association of standards assumes/takes new seven-bit standard for exchanging the information ASCHII (Americhan of Standard To chode of the odds Of information To interchyuange.)

In 1965 Gordon Moore, chief for research and developments for Fairchyuild Of semichonduchtor of company formulates the collection of different observations about the rate of the development of technology for decreasing the transistor in the microcircuits.Popular opinion in the fact that Moore establishes law (Moore's law) who it says that transistor density in the integrated microcircuits it will be doubled every 12 months in the course of the following ten years.

During May 1966, Stephen Grey bases the society of computer amateurs (Amateur Of chomputer Of sochiyety) or ACHS, and he begins to publish the news of cloud/club.(there is an opinion that this it served as the generation of personal computers.)

On 4 June, 1966, American ofis of patents issues doctor Robert Dennard from the company OF IBM, patent 3387286 for single-transistor storage cell (DRAMAS Of dynamich By random Of achchess Of memory or dynamic access to the random memory) and to the base idea of three-transistor storage cell.This type of memory is used for the short term retention of information in the computer.

In 1966, Robert Noys and Gordon Moore base corporation Intel.this company is begun from the creation of the micros-chip of memory, but gradually it is converted into the company for the production of microprocessors.

In 1966, Douglas engelbart from the research institute of Stanford, presents system consisting of the literal keyboard, the tsifernoy keyboard, the mouse and the program of the supporting output information to screen in the different ' windows '.At the demonstration is shown text editor, the system that solving to construct references to the information and program for the collective work.

In 1969, the company Of yuoneyshell lets out Yuey' "kitchen computer", first domestic computer for 10600 American dollars.

[edit] first kit PC?

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."

[edit] Images

The image in this page contains a message advocating the bombing of motor vehicals. I don't think that is encyclopaedia-appropriate.

The picture is so dark you can hardly see the computer so it isn't very good anyway. Rmhermen 15:21, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

---

Both pictures actually lack showing the main case of the PC! *All* the other components are in fact non-unique to PCs. A decent picture of a full PC system would be helpful. :-) (most components might be part of a Net Computer, or Dumb Terminal system.)

As for the picture with the TV, modern graphics cards contain TV in and out (again, in case you're old enough to remember ), and I have seen tvs connected up to part of a PC system.

Also note that people in "Real Life" keep using very old PCs indeed, without replacing them at all, and people often personalize their personal machines, though I'm not sure how to best illustrate this.

I hope the pic of my tower (Evesham, 3 GHz) answers your comments on the pic of my general set-up. Obviously a view inside the tower would be good as well, but I'm not willing to open up (I'm chicken!).

For your interest, the TV is not in any way relevant to my computer, I don't want to miss Coronation Street or Eastenders while I do Wiki work (I live in England)!

Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay well, I don't mind opening up one of my PCs. I've made some pictures and added them to my photo dir. Are any of those useful? There's a 2nd computer in the background, but that shouldn't be a big deal. Pictures include: tower, tower interior, tower rear, shots of the desktop. (In varying quality and lighting). The machine itself is a white label Pentium 4, using an nvidia geforce 2 graphics card, drives in the drive bays (from top to bottom) are CD-writer, DVD-RW, 20 Gb hard disk (cheap one, thrown in with the deal), hard disk 160 Gb. I haven't owned it long enough to really hack around with it, so I guess the hardware is still fairly typical. :-) 80.126.238.189 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Click on the required resolution, then click on the relevant thumbnail to obtain the actual image)

I think this one is good but it's overexposed. Could someone with photo shop fix it up? [2]BrokenSegue 16:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I work at a IT department, and right now I have lots of Dell's (GX260-280, SX260-280, GX620), Compaq DeskproEN's, HP d530's and others, both SFF and regular form factory. Anyone interested in photos? -- Pål Grønås Drange

[edit] Components

Also, is there no article on wikipedia about the components of a computer, Expansion slots(PCI, AGP, ISA) hard drive, video, RAM etc?

[edit] More history

We need more about the history of personal computers (the lack of a reference to the Xerox Alto is a major oversight), and in fact there's so much one could say (see the material above) that it could probably be a separate article, with a brief overwiew, and link, from here. Noel (talk) 00:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) the data on the history of computers is not enough we need extra knowledge about the comper history-- Saptesh

[edit] Image choice

It's great to see a system pictured, but I'd like to see a better system layout than that one, with no TV and the system case clearly shown. Anybody have a camera, and everthing in one clear layout, without extra details? Radagast 01:43, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History moved

I think we need to tell people about the Elder Days. So, I've moved the great stuff about LINC and PDP 8 back into the article. The "generations" of personal computers seems to be something specific to this article, I don't think I've seen that cateogorization elsewhere. There's so much overlap between, for example, the Commodore 64 style "home" computer and the cheap IBM compatible that I'm sure many households had both at the same time, thoough I imagine the use of a C64 in an office would have been very rare. --Wtshymanski 05:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Currently, this content is divided among the microcomputer, home computer, and personal computer wikis. The division appears to coincide (roughly) with the changes in marketing nomenclature over the years. However, to date, none of the articles offer a pictorial history that tells the story of the micro (or PC, or whatever you want to call it).

As for the personal computer article in particular, I feel that the gallery of photos lacks a certain historical objectivity. While I believe that photos illustrating PCs with character (i.e., examples illustrating real-life contexts, and not just machines as they would appear on a box cover or in a clean room) have their place in the article, the examples fail to illustrate the evolution of PC industrial design and technological innovation; endless submissions of contemporary, x86-compatible home computers do not serve to edify. Is there an article on computer customization or "hot-rodding"? — Ringbang 21:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There's one they forgot...

They forgot Simon. http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml Scroll to the very bottom.

Agreed can anyone confirm that the article is accurate (i.e. Simon can be considered the first Personal computer). If it is then the info in it should be included in the history section or at least a link to the article. Qazzian 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big cleanup / rewrite

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)

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)

The whole article is a giant hole... I'm trying to get it to win WP:AID because I don't want to rewrite the whole thing myself. -- uberpenguin 04:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I just voted. Do I need to add any justifications why I voted or is a signature good enough?--Mushroom King 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good enough. -- uberpenguin 04:41, 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)

I was thinking about this and realised there should be a Storage catagory, where it splits into Hard Disk and CDs.--Mushroom King 14:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Secondary storage would be a viable alternative to just "Hard disk". However, the secondary storage article will require some expansion if we want it to be our main point. The hole is just getting bigger and bigger... --Mushroom King 03:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To be more general, we should prefer the terms primary storage, secondary storage, etc (tertiary storage isn't too common with PCs). Rather than just directly linking to those articles, the relevant sections should explain what specific types of storage are generally used with PCs. Remember that even in the PC realm nothing dictates that one must use a hard disk for mass storage. -- uberpenguin 02:32, 3 March 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)

I should mention that History of computing hardware (1960s-present) has a rather excellent layout and coverage, and I'll probably be stealing some of that for this article's history section. -- uberpenguin 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exploded view

What exactly is an "exploded" common Wintel PC? Can my AMD suffice ;D? 68.39.174.238 19:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Exploded view ... The hope is to replace the photographs with a diagram or two and to avoid making them over-specific. For example, an item ought to be labeled "CPU" rather than "x86 CPU" or "AMD Athlon XP" ... -- uberpenguin 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to give it a try. Can you perhaps suggest a list of what parts that should be included and at what level of detail they should be illustrated? –Gustavb 04:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say display (CRT, LCD, whatever), input (mouse, keyboard?), and exploded computer (CPU, mainboard/motherboard, main memory (RAM), hard disk, power supply, expansion cards). The detail doesn't have to be incredibly high; don't bother denoting that the box that holds everything together is a "case" or these are "cables" or what one expansion card's purpose is compared to the next. I also don't particularly care what shape the PC takes (could be some IBM PC compatible, Mac lookalike, etc). Probably would be best to fashion it after a fairly modern PC shape since the history section will contain images of examples from earlier generations. I would stay away from illustrating an all-in-one type form factor since it's more difficult to produce a sane exploded view of such a thing. Thanks for your consideration and help! -- uberpenguin 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have now started drawing, here's what I've done so far: Image:Personal computer, exploded.svg. It's very much a work in progress – probably about 1/5 is done. I will upload new revisions as I proceed. –Gustavb 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks great so far. Thanks so much for working on this! -- uberpenguin 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It looks wonderful. Make sure you keep it in perspective though, which you are doing a very good job at I might add. --Mushroom King 00:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I might add, when you get around to the labeling, use "CPU (microprocessor)" for the CPU label. It's more specific and accurate for the purposes of this article. -- uberpenguin 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice feedback! Yes, keeping the perspective is probably the hardest part when doing 3D with a 2D application – I recently added help lines to make it easier. I've also uploaded a new version, still much a work in progress though (about 2/5). Regarding the labeling, do you prefer "inline" labeling (names in the illustration) over numbers and labels in the caption? Inline style makes it faster to read, but on the other hand it makes linking and translation (for other wikis) harder… –Gustavb 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you think works better. I don't particularly care. -- uberpenguin 15:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with uberpenguin; whatever you think works better. --Mushroom King 04:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I chose the numbers+caption alternative. My concern right now is whether it's clear enough… at the size shown to the right it's a bit hard to distinguish what is what on the motherboard (and making it bigger than that in the actual article is probably not a good idea?). Aside from that, any comments? –Gustavb 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks fantastic to me. The size is fine; the only thing I'd change is the label "DVD player" to "Optical disc drive" to be more general. Other than that minor qualm, it's awesome. Bravo! Now we'll have to write a high quality article to go with the diagram. -- uberpenguin 22:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, you are right about the "DVD player", it's unnecessary specific… changed. I'm pretty satisfied now, so feel free to place it wherever you like it in the article. –Gustavb 00:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a (low res copy of) a rather simpler one I did earlier, which I'd be willing to share under a CC-like licence. [3] Any good? Thruston 23:08, 26 February 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)

Sorry, I was mixed up when I wrote that comment (was thinking about a similar discussion on Talk:Computer). Here's the issue, every few weeks someone adds a vanity photo of their PC to this (or the Computer) article. I object to this on several grounds. Modern desktop PC photos are uninteresting since almost everyone reading the article is already sitting in front of one. The images are usually poorly composed and much less attractive than the nice illustrations we have now. What's more, if we allow one user's PC vanity photo to stay, what stops every other user who has ever added their PC's mugshot to this article from adding it back, citing NPOV or something equally ludicris? For these reasons, I'm strongly against adding photos of peoples' desktops to this article. However, I'm very sorry for implying that there was some prior discussion here that doesn't actually exist. If you want to discuss it now, go ahead; I've made my points. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-05 03:24Z

IMO thats like saying we should have no photos at cat because people will use it as an excuse to push vanity images. I also disagree with the uninteresing comment, yes people will be sitting in front of a PC but there are quite a few styles that can be discussed along with thier pros and cons. Plugwash 18:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also imo that "stylised illustration" at the top of the page is even more uninteresting than a photograph. Plugwash 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Woz

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.

"Father of the PC" is a pretty large editorial stretch, but you're right that Apple doesn't get nearly enough attention in this article. The whole thing needs rewriting; feel free to do it if you like. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-05 23:34Z

Macs aren't PCs. They even say so in their ads... Danorux 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Macs are PCs. They are computers designed and sold for personal usage. Let the marketers quibble over semantics, but as we define a PC, the Macintosh is a PC. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-11 22:22Z

[edit] Image size

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)

[edit] Hardware - Add PPU?

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)

Considering that what you speak of is little more than a specialized niche DSP... No. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-21 05:03Z

[edit] Hardware - Add Printer?

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)

[edit] Rewrite needed

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)

It's been on my todo list for months, but I decided that Computer was more important to fix first. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-16 18:32Z

[edit] Add recycling section

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.

[edit] Ken Olsen quote

• 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)