Talk:Personal computer/Archive 4

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

Archive 6

Please keep the Lead-in as NPOV as possible

No IBM or Mac only paragraphs. Personal computer is not an archaic term and is in evolution of usage. The history section is getting too long and maybe it needs to be moved to the history of computing articles. There are distinct Convergence movements eliminating the Desktop architecture getting personal computer functionality into the third world in Cell Phone and Laptop form. Alatari (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. See my post [HISTORY BIAS] added today. --Brady M. Shea (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology section

Common usage of the term PC needs to be discussed in the Etymology section. Alatari (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes perhaps we need a Etimology section in the article, perhaps we also should have seperate articles for "personal computer" and "PC", as a PC is a personal computer, but not all personal computers are PC's. Some people seem to think the two terms are interchangable, but they are not! Personal Computer is a term with a history. I see a small revert war brewing over this issue. (copied from my talk page to here) Mahjongg (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference in usage comes especially when the phrase "PC or Mac" is used. I think we can come to some sort of compromise showing that there is a usage difference. I'm no mac fanboy but even I see that the POV in difference in language around PC usage is WP:N Alatari (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! You were right about a revert war brewing. I tried to insert this subject and it got reverted faster than a wave function collapsing in Copenhagen. I wrote more about it in my ((too) long) section below on this Talk page, titled "A cause for the court". 71.242.43.9 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mac 128k- first PC?

Was the Mac 128k the first PC, because that's what I thought, and if it was, should we add a note about that? --WIKIBLURRR^TALK 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

depends on your definition of PC, a TRS-80 is also a "personal computer". I don't remember ever having heard someone describe the original Mac as "the first personal computer", it might be described as "the first personal computer that somewhat resembles current systems".Mahjongg (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Altair 8800 was the first personal computer according to several sources, though I can't identify any of those sources offhand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.43.9 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read my discussion addition First paragraph..under [HISTORY BIAS]. Also, read the external link included. It should clear up any confusion. --Brady M. Shea (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

IntelliStation?

Why is there a photo of an IntelliStation in an article about personal computers? The IntelliStation is a workstation, not a personal computer, as evidenced by multiple sources, including the external link in the image caption. Rilak (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The categories are not disjoint. Did you have to go through an operating staff to use it? No? Guess what, a workstation is a personal computer that is also a microcomputer. Blows your mind, doesn't it? But since it didn't use cassette tapes or a home TV for output, we're pretty sure it's not also a home computer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why get rid of it? Because it is original research. If multiple sources call it a workstation, then it is a workstation. Rilak (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But a workstation *is* a personal computer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically it can be a personal computer, but for the great majority of people a workstation is not what they imagine a "personal computer" to be, let alone that a workstation can be used as -the- image of a PC. Mahjongg (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get into how to categorize single-user microcomputers again (are there any sources explicitly describing the IntelliStation as a personal computer as opposed it to meeting various personal computer criteria as determined by editors?), but as long as the image in question has been removed, I don't really care about the reason(s) why. I do think the image should be kept neutral though - no brands, etc. Rilak (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But isn't it somewhat the point of an encyclopedia that it shows people more about a topic than they already know? If everybody already *knows* what a personal computer looks like, they don't need the picture at all, nor do they need the Wikipedia article. Besides, one desktop box looks just like another - the now-gone image even had USB and headphone jacks on the front panel, just like the $475 Dell that Junior does his homework on. It doesn't eat punch cards, it sits by someone's desk and he/she uses it all day (barring the odd logon by network admin types) - isn't that a personal computer? Hardly origianl research - not like we're advocating the Time Cube or anything of that order. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point, when people visit an article on a subject they should not be confronted with a picture that is a-typical for the subject the article is about. Also the picture should be neutral, not favouring any one brand or type, even the current drawing is not completely neutral, because it does not resemble a typical system of some brands, but it is a good compromise. Mahjongg (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what the purpose of the picture is. Is it just a page decoration, like an illuminated capital letter, or is it meant to illustrate the subject matter in a significant way? What we have now is a page decoration. The automobile article isn't shy about naming brand names. It's not like IBM is an obscure maker unduly benefiting from the advertising value of having its name in a Wikipedia photo caption. The former picture is hardly atypical since every box you see on the shelves at Future Shop resembles it (and no-one accuses them of selling workstations). Complete neutrality is a Wikipedia hallucination as we all should know. The current page decoration is bland to the point of uselessness - it has no keys on the keyboard! No buttons on the mouse! And it covers up the fact that for most of the 30-odd year history of personal computers, the screen was *not* a flat panel but instead took up considerable space on the desk top. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I should think that the picture is there to give an instant impression of what the article is about, while not favouring any type or brand, so presenting a NPOV picture. The automobile article does just that, it uses an instantly recognisable but completely neutral picture, of an early automobile, a Karl Benz's "Velo" model (1894), it does NOT use a picture of a BMW based "Stretch limousine". Mahjongg (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, so you favor the page decoration theory, as opposed to illustrating a real computer. Not the choice I would have made. But then I like pictures in encyclopedias to be useful, not those weird icon things that obscure and obstruct meaning. Luckily in this instance the reader has a personal computer right in front of him and won't be confused by the buttonless illustration. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why so sarcastic, do you have a personal interest in pushing this issue? The current picture illustrates perfectly the abstract notion of a personal computer. Look at similar articles like Television, they either have a historical (thus commercially neutral) picture, or an abstract illustration. Why are you putting things in my mouth, In no way the current picture is just "decoration", it is instantly recognisable as a personal computer, and that is what it is supposed to do. Mahjongg (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Mac vs. PC"

Shouldn't there be a mention of Apple trying to separate itself from the personal computer industry, using advertisements that portray a "Mac" as something different from a "PC"? 68.35.111.83 (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Those should be different parts. I have now readed all the archived discussion about this subject and there should be answered for few questions: 1) What is PC? To get answer for that, we should understand that where did it come. Seems that first real term for such computer came from IBM-PC when IBM marketed it's builded computers. Then there came Clone-PC's what were compatible with IMB manufactured computers. 2) What does mean the "Personal Computer"? To get answer for that, we need to cut it to half and find answer what does "Personal" mean and the "Computer". First we would find definition for Computer, what is: A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a list of instructions.", By using the "Computer" definition, we can say by sure that cell-phones and even programmable calculators are computers. So, what does "Personal" mean? To answer that we should ask does it mean that X in "Personal X" is like "personal hygiene", "Personal Identity", "Personal webpage/blog" and "Personal bodyguard" or something like "One person can drive this vehicle"? If only one person is needed to use something, it is not a personal then. If the vehicle is used only by one person and no one else can use it, then it is personal. It is personal like "personal hygiene". In computer history, there has been computers what have needed more than one person to use it. Now there is computers what does need only a one person to use the computer. The "Personal" does not mean that device needs only a one person to use it, but that the device belongs to one person and no one else use it. So, we have Personal Computers what are computers what are owned and so on used only by one person. Because there is lots of different kinds computers (what can be counted to be included in definition of "Computer") what are more personal than computer what I use to write this or you to read it. Those are cell-phones. It is more personal computer than the computer what you have on your lap or on your desk etc. If we use the current "definition" of "PC". We need to count every calculator, cell-phone (normal or smartphone), game device (XBoX/Playstation/PSP/Nintendo DS) or even digital cameras as PC. Because most of those includes a computer and is more or less personal computers. So we get only a conclusion that PC does not mean the "this computer is personal property of mine" or "Single person is needed to use this computer". We have answer for questions 1) and 2) and that is just simple thing, it has nothing to do with human and computer. It has only something to do with marketing. Apple has used term "Mac" from it's computers. They are more or less personal property for someone than Cell-phones or any other kind computers, but they are different because they are called and classified as "Macintosh Computers" A.K.A "Mac". So on, the Mac is not PC, because not all computers are PC's. We have desktop computers (DC), Home Server Computers (HSC), Workstations (WS), Microcomputers (MC), web-Servers, Thin-clients, Bladeservers, Supercomputers, Intellistations, Laptops, Netbooks etc. All those definitions are marketing terms, brands and definitions so we can understand what we are talking about and not any of those are all the time personal computers because there is more people using them as one, even that it is possible. When someone says "Mac", everyone knows that they are talking about Apple's manufactured computer, not Dell or HP manufactured. The term "PC" is not like "Company". It is like "Intel", "AMD", "Dell", "HP" or any other company. Just one of many, even that all are companies, they are different, has different brand and different meaning and understanding among people. When you say "PC", normal user understand that by definition of marketing, just like user can separate Dell from Coca-Cola or from HP. The meaning of "This is my personal computer" is not same as "IBM Personal Computer" what is same as "Personal Computer". The article should be rewritten by basing it to history of computers and marketing, and facts what is personal and what is computer. No one can not denied that Mac's ain't computers. But they cant proof that Mac's are PC's. Golftheman (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Apple has advertised Macs as personal computers before for the Power Mac G3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwVujXRxZA Cloud858rk (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Apple has advertised Macs as personal computers. But never as PC's. There is difference between PC and personal computer. Mac is personal computer and PC is personal computer. But PC ain't Mac and Mac ain't PC. Both are still personal computers. There was not PC's before IBM branded their "IBM PC". But there has be a personal computers long before that. No on these days people just mistakes the PC to mean same as personal computer, because the PC was IBM's synonym for their line of personal computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golftheman (talk • contribs) 11:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the term PC as a marketing term, its specifically about "personal computers", a term that was first used when mainframe systems became small and cheap enough to dedicate one to a single user, instead of having many users share a single computer (using "batch processing", or "time sharing"), and the term computer is a specific term that does not include contemporary small portable systems like personal digital assistants, or even cell-phones. It means a general computing device that can handle all the computing needs its (single) user needs. Arguably one of the first of its kind is the Datapoint 2200, which already had all of the characteristics of a personal computer, a single self-contained computing unit geared toward a single user. A "PC" entry already exists in Wikipedia, as IBM Personal Computer. Mahjongg (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The term PC is not only a marketing term, it is also commonly used to identificate specific types of computer, with BIOS as firmware and an x86 compatible CPU. These computers are capable to run Windows natively, as opposed to Macs which need BootCamp to run it. I'd modify the article to reflect this use of the term; anybody who doesn't know about the subject would never search for the IBM Personal Computer article instead of this, and would be confused after reading this article, as he probably wouldn't understand why e.g. computer games in stores are labelled for "PC" or for "Mac" if the latter are PCs as well. BTW Macs are not the only non-PC desktop computer being sold nowadays, e.g. the Sam440EP board sold by ACube Systems, which is shipped with AmigaOS 4.1 and uses a PPC-compatible CPU; this system is generally referred as an Amiga (even if there's an ongoing court case about the use of the trademark). Until the first half of the nineties this use of the term PC was common, and it is still in use today even if much less frequently. BTW I have an AmigaOne XE as a primary computer, and instead of explaining to everyone why Windows can't be installed on my system, the differences between types of CPUs etc., I just tell them that it's because it's an Amiga, not a PC, as it has always been since the first Amigas came out in the '80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.8.79.164 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, yes, <sigh> the point is that its not about "PC", its about "Personal computer". Its not about the descriptive term PC, as marketing term slash type of personal computer identifier, its about the more comprising term of personal-computing-device .Mahjongg (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand now your point of view. I was complaining as this article seems like the only meaning for "PC": when searching for PC in Wiki, the only link is to this article, hence the (now unmotivated) request to expand the article. I'd suggest to either add IBM_PC and IBM_PC_compatible in PC, or to add the first two at the top of this article for disambiguation. 151.8.79.164 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest to simply make a new page for "Personal Computer" and change the "PC" one to include the difference. Yes, technically, a Mac is a PC--or personal computer. However, in popular culture PCs are Windows basically. You could even include a note or section about it. "Use of the terms PC" That could clear up for those confused. Basically something saying "In popular culture Macs are not considered PCs, blah blah blah." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.116.152 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the power supply?

If you are going to write a concise article about the parts that make up a whole computer, you should at least include all of them.Trumpy (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A cause for the court

All right, I spent about 2 or 3 hours early this morning making edits and adding content to this article to improve it (including many links to articles which I tested and optimized,) and Wtshymanski, in 4 edits, wiped out pretty much all of it. Beyond specifically not liking my article-improvement ideas, he or she seems to have an editing style that suggests a desire to keep the article lightweight and succinct, not deeply detailed. For example, this person removed my mention of the fact that home PCs are increasingly networked, reverting the section in question to a text which tends to imply (to those unfamiliar with PC operations) that LANs are a business thing only (which they aren't anymore.) Also, this person removed a comment previously inserted by another editor in the Video Card subsection under the Hardware section title, which read:

I did not write this comment—I didn't even read that part of the article—but I do agree with the comment. I also think it might have been better to put that comment here on the talk page, but just to delete it was certainly, in my opinion (humble enough but not super-humble), not the right thing. Anyway, now the comment is here, so maybe eventually someone will act on it.

I had added essentially two features to the article. The first was a discussion of the blurring of the definition of a PC as a machine used interactively by a single person, as many machines designed, built and sold as PCs now operate as servers, routers, or other non-interactive or multi-user computers. Are they not PCs when serving in that role? This is a legitimate question that readers may be expected to ask. The second was a paragraph I added to the introductory section which explained the alternate meaning of "PC" as in the phrase "PC vs. Mac" or the recently new Microsoft advertising slogan, "I'm a PC" which specifically refers to the machines that used to be called IBM compatible and are now sometimes called Windows/Intel machines (when they're not running Linux or something else besides Windows.)

On the first subject, Wtshymanski completely removed the section I added with the terse edit summary "revert essay," not even considering the points I raised and trying to apply them in any way to the remaining article text. He or she also removed the main point of the paragraph in the introductory section which raised this question—the point that what defines a personal computer is whether it is used, primarily, by a single person in an interactive mode. I did not write that definition, and did not question it, though I did revise the phrasing. The deletion of that definition removes the subtext for my section on "Blurring . . ." and leaves the article without any development or explanation of the definition given in its first sentence, making the article much weaker. I don't necessarily endorse the "single-user interactive" definition of a personal computer, and it was uncited, but it was reasonable and gave some sense of grasp on the boundary between personal computers and not personal computers. The statement that PCs could be used in offices as well as homes was apparently intended, in the version I originally found, to complement this definition. Now it stands alone as a simple fact. As a result, the article still lacks authority and a balanced perspective on the definition of a personal computer and the (at least potential) disagreement on that in the public at large and in actual observable usage of the term. It gives the illusion (to those who are not skeptical of unsourced statements, which admittedly most of my writing on Wikipedia is) that the definition given is the correct definition and the only one, and that defining a personal computer is not a difficult thing. In other words, it makes the concept of personal computer appear black-and-white, which it is not. In fact, how difficult it is to find agreement on this can be quickly discovered by doing a web search on the subject of the identity of the first microprocessor, first microcomputer, first home computer, or first personal computer. (I used Google for this in the past.) Most web authors who look into this in depth (and give a long, rather than a short, answer) will conclude that the answer to who/which was first depends on exactly how you define the terms. For a microprocessor, does it have to be a single chip, or does it merely have to be an LSI IC processor? Is there a cost threshold? For a home or personal computer, does it have to be able to run practical productivity programs? Does it have to have a video display? A text display? Can it merely have binary LEDs for output? The definition matters a lot, and many people and groups try to define it in a way that makes them the first to build or offer one.

I don't insist that the section is necessary, but I do insist that the points it made need be addressed and integrated—not necessarily stated, but embodied—in the article. As is, I think it is a mediocre article on the subject (albeit with a lot of potential), considering who is likely to come looking for it. About this subject of the blurred line, see also my next-to-last paragraph below (in this Talk section.)

On the second subject, the paragraph I wrote explains the meaning and derivation of the term "PC" when used in this way. Such an explanation must necessarily reference the IBM PC and IBM PC/AT, the latter of which defined IBM compatibility for a decade or more and still influences parts of the most state-of-the-art PCs (in the x86/Windows-compatible sense). You can't explain the etymology of the term PC as used to refer to IBM-compatibles and their descendants without mentioning the IBM AT. (The interrupt and DMA controllers in any PC chipset are compatible with the chips IBM used in the AT, and are mapped to the same addresses. The PS/2 style keyboard interface is actually the IBM AT keyboard interface with only the DIN-5 connector changed to a mini-DIN connector. Even USB keyboards use the IBM AT scan codes. VGA compatibility is the baseline of video compatibility—every video adapter supports VGA 320x200 256-color mode—and derives from the early VGA cards which were built for the AT bus and would work in an original IBM AT. The BIOS comes from the IBM AT, and eve though modern operating systems don't use the BIOS while running, it is still used every time a PC boots.) As I wrote in the deleted paragraph, an Intel x86 processor is in PCs (of this sense) today because IBM chose Intel x86 CPUs for the PC and the PC/AT. In fact, going further, that's probably the only reason the x86 CPU family is still around at all in PCs, even in Macs, because most programmers seem to hate it (outside of 386 protected mode.) (I'm one of the few that doesn't think the Intel real mode segmented architecture makes no sense; but I digress.)

The fundamental question is, "What defines a PC?" and it requires an authoritative answer. It could be the manner of use, it could be design, or it could be the software it runs. I don't know. I can't authoritatively answer, but I did insert a {{fact}} tag to call for a citation on the definition given in the first paragraph. Wtshymanski removed the tag without comment, suggesting an opinion that the article doesn't need any auhtority to back its definition of the term "Personal Computer."

I strongly argue that the definition of a personal computer is disputable, and that any definition for the term put forth in this article must have a cited source, preferably two or more sources. It appears to me—I will happily be corrected if I am wrong—that few people have considered the problem of whether a "computer" by definition includes software or not, and if so how much of the software is part of the computer. This becomes a tricky issue particularly as more and more components and peripherals that used to be pure hardware are now being implemented in or with software; modems or all kinds (not just POTS telephone modems) and printers are the most obvious examples, but video cards, hard disks, etc. are also much more dependent on a software (firmware) component than they originally were, and thanks to Flash ROM, "firmware" has become much less firm—vendors routinely offer firmware upgrades on their web sites and now are much more willing to ship hardware products with buggy firmware knowing they can fix it after they sell it, if enough demand exists, via this mechanism (in a manner similar to what Microsoft has done with Windows for decades.) Further, unlike the early days of the PC, when a lot of software was boot software (either including its own operating system or requiring no operating system, depending on perspective.)

As you can see, I want to have a certain amount of mathematical precision about this. I perceive that Wtshymanski does not. He or she seems willing to ignore and gloss over the finer points of the subject in order to address the interests of readers who want to know about modern PCs, not about the concept and term "personal computer" generally, past, present, and perhaps future. What does the community of Wikipedians think? I could find and cite numerous Wikipedia articles that use my academic approach, and numerous others that are vague, general, and easy to read (but do not give the reader in-depth understanding of the subject) like Wtshymanski seems inclined to keep this article. The difference can be analogized to that of World Book vs. Britannica. (In grade school and even high school, I always went for World Book, because the teachers accepted it and it was easy to read, understand, and cite. Now I have no use for it, and in fact I'm thinking of buying a CD-ROM copy of Britannica, rather than rely on the library or an Internet connection. In fact, if affordable, a paper book set would be nice. Ah, some day, when I have space.) It's certainly not my place to declare which one Wikipedia should be: this is a democratic project, and it's going to be what most of us want it to be. What is that?

As you may sense, I'm getting frustrated. In part, it's my fault. I shouldn't have worked so much, particularly on making appropriate links in my last edit, until I knew how my content edits would be received. That could have saved me a lot of frustration. But I probably wouldn't have gotten back to do more later, so . . . 6 of one, half a dozen . . . .

If the material about the etymology of "PC" as refers to IBM-derived personal computers would be more appropriate in the "IBM Personal Computer" article, with merely a mention here of that meaning and a referral of the reader to that article, then that's fine with me. I'm much more concerned with what information Wikipedia presents and what understanding readers get than with the structure of the information, as long as readers who want to know something can find the relevant text. I also realize that the section on "Blurring . . ." that I had added is far from perfect; I expected other editors to mercilessly edit it into a much better, and perhaps much shorter, form. (Or maybe longer, though probably not.) It is possible that some of this belongs in the "Computer" article, but I couldn't edit that, because it's protected. So in part, putting the paragraph about [what does a computer include: operator, hardware, software] in this article was a compromise. The subject belongs somewhere, and if no one can find a source for the questions and the answers, then that would only show a severe limitation of Wikipedia, that it can't address or raise obvious problems and questions because they have not been previously published. I'm not attacking the encyclopedia, I'm just pointing out a consequence of a certain interpretation of the rules, which is relevant to the application of the "there are no rules" rule. Most articles in Wikipedia are under-cited, but it doesn't get their useful content instantly deleted; that would make the encyclopedia very spotty in coverage. I hope that when I add unsourced content, if it is valuable someone will add citations to it. I also expect, like all Wikipedia editors should, that some of what I add will be vetoed, but I don't expect everything I do in a long editing session to be bluntly and unceremoniously reverted without discussion. I wouldn't do that myself, to any other editor. I assume good will and try to realize the constructive intent of that good will.

Does anyone care to comment, for my benefit, on the Wikipedia policy about the use of basic (formal) logic and the raising of problems or questions in an article's subject area that are obvious but perhaps cannot be cited to a source? I note that many sources, for example most textbooks, do not spell out every detailed step of a thought process but expect the reader to apply some basic thought to reach the same obvious conclusion that the author is thinking of. The relevance of this is that it is a basic, obvious conclusion to anyone working with PCs in our world that some people say PC and mean the hardware, and some people say PC and mean the system of hardware, and all software including applications and data, and some use the term with a line drawn in between. (By basic logic, you can't say "PC and software" without implying that the software is not part of the PC, and you can't say "Please fix my PC" and then explain that your web browser keeps hanging without implying that the browser software is part of the PC. And anyone who has even helped neighbors or relatives with their computers, let alone worked in IT (as I have) has probably witnessed both of these perspectives on the part of users. So the problem undeniably exists, and not to raise it is to lead readers into a false sense of understanding of a complex subject, which may be worse than a profound sense of no understanding; it may even be dangerous. ("A little bit of information is a dangerous thing.")

I'm not going to revert Wtshymanski's changes to my edits and start an edit war. Instead, I've written this. It's very long, and I hope some editors will actually read it and do something about it, something other than ignore it and the dispute. I'm not going to pursue it, because I have other work to do. But I'll be around on Wikipedia generally, I'll look for responses and opportunities for fruitful discussion, and I'll try not to let my DSL router pull a new dynamic IP. 71.242.43.9 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concern. Having looked at:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal+computer

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/personal%20computer

http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?year=1975

http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?category=cmptr (See 1971-5)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/personal_computer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_computers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800

and others, I think the elements needed are a microprocessor (i.e., a one chip computer) and general purpose computing capability (otherwise we are into programmable calculator territory). I do not find arguments that it needed to be bundled with a monitor (TVs were used) or a keyboard or be pre-assembled persuasive; the Sphere 1 rah-rah is egregious; see the references in the Wikipedia article on the Sphere 1. Considering the times, a personal computer kit came before a turn-key personal computer. The Altair 8800 was a watershed, and I think it deserves the nod, though I think a case can be made for the Micral. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Popular_Electronics_Cover_Jan_1975.jpg ; the Altair was also later sold assembled and in turn-key systems: note the option for an assembled Altair in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Altair_Computer_Ad_May_1975.jpg . Equipped with CP/M, it was the standard the IBM PC attempted to copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

PC manufacturing

Can a pc manufacturing section be included. These include a brief description of the basic methods on how pcb-boards (or alternatives as strip-board, ...) can be made. Also mention the Synthetic biology-technique. According to Angela Belcher of the MIT, PCB's can be made using biological organisms. Please include in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.181.52 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

All modern electronic systems are build on printed circuit boards (strip boards are not used in professional production) so there is no reason why to include a description of the process here. its not specific to personal computers at all. Mahjongg (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The above solutions would be useful for local production of pc's (eg in developing world). Also, could an article be made for major developments in computer architecture (allowing much faster computers). The above can be mentioned, aswell as graphene for use in computer chips (makes them allot faster), optical computing as proposed by steve wozniak, and some new innovations such as the use of holographic data storage, the energy tunneling in hard disks, ....

Information on how printed circuit boards are made is in the printed circuit boards article (Where else?). It certainly was somewhere on Wikipedia within the last 3 months. Soldering also has information on manufacturing techniques. "Synthetic biology technique"?. There are certainly steps towards melding electronics and biology, but I think we're a while away from growing such. Does 81.245.181.52 mean etching PCBs using micro-organisms? Are there any bacteria that 'eat' copper? Might work. Sounds like they could be very dangerous to our technology if they could survive outside the etching tank.
Graphene?(nanotubes?) "the energy tunneling in hard disks"? You need to explain what you are talking about friends. Hard disks are looking like they'll be replaced with some type of flash memory anyway.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph..under HISTORY Apple mentioned... anyone else? BIAS

I believe if you are going to mention one company, to lessen bias you need to at least make mention of IBM? Or first use of "Personal Computer = PC". I think it was the 5150 and earlier 5100. Please see this external article. (And also Atari/Commodore/Zenith/etc later). Apple wasn't a small part, but mention of others is the right thing to do.

Anyway, I thought Apple was no longer a "PC" anymore? haha - I guess they can't say "Windows" on the commercials.

Regardless, whoever came up with that intro History paragraph needs to fix it. I would if I had extra time right now.

--Brady M. Shea (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

name of the original IBM architechture

what would one call the original PC standard? As far as I know it was based on the IBM architecture, and intel x86 processor based. What was the industry term/definition of the original IBM architecture? so the term would perhaps be be intel based IBM nn architecture? XT/AT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "architecture"? The expansion bus got retro-named Industry Standard Architecture after EISA and Microchannel came out, but it's not like there was a plan behind the IBM PC. It's not like IBM ever had a formal specification document outlining what a PC had to look like. If there had been, and it had been reviewed by some thoughtful group, maybe we wouldn't have had a generation of machines crippled by level-triggered interrupts, cascaded 8-bit interrupt controllers grafted onto a 16 bit bus, DMA that was also crippled, Intel reserved interrupts used for printing, incomplete I/O space decoding, and the whole "expanded/extended" memory disaster (and A20 gating of the top 64K of memory space on the AT). (Pause here to mourn the human life-span wasted over the last 25 years coping with all this mess.) The transition to 16 bits was hard on the IBM PCs and the 32-bit transition never really came off - which is partly why IBM doesn't make personal computers any more.

There was never a press announcement by IBM saying something like "Behold the Model 5150, the first machine to implement our glorious new <Foo> architecture.". Instead the assignment that came down was "Some clients want micrcomputers they can put on desktops...build us an Apple II killer until we can figure out what we want to do...it ought to sell a few thousand units.".

Call it the IBM PC/XT/AT architecture (choose one if it matters) - that's about as good a description as it's going to get. Like pornography, no-one knows what the IBM PC standard is, but they all recognize it when they see it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

While IBM may not have intended to set a standard, they did in the 5150. This would come back to haunt them when they advanced to the AT, a 20286 machine. De facto, the IBM PC standard required an 8088 processor running at 4.77 MHz, with all device assignments as in the 5150, MDA or CGA display adapters (usually the latter for computers used personally--not for a business), and capable of running the contemporaneous Microsoft Flight Simulator, an insanely touchy program at the time. I know this sounds weird now, but that was the standard companies built to. Even moving to the slightly faster 8086 was a risk because some programs, especially games, used the computing speed of the 4.77 MHz 8088 instead of clock interrupts to time their games, the interrupts not having the time resolution needed and interrupt servicing being "expensive" computationally. Perhaps one objective source would be contemporaneous issues of Byte Magazine. This was just known as the IBM PC standard at the time. Laguna CA (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OS market share statistics are no longer supported by reference

A serious problem has arisen with the reference that is being used to support the OS market share figures. Net Applications, the organization that collects and analyzes the data presented at marketshare.com, changed their methodology in August 2009, resulting in drastic revisions to their reported market shares for Windows, Mac OS, etc.

Here's the purported explanation. Formerly, Net Applications' percentages of OS users were based on which OS a browser reported whenever anyone hit a link at one of their clients' websites. Their clients are mostly in the US, so Internet users in the US (along with their OSes of choice) were arguably overrepresented. Now, Net Applications has decided to weight the raw counts by country, in direct proportion to how many Internet users that country is presumed to have (according to US CIA estimates). Under the new methodology, a hit coming from China becomes much more significant because the user is assumed to represent a larger number of Chinese OSs, browsers, etc.

Net Applications furthermore opted to apply these changes to all historical data posted on their website. As a consequence, the Wikipedia article now appears to distort its referenced source rather badly. For example, under the new methodology, Apple's market share has suddenly plunged from around 10% (the figure cited in the article) to around 5%.

For further details, see Country Level Weighting at marketshare.com and the following blog entry:

http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/02/net-applications-apple-just-lost-half-its-market-share/

Dynamitecow (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to add my signature initially)

Crediting the Alto

Given that this article claims to be about personal computers in general, shouldn't its History section mention the Xerox Alto? The Alto had an enormous influence on today's personal computers and their software. Its inventors received the 2004 Charles Stark Draper Prize, for "the vision, conception, and development of the first practical networked personal computers."

I'd be willing to write paragraph to get things going.

Sosayso —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosayso (talk • contribs) 11:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternatives?

what would the number-one alternative to a PC be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.227.26 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In the sense that "PC" is used in this article, the primary alternative would presumably be "mainframe". 82.11.0.143 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits with uncivil edit summaries

This dif was uncivil in unlinking terms. Wikipedia is used by a myriad of individuals. Not all speak English or have the same knowledge level. If a child wandering the internet were to stumble across Wikipedia, he/she might not know what a million is. Wikilinks provide instaneous knowledge because the provide an easy way to see what an internal hyperlinked word means. Please keep that in mind with all the edits for as per the talkheader, they should be meant to improve the article. --Morenooso (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK and by the time one has gotten to that point of this article, one has a pretty good mastery of English ( or else a pretty good mastery of looking up words). If you don't know the vocabulary, this article is not going to help. Children wandering the Internet might not know what "any", "general", "purpose","whose", "size", or "capabilities" mean, either - to list a few unlinked words from the first sentence. An encyclopedia isn't teaching a language. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely and oversimplying it. Yes, overlinks do occur but in technical articles have more necessity. Wikipedia has a wide variety of readers and it is not restricted to the English language or comprehension level. Any good teacher or parent knows that if a person is encouraged to read and with proper resources, books or other helpful aids are set out in front of them, they will "follow the trail" so to speak. And to counter the idea that an encyclopedia is not a English teaching device is a real understatement. Mastering other languages often involves flipping from the original language to a dictionary. Wikipedia provides all that with the language translations available when you look at its main page it is translated into and its other Wikis that offer other dictionary, news, etc. --Morenooso (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what is the rule for what words get linked? WP:OVERLINK says we get to assume someone reading the English Wikipedia reads English, ( or is not relying on the encyclopedia to teach him English, at any rate). There's no special technical context to "thousand" or "million" in this article, and the linked articles don't particularly illuminate personal computers. If you don't understand common words, you won't understand the article no matter how many links are in it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Engelbart and PC

I would't include Engelbart to the article of personal computer. This is because he was actually in the "mainframe computer camp"against what the PC was designed for. The idea of the PC was to bring the computing power for all individuals instead of forcing people to use "untrusted" government agencies and universities to give them computing from their mainframe computers.

There is also typo in the the Engelbart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.37.171 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 3

Moved topics that have been dormant for about a year to Talk:Personal computer/Archive 3,which has discussions on "what is a personal computer", "mac vs. pc", the illustration, and various other good stuff that we haven't been talking about for a while. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 4

More stuff moved out that we're not talking about much in the last few weeks. Discussions about what should be in this article,linking, Englebart, manufacturing, an enormous section that I cannot summarize, and the ongoing debate about Mac (brand name) is not PC(brand name), even though they are all pc (personal computers). --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Card slots that later became "ISA"

Umm, I don't see what's notable about the card slots in the IBM PC. It's not like they were unique to the PC - minicomputers had slots, the contemporary Apple II had slots, S100 computers had slots, so for marketing reasons the PC had to compete with that. It wasn't even an outstandingly good implementation of a bus, it was really a hacked-together extension of the 8088 pinout that needed multiple revisions vover the years. I'm not sure that assigning the blame for the PC slots to one individual is fair. Someone who was about to define a standard that still haunts us 30 years later would probably have spent more thought on the bus than "Hey, we've got a warehouse full of Datamaster card edge connectors, let's see what we can re-use for this one while we work on the PS/2 concept." --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL fair enough. Mahjongg (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Later Apple decided slots were bad; but MS DOS/Windows machines pretty much always had slots if they had room for them. I'd love to read someone's analysis of which approach was a net social benefit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I can completely agree with that analysis. True, the first Mac didn't have slots, but it looks more like a case of "if they had room for them", than "Apple decided slots were bad". Why would they decide that? Certainly in later Macs (that had room for them) the expansion bus returned, only to be removed in the "closed unit" Mac's, like the first "bondi blue iMac's". there was no useable way to implement expansion slots, and for a lot of uses for card-slots the new serial busses like USB and firewire offered a similar solution. I'm not sure its fair to say that "Apple decided that slots were bad".

At the very least they should have learned from the Apple ][ that one of the mayor plusses of the Apple ][ was that unforeseen needs could be met because the Apple ][ had slots that could be used to meet those unforeseen uses. Its only when the situation stabilized, and they more or less knew what people wanted in their Apple (][) that they dared to abandon them to be able to create a more compact model. The Apple IIc, which contained "all that normally slots were used for", like printer interface, floppy interface, language card, and 80-columns card. Mahjongg (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review of List of personal computer refurbishment and recycling centers in the U.S.

I've asked for the subject article (which I'm still adding to bit by bit) to be Peer Reviewed for both direction and hopefully Featured List status. Please comment? Simesa (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Featured article status? In which case the first step is to ask for a Good article review. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Smells like IBM in here

Reminder to whoever it is who wrote this:

Other computer archetectures exist. The majority of the world ignored the IBM standard until doom came out, and only really paid attention when windows 95 launched. Only dumbass americans would pay so much for so little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.35.60 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect use of source data

The first source, [1] '"OS Statistics". W3 Schools. Retrieved 4 March 2011.' is used to support a claim about operating systems in common use. However, the data refer to visitors to the W3 schools website, and not to a representative sample of PC users. An alternative source that uses a representative sample, e.g. Net Applications: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8 , should be used instead. Shalineth (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition of the AppStore in the lead

"its advertising" is damn weak... They've had 6 billion downloads, its definitely worthy of inclusion if you are going to mention the other stuff at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't need any additional promotion here, then, do they? Though now I've read they want to sell "apps" for desktop machines, too. The revolution is over...we lost. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a WP:SOAPBOX for your political views. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The very establishment of Wikipedia is a political act. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Again the Apple AppStore is far more notable and known than any other AppStore and the language before it is complex. If we aren't going to give an example maybe we should remove the whole sentence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing it, it seems that the text doesn't really make sense in the first paragraph given that it speaks to software distribution methods, whereas the mainframe comment speaks about hardware. Also, at that point, we haven't even mentioned software so the comment appears out of place. I have moved it to the fourth paragraph with the other software text and reworked it to fit in better. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy

Its much better, I've changed "intervening third party" to "manufacturers AppStore" as that seems more neutral and avoids mentioning Apple's AppStore, if there is a better generic word we can use for AppStore by all means go ahead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Even better :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The text (which I will restore after this edit) does not speak of software distribution methods. It speaks about controlling the availability of executable code through a centralized authority (or a non-user-related, "third party" as another user corrected it). The Windows Marketplace/Market Place, for example, is not such an authority because you can still run software on a personal computer running Windows without their approval while you can't run software on an iOS device without Apple's approval. You are mistaken that the mainframe sentence speaks about hardware; smart terminals or domain workstations are controlled by mainframes or domain controllers by software. The entry is therefore not about "application stores" but about the very successful Apple Appstore and helps Wikipedia readers understand the Personal Computer definition using updated examples. Vyx (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored in the absence of agreement here; also does not fit in the lead. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It should therefore be restored to the version that was established from Oct 2010 to Feb 2011 instead of restoring it to your edit that was done less than a month ago. Also, it does fit the lead as an additional argument next to "This is in contrast to the batch processing or time-sharing models which allowed large expensive mainframe systems..." Vyx (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You are edit warring and have violated WP:3RR in doing so. After being reverted, you should instead have waited for discussion to resolve here, especially given that there appears to be agreement that the changes were appropriate. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The new version is clearly superior as it puts all the software stuff together. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference to batch processing is software "stuff" and the reason that it is included on the leading paragraph (as well as Apple's code execution control) is that is of pivotal importance to the definition of Personal Computer. Considering the confusion that's evident even on the iPad discussion above, it is important that next to an old example of non-personal computer paradigm a modern one should be added. A contrasting example is often the best way in defining a term, eg. see Representative democracy Vyx (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That point is made in the software section at the bottom of the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

First usage / coinage of "personal computer" ?

Who is the first person to actually use the term "personal computer", and is a cite available?

I was just reading InfoWorld Feb 18, 1980, and see this on page 5:

The Six Laws of Micros: A Guide for the Unwary, by Jim Edlin, Micros are neither home computers nor small business computers. They are personal computers, capable, of performing both duties.

Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=aj4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PT4

DMahalko (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at History of personal computers? The first citation that Wikischolarship has turned up is from 1962. This is far enough back in the history of computers that I venture to speculate the idea of a whole computer dedicated to one person was pure SF before that time. The problem with separating the history section is that then nobody reads the "History of <foo>" article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Sphere 1" info removed

I've removed the claim about the Sphere 1 being the first personal computer—and indeed, any reference to it at all. There were no citations in this article regarding the device, and only one reference within its own article (besides a link to the company's own website) which in no way suggests that it was the first PC. What the article actually said was:

"This is an exciting time in the microprocessor business with systems getting going just about every month. The Sphere, MITS and SWTP systems are just the vanguard of what is coming."

The next year, the journalist wrote a brief followup:

"When I visited Sphere back in August 1975 they were expected to ship hardware in a few weeks and were certain they would have BASIC available for it in the same time slot. I think the hardware finally got out in about 4 months (complete systems, I mean) and to my knowledge they have not yet shipped BASIC in any good usable form."

--Xiaphias (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File:O2xda2i.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:O2xda2i.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Inconsistency across Languages

Wtshymanski, the justification for removing my contribution to history of PC on Olivetti sounds very POV. I am sure you could elaborate further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.232.5 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And? Programmable calculators have a long and interesting history of their own, I'm sure, but what has that to do with personal computers? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your justification for discarding my contribution to the history of PC is not clear to me. Can you elaborate further. In the Italian version of the same page (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer), wikipedia seems to agree with me. Do wikipedia standards differ according to the language in which an entry is written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.0.195 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reference for Wikipedia. I can't read Italian and I don't edit the Italian Wikipedia. There's no need to rehash the history of programmable calculators when discussing personal computers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if consistency is not a priority for wikipedia any information it contains can be either true or false. Inconsistency should be seen as an enemy as much as a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.0.195 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

But why should you care? Wikipedia watchdogs focus more on their veto power than the quality of product they look after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.215.155 (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative?

I think "leathal blow" is a bit of hyperbole; Intel seems to still make a good buck. And I guess AMD is an alternative to Intel in the sense that Pepsi is an alternative to Coke - but there may be other beverages. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a lethal blow to the company, of course. But until recently Intel had complete control over the ISA in all personal computers. When Itanium failed in that market, and AMD64 succeeded, Intel had to admit defeat and make AMD64-compatible chips (renaming its implementation Intel 64). Intel lost its monopoly on PC architectures, and now has to share it with at least AMD.

You can include other alternatives if you want. What bothered me was this: "Since the 1980s, Microsoft and Intel have dominated much of the personal computer market, first with MS-DOS and then with the Wintel platform. Alternatives include Apple's Mac OS X and the open-source Linux OSes." It says Microsoft and Intel dominate the market, and then only gives alternatives to Microsoft. Maybe you could change it in a better way, as I don't think my version is that good either. --FrederikVds (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-05-29 11-00-54 167.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2011-05-29 11-00-54 167.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:ASUS I.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ASUS I.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Three Non-free files on this article

I've removed the following non-free files from this article:

My reasons for doing so are this:

All three images are used in a decorative fashion. It might be appropriate to include all three images on an article with sourced discussion regarding differences in these three operating systems, but here that is not happening.
In no case are the images described in the prose of the article. This is a failure of WP:NFCC #8. With or without the images, the article reads the same and no understanding is lost.
All three images are used elsewhere. If a reader must learn more of the look and feel of a given operating system, they can go to that operating system's main article page.
There are considerably more operating systems than those listed on this article, in fact probably dozens more. We do not need an image of every operating system's interface in order to be a complete article.
The purposes of use are exceptionally weak ("To ilustrate", "To show", "to graphically show"). Such generic rationales could be used to justify the existence of any fair use image anywhere on the project. This is a failure of WP:NFCC #10c.

Non-free content must be strongly justified. We can't just slap a rationale on it, and say it's ok to use it. There has to be a strong reason why we must use it in order to be encyclopedic. That is clearly not the case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaming Computer Sub-section

The gaming computer subsection is in need of a revamp by someone knowledgeable on the topic. It seems to be written as a personal opinion article, and is rather low quality. Could someone confident with their writing abilities and familiar with the subject please take a look? HMman (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Images

There are too many images of PC compatibles (derived from the IBM PC). Please note that personal computer is a general name for a desktop computer, so it just doesn't refer to a typical Windows (or even Linux) PC. Apple should be covered in the images as well as older desktop computers from the '70s, '80s and '90s which had their own architectures and operating systems. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Acer Aspire 8920 Gemstone by Georgy.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Acer Aspire 8920 Gemstone by Georgy.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:ASUS Win dev.....jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ASUS Win dev.....jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation is no longer valid

Footnote 24 ^ Tablets, smartphones to outsell PCs http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210/tc_afp/itinternettelecomequipmentmobileconsumerproduct is a dead link Jdrudolp (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)