Talk:Plug and play

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plug and play article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Plug and Play Talk[edit]

Plug and Play technologies has been around in the military and VME manufactures on the west coast. Hot Swap, PnP, Changing on the Fly and etc... have been around since the late 1970's. It was one of reasons why Windows 95 was so successful. The other reason is the GUI.

the concept vs the brand[edit]

It seems a lot of the issues with this article (NPOV, Microsoft vs Apple, hotpluggability) stem from confusion over the concept of "plug and play" and the specific technology (an add-on to the ISA bus) marketed as Plug N Play by Intel, Microsoft, and their cohort.

We should be able to improve the article a lot if we distinguish.

--Nil0lab 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took a quick hack at it. plug-and-play now is about the concept, and should be expanded to include a non-Microsoft-centric history. Plug-And-Play is about the named Intel/Microsoft ISA-add-on brand. I also took off the accuracy tag since I think I've addressed the accuracy issues with this split- let's get to adding references and filling out this article properly, folks! --Nil0lab 18:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the brand should be renamed as "ISA Plug-And-Play". I will proceed if no one disagrees. 77.48.19.55 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compatible devices list[edit]

Is this list necessary at all? What purpose does it serve? From my understanding, every type of hardware device (except for the motherboard, RAM, and CPU, for obvious reasons) can be PnP-compatible if designed so. --Chris (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the list to the new Microsoft-Intel-centric article since it seemed to me to be fairly Wintel specific --Nil0lab 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Is this Wikipedia or Slashdot??? Please keep the anti-Microsoft comments where they belong (i.e. Criticism of microsoft). --Crabbyass 12:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the Microsoft-centric stuff to the new article --Nil0lab 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch![edit]

I'm amazed that Mac users aren't tearing down the walls to correct this article. Really.

"Therefore, the computer must be turned off before installing a PnP device into an expansion slot." No, not the way I understand Plug and Play. In the Mac world, users had Plug and Play devices while Microsoft was still trying to figure out how to write Windows OS. On Macs one just plugged in the device, and there it was; you were ready to go. Hence the term. (I hope there's a real Mac user or two reading over my shoulder here. I need to be corrected if I'm wrong.) It was one of the features Apple could use to thumb their noses at MS.

"Hot swapping is a similar feature that allows adding and removing devices while the computer is on." I don't think this sentence is pertinent.

"The term Plug and Play is most associated with Microsoft, who started using it in reference to their Windows 95 product." Depends on who's reading this. If one's experience with computers goes back more than five years, and you've been exposed to more than one operating system, you're gonna associate Plug and Play with Macs. I suggest this sentence be neutralized.

"Other operating systems (OSs), such as Mac OS, had already supported such features for some time (under various names), but the term gradually became universal over time." I first heard the term Plug and Play associated with Macs using their pre-Unix-based OS. I'm surprised to hear that other operating systems supported it. Which ones and when? And what names were they using? Please document, I'd like to know.

"At the time of its initial offering by Microsoft, it was criticized by some as not being 'proven' technology, which did not always work as it should." "It" was being criticized by Windows OS users. Microsoft was still learning how to do Plug and Play, but they HAD to put something out in the field because this was one of Mac OS's strengths. MS is a good marketing company. "It" had certainly been proven in the Mac world, and Windows OS had a big hole in its functionality without it, however flawed.

"Detractors at the time of the earliest offering spoofed the functionality as 'plug and pray' because 'one never knew if in fact the thing would work.'" Funny, but these were detractors of the Microsoft's Windows OS. I like a good joke too, but put this one in context. Like "Detractors of Microsoft's earliest offering of Plug and Play spoofed..."

--AlvinMGO 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no disagreements with your points in many months I took it upon myself to be bold and move the branded stuff to a new page about the specific ISA-add-on technology sold under the capitalized Plug And Play brand. --Nil0lab

Eh??[edit]

Whoever wrote that article has lost the plot completely. Plug and Play's main capability was the removal of jumpers and DIP switches on expansion boards (that select address, IRQ, etc.) That's why it's plug and play. It has nothing to do with drivers. And as for macs being there first, as the two systems are not even remotely comparable when it comes to range and type of hardware available for upgrades, especially at the time of PnP first arriving, it's a moot point entirely. But nice try :) 82.35.107.44 17:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur about Plug And Play but not about plug and play. I.e. the branded term, not the pre-existing generic term. See if my corrections meet with your approval. --Nil0lab 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub[edit]

This article is short enough to be a stub. Please add a suitable stub class tag. DFH 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Only the first two sentences actually talk about PnP. The rest is about how things used to be done - which is good to include but where is the content about PnP itself?? Gechurch (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing the term PnP is not easy. This article is a compomise between the factual concept and the term MS/Intel introduced. While "Plug and Play" is used to describe this concept as well, given the link, it's not easy to find straight history or completely unique articles on the topic. However, I will work on it when I have time, and I have no problems with the unsourced history section being removed for the time being. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenated Title[edit]

All three of the definitions which accurately cover the concept without being directly linked to "PnP", as in the specific ISA technology, use the term "Plug and Play" wihtout hyphens. Can anyone provide a good reference as to the hyphenated name, for the general concept, or should the page be renamed? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm going to go through with it then, I can't find any strong sources (ones that differentiate the concept from the MS Spec) that use hyphens, so it seems fair. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a blog post[edit]

This whole article reads like someone's personal blog. The story from the dark past to the bright present is coherent, but most certainly not neutral or suitable for Wikipedia. The section on Windows 95 in particular is very opinionated. 94.195.196.180 (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this needs disambiguation[edit]

There are three things that should be listed on a new disambiguation page.

This plug & play page, the other one, and some link to the use of the term in chemical engineering. I don't know how to make a disambiguation page but I'm sure some of you more experienced wikipaedians can deal with it! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.20.227 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]