Talk:Personal computer

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lchollingsworth (article contribs).

An iPad is not a personal computer

I like the distinction between "personal computer" and "embedded media appliance". You can no more write your own software for an iPad than you can hack the controller on your microwave oven ( it would probably be easier to get documentation for the average microwave oven controller); an iPad (and it's ilk) is pretty much an appliance for running stuff sanctioned by the manufacturer and is in no sense a general purpose personally programmable device. You can buy a lot of different wax cylinders for your Victrola, but you're not really making music. I think we need to observe this key difference in the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you download the SDK from Apple you can write your own software for an iPad, you just can't do so on the device itself. Though if the difference can be explained sensibly I don't object. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could say "you can develop software for the device on the device" would that be clear enough? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't run your own software for an iPad unless you pay Apple first. And you can't publish your own software for the iPad to more than 100 users unless you get Apple's approval and you surrender 30% of your sales revenue. An iPad is not a personal computer -- Wtshymanski is correct. Vyx (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all you can write web apps for the iPad on the iPad, so this is flat out inaccurate. It also seems laughable that jail-breaking an iPad would suddenly transform it into a "personal computer" because I can get software all over the place and write apps for it on it. Next, even if the contention was true that is just a silly definition -- over 99% of PC users never write a piece of software for anything. It's pretty clear this definition was cherry picked to exclude the iPad and despite the fact that a number of programmers have latched onto this niche definition it has little bearing on the popular meaning of the word "PC". Did cars stop being cars when you had to buy the parts from Toyota? It used to be that "PCs" were 99% used by programmers and being a "personally programmable device" might have made more sense as the definition. This is no longer the reality we live in. Virtually all "PCs" now are used by non-programmers and like it or not, the ability to personally program the device is no longer integral to the "PC" definition. Let me give you an example: a large percentage of corporate machines are locked down and the user has no ability to publish software or compile code from the terminal -- they can run a limited number of predetermined applications The Company has allowed them to. Is it still a PC? Unquestionably. Like it or not so is the iPad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.252.10 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The iPad is referred to as a PC all over Wikipedia, for the sake of consistency, it should be considered a PC here too. There are about a million other reasons, but it just seems like this has been hashed out already, and it's a PC. --Okboyfriend (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well its "personal" (for the use of a single person at a time), and its a "computer" (a computing device, with a CPU, memory, storage, I/O devices, and replaceable/installable software {not an embedded device, like a router}) , so yes its a "personal computer" when you use "personal"+"computer", as a definition, but a PC (a desktop computer, probably running Windows, but maybe OS X or Linux) has many factors that make it uniquely a "personal computer" (A.K.A. PC), factors which the iPad is missing, if you use these factors to determine whether something is a "Personal computer/PC" then the iPad doesn't comply. So its really what your definition of "personal computer" is, that determines whether the iPad is one, and believe me, the decision (in general) isn't out yet. You will find almost as many opinions that say it isn't as opinions that say it is, on the Internet, precisely because there is no "official" definition of what a "personal computer" is. Mahjongg (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the distinction too. However as it stood it is a bit of pontificating that really doesn't belong in the lede, not unless there is something in the article about it. The (formerly) preceding sentence comparing PCs with mainframe batch and timesharing environments doesn't really belong in the lede either, for the same reason. I could definitely see putting a contrast with batch and timesharing in the "History" section. Not sure where the comparison with approved-software-only devices would go, unless a new section entitled "Evolution" or something like that was added. Jeh (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"If someone can run arbitrary code on your computer without your permission, it isn't your computer any more." I think it's very important to exclude appliances that keep the user out of the inner workings out of the personal computer category - even the most benighted of Windows users has a level of control over the guts of the machine that is forever locked out of the "Ipad experience". This should be expanded upon, not swept away. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"If someone can run arbitrary code on your computer without your permission", You mean when you have a Virus/Trojan/rootkit on your PC? LOL. With this definition no PC is safe from becoming "not a PC" overnight. Mahjongg (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Further to your redacted comment on system updates: To me this has always looked like a tailor-made express virus delivery system; once someone hijacks system update, there will be no need for other ways of spreading viruses. Oh for the days of boot-sector viruses on 360 K flopppies...a simpler era. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

These "references" for the App Store iPad thing in the lede should support that definition of PC, but they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okboyfriend (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My cheapy net-book can surf, play DVDs, read .PDF files, view Flash animations....and also do spreadsheets or talk to my GPS, program in Java as well as run my vintage Turbo Pascal Version 5 programming environment in a DOS shell, even GW BASIC! (And if I was motivated, I could run it under MS DOS or Linux as well as Windows). I can mess with the guts, even if I do wind up shooting myself in the foot. It's a general purpose machine - somewhere we explain that a personal computer is a general-purpose machine, as opposed to an "APP-liance" like a video game console, or iPad. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal: A personal computer is general-purpose machine that is intended for use by a majority of consumers. General-purpose does not necessarily cover niche uses that a grand majority of personal computer users do not even recognize, such as "run[ning] my vintage Turbo Pascal Version 5 programming environment in a DOS shell." When evaluating the general-purpose tasks that a grand majority of traditional personal computers use, it basically comes down to: checking/writing email, web browsing, watching/listening video/music, playing games, word processing, and other similar basic tasks. Unfortunately for niche enthusiasts, these general-purpose tasks are not only available on the iPad, but also the the reasons for its astronomical growth since it first launched. A majority of traditional personal computer owners do not use their personal computers for the niche tasks outlined here. According to sales numbers if the iPad was considered a traditional computer, it would have already been the most widely sold personal computer in Q4 2012. Niche enthusiasts unfortunately feign ignorance in realizing that an increasing number of consumers are choosing a tablet over a traditional personal computer. Personal computers will continue to prevail in the coming decade with consumers, unfortunately not in the way some niche enthusiasts here would like to predict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.226.102 (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not a PC Starguy849 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The definition of "personal computer" is certainly elusive. The name implies a computer designed for personal use. Any limitations of that use should be verifiable with a reliable source. Sam Tomato (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the real problem with "PC vs. personal computer" comparison?

Hi.

Normally, I am not irritated when I write a talk page thread but this time I am a bit. Ever since I added the § "Personal computer" vs. "PC" section to the article, this section has met with heavy-handed treatment from a couple of editors. And I don't know why. I am fully aware that in a dispute, one sticks to WP:BRD and the same person does not revert twice. However, I am also fully aware that in case of vandalism (especially content removal), one reverts the vandal and he is not welcome. The treatment of this section this time is not like a dispute this time; only the involved editor are people whom I am wiser to commit the folly of calling them vandals. They are not; yet, their treatment is unduly heavy-handed without any apparent reason:

I am here to request a reasonable discussion: It is provable with sources that the world out there uses "PC" in a sense that is far stricter than "a general-purpose computer, whose size, capabilities and original sale price makes it useful for individuals". According to what policy must Wikipedia suppress this fact and even not write a single sentence about it?

I asking users who were directly involved in this to join: Wtshymanski, ViperSnake151 and Lonaowna. I am also asking people knowledgeable in this field to also join in: Dsimic, Jeh, FleetCommand, Andy Dingley and Guy Harris. It would be pleasure to have your input here.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A prolific blocked sock, so prolific that they've already spawned three SPIs (Dhdhdhdffx, Morcohen2, Kaufmanitay), has been busy here and at several similar articles. They have been dumping chunks of unsourced, illiterate nonsense. When reverted, they bring it straight back. Some of this (at best) has been trite and self-evident. Much has been simply wrong, often the complete opposite of the truth. Sometimes, when reverted, they edit the new version to approximate reality a little more closely. On occasion, after a few iterations of this, they've even managed to avoid obvious gross error altogether. It is not however a useful or acceptable way to edit.

This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It is also the encyclopedia where everyone who chooses to edit has to follow a few basic rules too: WP:COMPETENCE, WP:V and not sockpuppeting, most obviously. They fail to do that much, they fail to discuss any reversion, they create new accounts several times a day. Enough.

At present, they're blocked. Not "their account" is blocked, but they are blocked, in all their incarnations. So blanket rollbacks per WP:DENY are entirely appropriate. It's not as if they're adding anything worth having.

If you should feel the urge to comb through the sweetcorn for that one elusive nugget of gold, then feel free to add it yourself, per WP:EVADE. Also expect to be required to demonstrate WP:V for it. I have yet to see anything from this source that suggests the effort would be anywhere near worthwhile. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you mean the other edits. In which case you and I are just Wrong, and Wtshymanski is (as always) setting us to rights, because He Knows Best. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't think a whole paragraph of flabby prose, windily pontificating on brand name distinctions, complete with links to obscure philosophy and linguistic topics, is perhaps in need of a rewrite? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder, do we go on and on about dead ad campaigns for bubbly brown liquids in the article about "kola nuts" ? Do we care about the differences between Royal Crown Cola and Dr. Pepper when discussing carbonated water? The article is about "personal computers" in the general sense, we can leave the obsessive details discussion of IBM and Apple marketing to a more appropriate place. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, W., you don't like it, but I don't see that it does any harm. The ad campaign references do help establish that "PC" meaning "IBM or compatible PC" is a term widely accepted by the industry, including the PC's major competitor. I even have a reference to add... I'm searching for it. Jeh (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Coke would wish for such fanatical devotion to its brands as the personal computer field has. Do we really need an observation in an encyclopedia article that there's more than one brand name for anything? I haven't checked yet, but I don't think Wikipedia goes on about, oh, say, the different brands of SUVs or cars. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your first sentence amounts to ridicule; your stooping to such does not really argue well for your belief in the strength of your position. And part of the point is that "PC" isn't a brand, not of the "IBM Personal Computer" anyway. It is useful to establish that "personal computer" is a generic term while "PC", in practice though not officially, refers to Wintel machines. There is concern over related points: I believe that recently you were arguing strenuously about the definition of "hobbyist computer" or "home computer" as it might apply to the Heath H11? DEC used to claim that the PDP-8 was the first "personal computer". Hm?

What you call "flabby", I've noticed, seems to be anything other than subject, verb, object. Granted this is nicely terse and compact and easy to understand on a per-sentence basis. It is also mind-numbing to read sentence after sentence like that.

"Goes on"? You're talking about four well-referenced sentences in an article of around 15,000 words. After your edit it was two sentences, completely unreferenced, the second one distinctly not non-flabby. It was better before you edited it. Jeh (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to save too much of the original content. I tried nuking the whole redundant paragraph but that wasn't tolerated. I'm not impressed at the "references". --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(rp'ing to your edit comment) Yes, it's about you, because afaict the only objections you have derive from your personal taste; I've yet to see an objectively defensible reason for deletion here. "I just don't like it" is not sufficient. One change I would make is to move it much earlier, likely as a subsection of "History". Or maybe "Types". Jeh (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to see some expansion of this section though. Specifically:

What's the etymlogy of "PC" before the 5150 State and how widely used was it? Did machines like the Sirius / Victor 9000 use it? Earlier CP/M boxes? What was the split between "personal computer" and "PC" as an initialism?

How did this change after IBM? How rapidly did its use for non-5150 machines fall away? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As best as I recall, the term "personal computer" was seldom used. I am confident that advertisements in magazines and such prior to the IBM PC used the term "microcomputer". I have a copy of the book "The Art of C Programming" published 1987 by Springer-Verlag, ISBN 0387963828, and in page 1 it says "a Commodore 64, Macintosh, IBM PC or any of the other home micros (or personal computers as the upmarket salesmen prefer to call them)". So in 1987 the term "personal computer" was new enough that it was still being resisted. Sam Tomato (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

BYTE magazine, July 1979, page 11 shows a "Compucolor" ad with the copy "I've finally found a personal computer I respect." So the usage was common enough in 1979 that copywriters didn't feel the need to explain the term. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I've reviewed about a hundred revisions of this article and read it carefully (what's also visible by numerous cleanups I've performed while reading). With all that in mind, and based on what's presented in the Personal computer § "Personal computer" vs. "PC" section, I'd say that the content itself is perfectly fine but it should be dissolved into another section; Personal computer § History might be a good destination.

The same should apply to the Personal computer § PC gaming section, which might be dissolved into Personal computer § Applications. Dissolving these two short sections would also benefit the overall layout of the article, which is IMHO pretty nicely written and laid out. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly favour keeping the naming issue out of any broader "history" section. There are two history issues here, one about "personal computers" (the computers that people buy to put on their desks), another about the IBM 5150 PC itself (why IBM chose the x86 architecture, single speed disks, a half-empty case, MS-DOS etc). Even coverage of that history has already run into the same dichotomy, so we have to address it in a clear fashion that's findable before diving deeper into the two histories. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I also favor a separate section but I wouldn't mind making it a subsection of history.

I think there are additional things to do, after what ViperSnake151 said above. First, the article must stop using the word "PC" alone (excluding compound names such as "Pocket PC" or "IBM PC") to refer to personal computers. Second, lead must indicate the distinction. And third, which I think is uncontroversial, the duplicate citation in the lead must be merged into their originals in § "Personal computer" vs. "PC".

Any comments on this?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some kind of a compromise could be to subsection the Personal computer § History section further, as it's quite hard to read in its current form? In all that content from the Personal computer § "Personal computer" vs. "PC" section might be moved around. Speaking of using "PC" as an acronym, I agree that "personal computer" should be used instead whenever it doesn't refer to what "PC" usually stands for. Also, the lead section should have a more clear explanation of what "PC" usually stands for, in its opening sentence; the explanation is already in its fourth paragraph, but that might be a bit too late. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

PC

[Expunged] - Starguy849 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Zachary.Underwood (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider merging this with computer

In my personal opinion I don't see too much of a difference between computer and personal computer it might be worth merging these two articles into one article. They are after all the same thing essentially, although computer is slightly more ambiguous. Zachary.Underwood (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose If there is consensus that there isn't much difference then we probably need to improve the articles so the difference is more apparent, not merge them. Jeh (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty big difference, and a huge difference in their history. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Makes me wonder if proponent has looked at the two articles. Personal computer deserves special treatment in its own article. This would overwhelm the other. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The world existed before 1981. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Declining global PC sales

I'm a little surprised that more recent data on declining global PC sales aren't being added to the article. 2017 IDC data (-4.3%) and 2017 Gartner data (-3.3%) are available. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Compared to smartphone and other mobile device sales, it appears that computing power is going mobile.

References

Mobile can't replace applications with high hardware requirements yet such as cutting edge games with high specifications required. Not to mention plenty of genres of PC games cant be played comfortably or even effectively on mobile. Xanikk999 (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Personal computer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121124182610/http://iprinet.kiev.ua/gf/mir.htm to http://www.iprinet.kiev.ua/gf/mir.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9111341
• Added archive https://archive.is/20030210111221/http://www03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_1.html to http://www03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214131822/http://www.sinclairzx.com/about-us.html to http://www.sinclairzx.com/about-us.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606003537/http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html to http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226214405/https://mr.pricegrabber.com/Netbook_Trends_and_SolidState_Technology_January_2009_CBR.pdf to https://mr.pricegrabber.com/Netbook_Trends_and_SolidState_Technology_January_2009_CBR.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104211518/http://www.linux.org/info/index.html to http://www.linux.org/info/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Improving an existing Wikipedia article

Update on article improvements-

Wikipedia article- Personal Computer

6Th paragraph under the History section- I added a reliable reference for a reliable x86 definition in the paragraph here, reference [1]-

By the early 1970s, people in academic or research institutions had the opportunity for single-person use of a computer system in interactive mode for extended durations, although these systems would still have been too expensive to be owned by a single person. Early personal computers—generally called microcomputers—were often sold in a kit form and in limited volumes, and were of interest mostly to hobbyists and technicians. Minimal programming was done with toggle switches to enter instructions, and output was provided by front panel lamps. Practical use required adding peripherals such as keyboards, computer displays, disk drives, and printers. Micral N was the earliest commercial, non-kit microcomputer based on a microprocessor, the Intel 8008. It was built starting in 1972, and few hundred units were sold. This had been preceded by the Datapoint 2200 in 1970, for which the Intel 8008 had been commissioned, though not accepted for use. The CPU design implemented in the Datapoint 2200 became the basis for x86 architecture[1] used in the original IBM PC and its descendants.[2]

This is the reference- Baumann, A. (2017). Hardware is the new Software. Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), 132-137. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/baumann-hotos17.pdf

Next, I re-wrote this section, so it did not sound like it was selling products for IBM and Apple-

The original said-

IBM PC compatible computers use an x86-compatible microprocessor, manufactured by Intel, AMD, VIA Technologies or Transmeta. Apple Macintosh computers were initially built with the Motorola 680x0 family of processors, then switched to the PowerPC series; in 2006, they switched to x86-compatible processors made by Intel.

My unbiased, non-promotional re-written version-

A large number of computers today are suited to run an x86-compatible microprocessor manufactured by Intel, AMD, or VIA Technologies.

Here is the Wikipedia version from the website-

Original version-

Processor

The central processing unit (CPU) is a part of a computer that executes instructions of a software program. In newer PCs, the CPU contains over a million transistors in one integrated circuit chip called the microprocessor. In most cases, the processor plugs directly into the motherboard. The processor chip may have a heat sink and a fan attached for cooling. IBM PC compatible computers use an x86-compatible microprocessor, manufactured by Intel, AMD, VIA Technologies or Transmeta. Apple Macintosh computers were initially built with the Motorola 680x0 family of processors, then switched to the PowerPC series; in 2006, they switched to x86-compatible processors made by Intel.

My re-written version-

The central processing unit (CPU) is a part of a computer that executes instructions of a software program. In newer PCs, the CPU contains over a million transistors in one integrated circuit chip called the microprocessor. In most cases, the processor plugs directly into the motherboard. The processor chip may have a heat sink and a fan attached for cooling. A large number of computers today[1] are suited to run an x86-compatible microprocessor[2] manufactured by Intel, AMD, or VIA Technologies.

References added/used Baumann, A. (2017). Hardware is the new Software. Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), 132-137. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/baumann-hotos17.pdf Weidendorfer J. (2011) Intel Core Microarchitecture, x86 Processor Family. In: Padua D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing. Springer, Boston, MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lchollingsworth (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Article chosen for evaluation and improvements- Personal computer The dialogue box for this article mentions that it needs additional citations for verification. My plan is to review the article and post any additional citations required in their appropriate place. In particular I will concentrate on the Applications section as it is in dire need of citations that go to reliable sources. The article also requires some reorganization. On the talk page for this article the to-do- list mentions that it needs the x86-compatible microprocessor material in the Processor section to be reviewed for accuracy, and to remove the inappropriate text included. I will review this section and double check the references for reliability and possibly remove what is not applicable to the articles topic.

Bibliography I will use for article improvements

1. HSIAO, H., et al. International Journal of High Speed Computing, vol. 10, no. 04, 1999, pp. 427-446, eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=4&sid=a12d6134-3a1b-483d-b826-3236019ac060%40sessionmgr4007. Accessed 4 Apr. 2018.

2. Anjum, M., & Budgen, D. (2017). PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0176936. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176936

3. Baumann, A. (2016). Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, 16, 1-8. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/baumann-hotos17.pdf

4. Weik M.H. (2000) software system. In: . Springer, Boston, MA

5. Kinser, J. M. (2015). . San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

6. Garrison, B. (1999). . World Communication, 28(4), 105-108. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=4e359906-f36c-4a94-ad9d-4da1a6151d2b%40sessionmgr4006

Lchollingsworth (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Week 8 & 9- Continuing article edits and improvements for Personal Computer

This week I chose to work on something that was identified in Editing Wikipedia as suggested from the coursework this week at Wikiedu.org. A checklist for Wikipedia articles on page 15 suggest on one line to make links between Wikipedia articles to the one I am working on improving. I did this by linking 4 different Wikipedia articles to the Personal Computer article.

First, I linked the articles,

History of Computing- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing, and,

Firmware- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware,

then I linked the articles,

Mobile Computing- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_computing, and,

Stan Frankel- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Frankel. Lchollingsworth (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

References

That's pretty odd way to list refs. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful. The sales figures end with 2010, which makes them quite old. In addition that paragraph is desparate for conversion to a graph. Nick Beeson (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Week 9- Continuing writing improvements for Personal Computer

Week 9- Continuing writing improvements for Personal Computer This week I rewrote a section of the Personal Computer article. Below is the original work from the article- Desktop computer[edit]

Main article: Desktop computer

A Dell OptiPlex desktop computer

Prior to the widespread usage of PCs, a computer that could fit on a desk was remarkably small, leading to the "desktop" nomenclature. More recently, the phrase usually indicates a particular style of computer case. Desktop computers come in a variety of styles ranging from large vertical tower cases to small models which can be tucked behind an LCD monitor. In this sense, the term "desktop" refers specifically to a horizontally oriented case, usually intended to have the display screen placed on top to save desk space. Most desktop computers have an external display screen and an external keyboard, which are typically plugged into the computer case.

This is the rewritten work, the 2nd paragraph- (I added links in the part I rewrote) Desktop computer[edit]

Main article: Desktop computer

A Dell OptiPlex desktop computer

Prior to the widespread usage of PCs, a computer that could fit on a desk was remarkably small, leading to the "desktop" nomenclature. More recently, the phrase usually indicates a particular style of computer case. Desktop computers come in a variety of styles ranging from large vertical tower cases to small models which can be tucked behind an LCD monitor.

The term "desktop" typically refers to a computer with a vertically aligned computer case that holds the systems hardware components such as the motherboard, processor chip, other internal operating parts. Desktop computers have an external monitor with a display screen and an external keyboard, which are plugged into USB ports on the back of the computer case. Desktop computers are popular for home and business computing applications as they allow the user to have multiple monitors, allowing them to perform work on each one simultaneously.Lchollingsworth (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Other countries

This is a one sided view of the pc world and ignores the work done by European countries in particular Egoli (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)