Talk:Personal computer

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

More obvious inclusion of OS X

Does anybody else feel that it should be made clear that despite Apple's desperate attempts to distance themselves from the "PC" name, that OS X is indeed a PC, and that "Mac vs PC" is not a valid statement? DanielDPeterson (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It may not be a valid statement when using the conventional meaning of PC, but for many people this has now become a valid statement. Microsoft even replied to the Mac vs PC ads by bringing out the "I'm a PC" ads. If enough people accept this distinction it becomes real. That is how language works. Leprecon (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I don't like it, but I think there probably should be a section to cover this phenomenon. The section would be called something like "More Restrictive Definitions of 'PC'". It would discuss the way that many people (possibly the majority?) may use "PC" to specifically refer to, well, Wintel? Or to any PC running a Microsoft OS? Or to any IBM compatible PC that isn't running an Apple OS? ("I'm a PC" is clearly a notable concept.) And, there are other more restrictive definitions too. I think some people might try to distinguish "laptop vs PC" - which we could probably describe as wrong (but still notable). Many people would at least exclude tablet devices, due to their form factor. And many would exclude devices that the user is not truly in control of like the i-pad (e.g. see above). (After all, it is not necessarily the case that a two-word term encompasses all possible combinations of the meanings of its constituent words; e.g. open shop, natural selection, green paper.) Open4D (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OS X is a set of CDs, and needs a computer to run. It's "Coke vs Pepsi" on the one hand, and "generic bubbly brown liquid" on the other. Any Macintosh is a personal computer, but only IBM makes IBM PCs (or used to). I don't think we need to dwell on the difference between brand identity vs. category of computer here; no-one expects to have to time-share on a Macintosh in some distant dionsaur pen, no matter how much they say it's not a "PC" - we know they mean "it's not running Microsoft Windows". People are a lot less fooled by the marketing nonsense than we edtors may believe. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:49, 21 April 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)

Important - there is a big error in the article - the first personal computer was an OLIVETTI (called Programma 101).

This personal computer, engineered between 1962 - 1964, was first presented on 04 october 1965 at New York by Olivetti. The name of the computer was "Programma 101". Hewlett Packard then bought 100 "Programma 101" and, after a while, they launche a PC which was identical to "Programma 101". Hewlett Packard was then accused of violating the "copyright" and had to pay Olivetti 900.000 US dollar for violation copyright.

Here you have some fresh news about that (there is also an HISTORY CHANNELL documentary on that): http://badinicreateam.blogspot.com/2011/05/olivetti-pc-pioneers-badini.html Regards

Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.112.200 (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Programma 101 was a programmable calculator, not a computer in the common sense, regardless of what the marketing materials state. Another feature of "personal" computers is affordability - adjusted for inflation the Programma 101 would cost $22,000 - a huge chunk of money for a souped up calculator. The PET 2001 and Apple II cost around $3000 in today's dollars. Jbmcb (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jbmcb, don't take it bad, but your objections are ridicolous. For any commercial products "affordability" is a nice feature, but certainly not an essential quality, and it is achieved when production becames large. Of course the price of the first computer was necessarily higher. I suggest to cover the lack of information in this nice article ( at the moment there is not even a link with programma 101!) --pma 11:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As user Jbmcb said, the main reason the world thinks that the Programma 101 wasn't the first personal computer, is not because of the cost, but simply because conventional wisdom says its not a computer. Although there is also a point where when its not really affordable by a normal person you cannot really say its a personal computer. That is why we differentiate between PC's and workstations, even though workstations also tend to be used by a single person at a time. According to WP:NOT wikipedia isn't a soapbox you can use to try to change the opinion of the world, instead wikipedia follows the opinion of the world. Even If you can find a reliable source that says "the Programma 101 was the worlds first PC", then we can put in that as an opinion, not as a fact. Mahjongg (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mahjongg, it seems to me that the main point here is not: deciding a definition of PC, in order to start this article from the first object that falls into that definition. (And, personally, I do not have an opinion about such a definition, unlike the users Antonio and Jbmcb, and you. Generally speaking, I'm just of the idea that a definition should go to the essence of the things; as to the "common wisdom", it's always relevant but never decisive - btw, I'm just back form a nice reading of this article).

Whether or not the P101 and other prototypes are PC's, is, of course, a matter of opinion. From a naive point of view, I imagine that those things can be named quite naturally computers, and certainly they are personal objects, as compared with the huge computers of the preceding generation, that needed a whole equipe of operators. On the other hand, I suppose that they are certainly not PC's, according to some other respectable and reasonable definition -one may observe that they had no display, nor microprocessors, and they couldn't be used for such an important thing as Wikipedia :) etc.

Rather, the information I'd like to get from an article like this is: what is the history of an object; what is its derivation from preceding forms and prototypes (however we agree to call them); when and by whom its main features have been introduced, and which are the important steps in evolution towards the current form. And, of course, all this should be written staying on facts. From this point of view, not mentioning the role of the P101 in the derivation of the current PC, and not mentioning the plagiarism of HP is somehow a lack of information. --pma 19:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice, but trying to convince me is irrelevant, the only relevant rule is "is there a reliable source to support the claim", if so it can go into wikipedia, (whether I like it or not, that is irrelevant, as long as there is a reliable source,and consensus) if not then not. Therefore if a reliable source makes the claim that the Programma 101 was the first personal computer, then such a claim can be mentioned in the article, otherwise not. Regardless what you or I write on this talk page. Also, do realize that extreme claims need extreme proof, and claiming that some obscure programmable calculator was "the first PC" is quite an extreme claim. That this claim isn't made in this article therefore isn't a "big error", but is "by design". As for " "common wisdom", it's always relevant but never decisive" if you think that applies to Wikipedia I'm afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works, wikipedia explicitly mirrors "common wisdom", even if its really "common stupidity", or even the Tyranny of the majority. Mahjongg (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I've got the impression you did not completely understand what I wrote. You may consider reading it again, but it's up to you; I do not want to abuse of your time and of your energies. But do not call something "obscure" just because you do not know what it is. This may sound impolite, and certainly not intelligent from your side (the latter event being more excusable, of course!). --pma 21:00, 12 April 2012 (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)

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:

• File:AmigaOS 4.1 Update 2.png
• File:Mac OSX Lion screen.png
• File:Windows 7.png

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)

computer seller compare prices with US prices

How do computer seller compare with US prices and other brands with similar specs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khitani (talk • contribs) 08:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction rewrite

the Introduction as it exists now is terrible. The writing is convoluted and haughty, there is not always a clear connection between ideas, and "commonly" and its synonyms occur too frequently. While in most passages these writing problems are the only issues and they just need to be shortened and clarified, the opening sentence is trickier.

” personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator. “

I think it might be enough to say that a PC is a general-purpose computer, and add maybe that it is intended for individual use. The stuff about "[...] mak[ing] it useful for individuals" is silly. Further information about it being ubiquitous today, used in home and work environments, acting as a hub for other devices, etc, could be provided in the next few phrases. I'm not sure how to tackle the last secriton about end-users with no intervening operator, though. Is it really that necessary to put it here? Is that a standard technical desription of a PC?theBOBbobato (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

People helping computers vs. computers helping people

I wanted to include this thought, but on further reflection, considered it perhaps to be inappropriate. When there were only a few true computers in the world, they were extremely costly, and no lack of tasks for them to perform. Computer operators, in particular, had to "help" the computer do what it did best -- stay as busy as possible with high-speed data processing. As the decades wore on, computers needed progressively less help to do what they were best suited for, but, even today, there are traces (at least!) of this legacy; certain details of their use are still remnants of the earliest era. In some ways, we still need to help computers when, ideally, we shouldn't have to. There's still lots of room for future developments (gaze-location detectors come to mind) that will continue to lessen the need for humans to help computers. I wouldn't mind some encouragement to include this into the main text.

(Off-topic: How come instruction sets are philosophically akin to organ stoplists?)

Regards,Nikevich 14:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Description of current tablets vague/inaccurate

"Recently, tablet PCs have been given operating systems normally used on phones, like Android or iOS. This gives them many of the same uses as a phone, but with more power and functionality."

What does "power and functionality" mean here? How does a tablet do anything more than a smartphone running the same OS? If we're talking about computational power, tablets and phones are very much in the same ballpark, with many phones having more powerful CPUs than many tablets. Since they run the same OS and the same applications and use the same types of peripherals, how does a tablet provide any additional functionality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.121.133 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Apple is not a PC

Please show RS that state Apple products are PCs, because if you search through google you can't find a single one. If multiple RS can not be shown to state that they are, it does not matter if Apple products fit the definition of a PC, to classify them as one is OR. Multiple RS can be found that state they are not.97.88.87.68 (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

PC stands for Personal computer. Its personal and its a computer. The fast majority of components found in a Mac can be found inside other computers. For example, Processor, RAM, CPU etc. There isnt much difference between a Mac and a Dell. --JetBlast (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Then show a RS that states that a Mac is a PC. Because all RS out there say it is not. To simply say that their is no difference and therefore a Mac is a PC is simply Original Research and not allowed. There is no common sense, you can only state what references state.97.85.211.124 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The article title here is not "PC", it is "Personal computer". A Google search for

"personal computer" Macintosh 

finds many pages that state that the Macintosh is a personal computer. One of them on my first page of search results is even from apple.com:

Jun 23, 2003 – Powered by the revolutionary PowerPC G5 processor designed by IBM and Apple, the Power Mac G5 is the first personal computer to utilize ...

Conversely, nowhere does this article state or imply that Macs are commonly referred to as "PC"s. I'm just not seeing a problem here. Jeh (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

outdated.

Hi everyone. Reading the opening paragraph on the PC article, i find it quite outdated. Todays computers are more or less used by businesses and home owners. Infact some businesses use lower grade computers than home owners. Prices for these machines have dropped so much in the last decade that we are all using high end pc's, with multi processors, high spec graphic cards and ram. Can this article be modified with the times of today? Also parts of it just don't make any sense, certainly in today's high tech world. --Jonhope123 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Computers

Bold textComputers Guys,Guys,Guys. PC are office computers. Yes,Tablets are computers,they have microprocessors, like computers. 24.129.70.212 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Daniel M ♥

CPU relevance?

"AMD provides the major alternative to Intel's central processing units." This seems highly irrelevant to the subject and especially in the paragraph where it is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.26.50 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies - Zuse

The first statment in this article's history section is historically inaccurate, misleading, and has no place in the article --

  ---  "The Z3 by German inventor Konrad Zuse from 1941 was the first working programmable, fully automatic computing machine. Thus, Zuse is often regarded as the inventor of the computer."

point 1 -- Vennevar Bush's work (and that of others) cleary pre-dates the Z3.

point 2 -- Very few knowledegable people consider Zuse the "inventor of the computer"

point 3 -- the Z3 was a calculator made from discarded electronic relays. It was not what we would consider "a computer".

point 4 -- most of the references to the Z3 are from the 1980's and later. There appears to be little or no original documentation and no existing physical components from the Z3. Everything we know about it appears to be retrospectively reconstructed. Is it embellished? We can't be sure.

It is safe to say Zuse was among the pioneers of early computing, and apprently developed many innovative ideas in comptuer architeture, but students who read this article are mislead into believing he is the monolithic "father of computing."

There is a clear pro-Zuse bias here. The article should be correced.

68.80.26.175 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Chuck Herbert cherbert@ccp.edu