Talk:National Semiconductor

Fair use rationale for Image:National Semiconductor logo.gif

Image:National Semiconductor logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Advertisment

I don't know how these things are marked, but the article is plain advert (all superlatives and no information). Grch. If anyone knows, please scrap it or fix it or whatever.

-- Mornfall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.39.6 (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Phew!

Now that I've filled the article with facts (or what I hope are facts) and removed the stub notice, could someone come insert references. Otherwise, be patient enuf to wait another two months while I take a break. Do you know you could use http://findarticles.com to look for archaic print issues of EDN or Electronic News? You could also use New York Times archives query. SEMI has an article on Interview with Ed Pausa.

Someone would be kind enuf to place a history of strategic products. I also suggest a history of logo and slogan changes.

To solve the logo ownership/licence problem, use your picture editor to to place a visible translucent "SPECIMEN" diagonally across the logo.

There are location closures which have no documentation. The manufacturing locations in Hong Kong and Bandung are closed. There seems to have been a plant somewhere in South America, which is now closed.

National was also indicted in US Federal govt lawsuits against defence contractors in 1984 during the exemplary $10000 toilet seat public outcry of the Reagan years. Someone could find the documentation and describe it in the article.

Hence Jewish Anderstein (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Disposed off vs Disposed of

Reverted grammatical changes based on the following reasoning:

The company disposed OFF their unwanted goods. vs The company was disposed OF their unwanted goods.

87.69.182.160 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fate

Could someone add "Fate" to the Infobox and let people know what happened to the company, i know it's in the article itself but a lot of these companies have a "Fate" parameter in the infobox which i think is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.208.49 (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fairchild Semiconductor affiliation with National Semiconductor

Firstly, well done editor of the timeline for National's manufacturing highlights.

It confirms my experience. Please allow me to explain for those not minding me becoming a bit technical. I do electronics circuit designing and obtained a substantial number of National's CD40106 Schmitt trigger hex inverter IC chips. When I learned several years ago that National was getting out of logic IC manufacture, I was a bit concerned because the characteristics of the National-made chip were exceptional in many applications. In fact, CD40106 chips made by other companies were a bit disappointing in where the gate voltage trigger points were. The National chips were able to produce a good square wave using just a capacitor and resistor connected to a single gate (not considering normal power supply ancillary components), quite often a design advantage, which I believe National took special pains to ensure.

I had been somewhat lamenting the unavailability of the National CD40106 and very recently thoughts of the loss returned as I was building a circuit with a Fairchild CD40106 IC. It occurred to me that the Fairchild chip was like the National chip pertaining to gate trigger set points, and had the unusual ability to easily produce a good square wave signal with just a cap and resistor in the oscillator.

When I saw Fairchild's affiliation with National as depicted by the timeline, it confirmed my belief that the Fairchild chips were made using National's processes, at least, and possibly the very same equipment, further evidenced by the metal coating that had been on the discontinued National CD40106 chip legs also being on the Fairchild chips.

So, well done editor. I hope me getting a bit technical was OK here as well as me, in general, mentioning the correlation of my experience with the timeline. Dcebr (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

Redirect this page to Texas Instrument since Texas Instrument acquired National Semiconductor. Instead content should be put as part of Texas Instrument Article. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

|I'm undoing the redirect. NS has been an important player in the semiconductor industry for 40 years or so, and had its own corporate history distinct from TI. NS as a distinct entity may have ceased to exist, but that doesn't mean the WP article should just disappear into thin air.Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. National semiconductor is a company no longer notable and the content should be move to the main page Texas Instrument. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your position. Historical information remains relevant even if the company no longer exists. In this particular case, I was looking for some historical information on NS but ended up at the TI article which did not contain the info I was looking for, while the NS article does. Your line of reasoning may be valid for e.g. a startup that gets acquired by some large company before it manages to have significant impact by itself, but not for a company that has been a significant presence in its field for 40 years. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Any related history and information could be included in the main article. Being part of another article doesn't mean that it is not being informative. Thanks. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)