Talk:Microcomputer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

This page should be fleshed out and rewritten with more stuff on the actual microcomputers, and maybe divided into tentative "generations" for consumer computers, a la:

1. gen.: hobbyist micros, like MITS Altair, IMSAI 8080 &c
2. gen.: home computers (a. 8-bit, b. 16-bit); 16-bit PCs?
3. gen.: ubiquitous 32-bit PC clones

In addition to consumer computers we mustn't forget workstations and industrial computers. Also, some coverage of microcomputers as the vital building blocks of embedded systems should naturally fit in here.

Wernher 21:45 21 Sep 2003 (CET DST)

The image of a Mac Book as a compact computer is misleading in this day and age. A picture of an OQO or other UMPC would be more appropriate. -psych787

I switched it to a Sony Vaio C1 Ultraportable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grock2 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Terminology 2 removed nonsense 3 Contradiction in definition section: Supposed origin of name "microcomputer" 3.1 Simplest and best solution; stick to the rules and provide references 4 Removed 4004 micropchip references 5 Best Selling Computer

[edit] Terminology

In the UK, at least, micro remained a very popular term well into the 1980s: the BBC Micro being a good example. Loganberry (Talk) 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that included the "micro" abbreviation in the first place, and I believe that what you say is pretty much what I wrote in the article anyway.

It's clear that use of the term has declined massively since the mid-1980s. The BBC Micro came out in 1981, and although it saw usage well into the 1990s, it (and more significantly, its abbreviated name) date back to the early eighties. I have not seen that much generic or "new" use of the term "micro" after that, and it's pretty much extinct nowadays (except when referring back to machines of that era.) Fourohfour 19:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not sure why I wrote that, to be honest, since looking at it again there isn't anything I could take issue with. Brain fade on my part, I suppose. Loganberry (Talk) 13:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed nonsense

removed two bits of nonsense from the introduction, (definition):

1. (sometimes shortened to micro)

2. in parentheses: (µP)

I've never heard the term "micro" for a microcomputer, and if you'd like to put it in, then please site any mainstream source using this abbreviation. Same goes for 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.2.135.123 (talk • contribs) .

Regarding (1); how about

this famous book

which inspired the BBC to create the "BBC Microcomputer", commonly referred to as the

BBC Micro

that's the

BBC Micro

in case you missed it. Or what about

Understanding the Micro, a book I had when I was a kid.

And here's another random search. The Dragon 32 was a micro produced during the 1980s. It didn't have "micro" in its name, but still turns up plenty of instances of that usage in my quick search.

Yeah, it *was* used a lot during the 1980s. Not so much now, but the article makes that clear. So I've reinstated it.

I don't know about the second name, but going by your blatant ignorance of the first, I wouldn't trust what *you* have and haven't heard of to have any special significance.

PS.... I think you meant "cite". Fourohfour 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This has since been "formally" included in the article via a footnote. Fourohfour 12:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-removed µP. It's not a common way of saying "microprocessor". Perhaps it was in the eighties, but not any more. If it is only of historical importance, then this information belongs in the microprocessor article, not in the microcomputer article. And most definitely not in the introduction. LarsHolmberg 11:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction in definition section: Supposed origin of name "microcomputer"

Regarding this paragraph, notably the bolded first section:-

The word Microcomputer traces back to the "Big Iron" revolution. It described the first computers that were "personal-scale". They were small enough to fit on a desk (rather than a server room) and cheap enough to be owned by an individual (instead of shared within a corporation, or school). The advent of PCs that could run applications like "VisiCalc" put microcomputers into the workplace, and started displacing the Mini- and Mainframes of the day. Now, personal-scale computing is so common that the "Micro-" part can be left off. Clusters of microcomputers are even stealing the large scale jobs from Mainframes.

Can someone confirm the accuracy of this definition of the word's origin? It seems to conflict with the meaning given in the opening paragraph.

Fourohfour 17:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the contradiction? The microprocessor was named after the microcomputer, after all ...--QEDquid 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states in the intro that "a microcomputer (sometimes shortened to micro[1]) is most often taken to mean a computer with a microprocessor (µP) as its CPU"; this is circular. Fourohfour 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A microcomputer is a computer based on a microprocessor. There were desktop minicomputers like the DataPoint that were never called microcomputers, because they weren't based on microprocessors. On the other hand, the earliest microcomputers looked a lot like minicomputers, but most people called them micros. Some of the minicomputer vendors built micro versions of their CPUs, like the MicroNova and the MicroVAX, they didn't try to call them minicomputers, for the most part they wanted to clearly distinguish between these micro versions and their 'real' computers. Since around the late 90's even "mainframes" are built from microprocessors, and so are technically microcomputers. Today, every computer made is technically a microcomputer. The manufacturers don't want you to think about the fact that the microprocessors in your superexpensive proprietary gigacomputer are pretty much the same as those used in certain video game consoles, so they try to make them look more like the old minis and superminis. 74s181 00:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm pretty sure that the microprocessor was not named after the microcomputer. The name 'microprocessor' comes from 'microchip' and 'central processing unit' or 'central processor'. 74s181 00:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input; although, with respect, I'm not sure that your changes to the article were to correct errors so much as simply normal edits. I could argue that the Intel 8080 (as in the Altair) *is* simply a close descendant of the 4004 (the "first" microprocessor, which *was* designed for a calculator), but I'll leave that unless I come across any Intel 4004-based machines. Fourohfour 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an Intel 4004 machine. It was called the Intellec-4 Intellec 8 and 4]

So can we now remove the unsightly Contradiction tag? Or is there more edits to be involved? --Freiddie 12:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting the fact that today everything is run by a microprocessor. There are definitely two lines of naming development - one, the machine (mainframe/mini/micro), the other the CPU - the direction of temporal causality may be hard to prove in hindsight, or may not be there at all. In any case, having more than one possible origin constitutes no contradiction so I suggest to take that useless banner out.--QEDquid 09:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's evidence that the term microcomputer was used prior to 'microprocessor' http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/MicroprocessorHistory.htm Alatari 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simplest and best solution; stick to the rules and provide references

Okay; let's keep this simple. 74s181 says one thing (that the "big iron" meaning is wrong), QEDquid says another (that both meanings are correct).

I'd be happy to accept either if strong evidence was presented for either side.

WP's insistence on references (and "no original research") was actually designed with situations like this in mind; it avoids long, neverending discussions about a given editor's credibility when "anyone" can edit an encyclopedia.

Thus, the simplest, and proper, and (most importantly of all) most effective solution is to get some reputable references from solid sources to back up one or both derivations. Fourohfour 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and we can only remove that "useless" banner unless we show that both derivations are valid, or remove one of them. I don't particularly like it, but it has to remain there until the issue is resolved. Fourohfour 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 4004 micropchip references

There isn't much reason for the history of the microprocessor here, outside of its use in microcomputers. There are also lots of complications in discussing chip bit rate-- for instance the first IBM PC had a 16 bit chip, but only an 8-bit bus, which was very significant at the time. The move from 32 bit to 64 bit chips in microcomputers is, I agree significant, but also more appropriate in a different or separate article. Embedded systems are not microcomputers. They can be technically termed "Computers," but so can calculators and even an abacus. I believe the term "workstation" was specifically coined to distinguish the product from what were called "microcomputers." Please consider whether what is described would better fit "computer," or "microprocessor" or another article Cuvtixo 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph-- The world's first commercial microprocessor was the Intel 4004, released on November 15, 1971. The 4004 processed 4 binary digits (bits) of data in parallel; in other words, it was a 4-bit processor. At the turn of the century 30 years later, microcomputers in embedded systems (built into home appliances, vehicles, and all sorts of equipment) most often are 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, or 64-bit. Desktop/consumer microcomputers, like Apple Macintosh and PCs, are predominantly 32-bit but increasingly 64-bit, while most science and engineering workstations and supercomputers as well as database and financial transaction servers are 64-bit

Cuvtixo 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, was thinking of doing the same thing. Alatari 04:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Selling Computer

Finding evidence that Guinness figure of 30m is 13m over Commodore's C64 reported 17m total sales.[1] Apple is claiming over 20m iMac's sold but you can be sure every year iMac's isn't the same 750MHz it first shipped with.[2] Commodore not changing the C64 hardware for 11 years seems to be the key to the world record. So can the record fall? If Guinness is off by 40% is the claim even accurate? The only reason a PC clone isn't the top seller is that modern buyers wouldn't possibly keep buy a machine with spec's older than 3 years. I would feel more comfortable with a better source on the C64 sales like from the annual reports of Commodore not Guinness' unreferenced figures. Terms like 'best selling of all time' and 'first in class' are so dependent on the definition and are so easily 'spun'... Alatari 04:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The 64 sales #s are orders of magnitude greater than any possible competitor so the claims are still pretty solid IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.194.181 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)