Talk:Microcomputer

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

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

Article policies

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

Article is too US-centric[edit]

Geographical coverage. This page seems to tell the story from a USA perspective. There are references mostly to American companies, periodicals or machines. Although the US invented and mostly manufactured microcomputer chips, we should include something on it's implementations and uses in Europe and Asia (especially Japan) and perhaps the roles (if any) these events played in the global development and history. JoeCapaldi (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The hp 9100A is mentioned but the remarkably similar but earlier Italian Programma 101 doesn't receive a mention. Very odd.

P.S. HP was ordered to pay royalties for copying design aspects.

El komodos drago (talk to me) 09:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more details[edit]

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:

gen.: hobbyist micros, like MITS Altair, IMSAI 8080 &c
gen.: home computers (a. 8-bit, b. 16-bit); 16-bit PCs?
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)

Mac Book isn't a representative compact computer now[edit]

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)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Back in the 1980s, the grown-ups still had a picture of a large installation occupying many rooms (think ENIAC) when they heard the word "computer". So, naturally, a computer that took only one room was a "mini", and one that could fit on your desk was a "micro". But their kids, such as yours truly, only saw a room-sized computer when they had to visit the tech centre at their university, so what was a "micro" to their parents was the default size for them. A mainframe would be called a megacomputer today, but people rarely see one in day-to-day life, so its name's still the same. --217.132.68.133 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed nonsense[edit]

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

description[edit]

The description notes that a common form of secondary storage was cassette tape. I had a cassette unit for computer storage. IBM's first PC had a port for a cassette deck. I wish I had a citation since IBM considered that a huge mistake after its anticipated usage never materialized, and they dropped it with the release of their second PC. I don't remember the cassette being in common use and would like to see a citation for that. 8 inch floppy discs were far more common before IBM's PC became part of what was called the home computer market. Since it might not have been as common in homes as it was in businesses, I can't dispute the claim. "Common" is a bit of a weasel word to begin with, but it implies that you were likely to see cassette storage with an early home computer.

If I had a list of companies that comprised most of that market, and their marketing data were available and showed what peripherals were in common use among their customers, I might be able to make such a determination with an extrapolation and sufficient data. I find it extremely unlikely that a person could determine the prevalence of cassette storage without research worthy of citation. Hagrinas (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This should be the main source of the problem: The difference between Wikipedia's definition of a minicomputer and a microcomputer.

A microcomputer is a small, relatively inexpensive computer with a microprocessor as its central processing unit (CPU).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcomputer

A minicomputer, or colloquially mini, is a class of smaller computers that was developed in the mid-1960s[1][2] and sold for much less than mainframe[3] and mid-size computers from IBM and its direct competitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minicomputer

Both Wikipedia's definitions of micro- and mini-computers is they are small: and of course a mini-computer is a class of smaller computers. What here implies a small computer? Or a class of smaller computers? And what is a mid-sized computer? What is the difference between a small mini-computer and a mid-sized mini-computer? As the author of this talk page section mentioned- the definition of a microcomputer means:

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.

Why is it then a micro-computer small? Because it uses a micro-processor as its CPU? Also, what is here the difference between a large and a small computer?

Acosix (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 4004 micropchip references[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Best Selling Computer[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Weaselling?[edit]

Do others think it's true that this edit removes weasellish comments or (at the very least) the removed material unintentionally obfuscates and overanalyses (borderline OR) in a misguided attempt to clarify?

Or is it a valid attempt to acknowledge that the terms aren't *that* clearly defined and one that should be partly put back- albeit in more concise form? Ubcule (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. A microcomputer is a computer with a microprocessor as its central processing unit. Pretty precise, at least as precise as the definition of a microprocessor.

A personal computer (PC) is any computer whose original sales price, size, and capabilities make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user, with no intervening computer operator. Long winded, but precise (also wrong, 'cause this makes an ATM a personal computer). The terms are perfectly clear. Note that these terms do not define disjoint sets, but that's ok. What was removed included:

Although there is no single definition - not right, there's a definition in the first line of the article.
Although the terms are not synonymous- right, and nobody said they were
many - vague and weaslly, see WP:WEASEL
most often taken to mean - dithering
As neither term is precisely-defined, the degree of overlap is debatable. No. It either has or has not a microprocessor. Datapoint 2002, TTL CPU, not a microcomputer. That whiz-bang laptop you got under the tree last month, pry it open and there's a big square marked "Intel" or "AMD" in it, it's a micrcomputer. It's either a personal computer or it's something else. All affordable personal computers of the 21st century are microcomputers, but not even 1/10th of 1% of the microcomputers in the world are "personal computers".

All that stuff thrown out a YEAR ago was useless waffling and should not be put back. Encyclopedias should be accurate, concise, and authoritative. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that they were waffly- I certainly didn't want them put back "as is". The question asked was whether the underlying purpose they were trying (badly) to serve was valid.

Having read your response though, I'd say that you were right (even if I disagree that the use of "many" was WEASELism!)

On reflection I agree with the changes- I don't like pointlessly longwinded articles either. :) Ubcule (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micro[edit]

As a once common abbreviation of "microcomputer", should we include the "micro" in the introduction? While I'd like to see it there (for reasons of clarity and navigation), I also don't want to have to bloat the intro with a necessary but side-issue explanation of its obsolete nature.

Do either of these (see here or here) balance inobtrusiveness and explanation well? I like the second better.

Or should it just go in a subsection instead?

Ubcule (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "once common" aspect is of questionable relevance, since the term microcomputer itself has fallen from common use. At the advent of the microcomputer era, few outside of the industry had any computer exposure. Thus the use of jargon was among those with technical expertise who were unquestionably familiar with both terms. "Microcomputer" was rarely used within the industry on a day to day basis, and computers were referred to as mainframes, minis, and micros. Computer magazines and formal documents of the day would have used the full term. That leaves two "once common" words, and a debate about the once more common than the other word word.

Typically, entries follow the formal word with its everyday counterpart, just as the brassiere article mentions bra. A person exposed to the common term would need that to clarify things. It's justifiably awkward to call micro the everyday term so there's no true parallel. But it's relevant for readers to know that they were "microcomputers, more commonly known as micros." If you want to research them by doing a Google Groups search with a date range up to 1988, you'd need to know to use both keywords, and you'd want to know that the relevant discussion group of the day was net.micro and there were subgroups including net.micro.mac, net.micro.pc, and net.micro.atari. If you didn't know about the prevalence of the term micro, it would strictly impair your ability to do research.

Hagrinas (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for book[edit]

Does anyone out there in this large, varied, and educated community happen to have a copy (or have even heard of) a book called, "What to do when you get your hands on a microcomputer" or close to that (could be "if you ever get" or somesuch, too)? I've lost my copy and would love to see an article on it. It was the book (given to me by an old friend) that got me started (and completely hooked) on computers. I've no idea who wrote it, but I assume it came from the Computer Book Club of years ago.76.2.89.37 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only there was some computerized way to search for things like this automatically...think what a boon that would be. Maybe the company running such a "look up machine" could have a funny name and make millions on its IPO. Did you notice [3] ? No Tab book is notable, unless you're collecting examples of sloppy editing and writing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microcomputer. 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/20150923205820/http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/MicroprocessorHistory.htm to http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/MicroprocessorHistory.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 08:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

size[edit]

what is the price range and size of a mircomputer? Ashton Kosters (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the term "microcomputer" isn't used much, if at all, and I'm not sure whether any personal computers these days would be considered "microcomputers", even relative to current high-end computers. Looking at older microcomputers, from an age when the term was used:

The MITS Altair 8800 had a case the size of a small minicomputer, and a price of USD 621 (USD 3100 in 2021).
The Apple II had a smaller case; the original price was between USD 1298 for a 4 KB base system and USD 2639 for a 48 KB system in 1977.
The TRS-80 looks like a small desktop personal computer, and cost USD 599.95 (USD 2680 in 2021). Guy Harris (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]