Talk:Personal computer/Archive 5

The descriptions in the "History" describing the first desktop computer/personal computer seems to bear no relationship to reality as far as sources go. It claims the first is the Programma 101 and then cites an anonymous blog. Trying to find support for the claim in other articles brought up WP:OR citations of someone making the claim based on 1965 descriptions of it as a "desktop computer" ) and the same anonymous blog post used as a source again. Looking up this "question" brings up other sources (one of which is used in Wikipedia) that tell an entirely different story with a long sliding scale, many noting the Altair 8800 as the true first and none give the distinction to the Programma 101 . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

So you're justifying the complete removal of mention of the Olivetti Programma 101 by this comment of yours? I don't know about you, but for me the first computer I could use 1-on-1 was the Olivetti 101. I think it deserves a mention. Here's a source: . There are lots more that get into the extent to which you might want to call it a "personal computer". Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The way the Programma 101 was added in there was way out of line (re totally bogus), if it has any relevance (I see minor at best) it is someone else's WP:BURDEN to add it (please note: a source about a museum describing an Italian POV may not be applicable). This problem has been tagged for quite a while (no response is a response). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

When was it added? And was there a problem noted other than the unreliable source tag for the price? Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The claim that it was the first desktop computer seems supported by the two contemporary (1965) sources in the Programma 101 article:

The Olivetti Programma 101, also known as Perottina or P101, is the first commercial programmable "desktop computer".^[1][2][3]

If it was called a "desk-top" computer in 1965 how is it not the first desktop computer? —DIY Editor (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've put back a brief mention. Please do expand it and cite those sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: "If it was called a "desk-top" computer in 1965 how is it not the first desktop computer? " - that's pretty simple per Wikipedia policy. Those are primary sources and Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation (WP:PSTS). You need very reliable secondary sources to make that claim and if sources differ you can not make that claim - also per policy (WP:YESPOV bullet #2). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Rolled back the claim of "The Programma 101 was the first commercial "desktop personal computer"", 3 primary sources and one secondary that may not be very "independant". More basically it can not be put in Wikipedia as a direct statement of fact per WP:YESPOV per that, including that, that, that, that, and that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There are similar google books references for the Programma 101 being the first desktop computer . The Altair seems to be referred to as "personal computer" rather than desktop computer, and I see competing mentions of DEC's 1962 LINC, an unnamed 1959 machine by IBM, and the 1973 Xerox Alto (seems the least credible). If all these published sources disagree how conclusive are any of them? On the contrary, WP:YESPOV seems like an argument for mentioning each, and probably that sources disagree on which is considered the first. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, Business Week and The Wall Street Journal are secondary sources about the Programma 101, not primary, but you are correct that it would be WP:OR to interpret them calling it a desktop computer at that time to mean it was the first. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just cleaned up more but, yes, all could be mentioned in the lead of the section since all had different aspects of a "personal computer" --- for example the 101 sat on a desk (sort of), the Alto was easy to use, the Altair was cheap. My only caveat would be a source (more than one actually) needs to make this comparison/observation, not us. I don't think I would complain if we made it but others might. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a small FYI, Business Week and The Wall Street Journal "Magazine or journal article from the time period you're writing about" are are considered primary sources per WP:PSTS, note #3, bullet 2 link and bullet 3.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a chapter on the 101 in "Computer Structures: Readings and Examples", which finishes up with "The significant fact to the reader is that the Programma 101 calculator is a nicely designed stored program computer". They called it a "desk calculator" at the times, but secondary sources such as this explain that is was a computer (and user programmable, not just internally). I can mail a scan to anyone who wants to read the chapter and say more. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Thanks for the info regarding contemporary sources. You have a good point about the need for us to have a secondary source to make a comparison between something not explicitly called a personal computer and the topic of personal computers. It may be that including the mention of machines called only "desktop computers" or "microcomputers" is WP:OR, although the article does already equate microcomputer and personal computer. However, if it is obvious that something is related to the topic of personal computers isn't that adequate to include sourced discussion of it without additional analysis? History of personal computers seems to be written under that assumption. —DIY Editor (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I simply have not found anything that states the Programma 101 is obviously related to the topic of personal computers. Looking at third-party secondary sources that deal with this context of "personal computers history" the Programma 101 is not included (here here, here, or here) What brought me here is what seemed to be a WP:REDFLAG claim constantly posted at List of Italian inventions. The claim was added to Personal computer in the normal un-referenced CRUFT-y way and then POVPUSH'ed by another editor. It looks to me like 3 of the sources cited in talk are simply mirrors of the claim in Wikipedia (life in the echo chamber). The Programma 101 should not be in this article and probably not in History of personal computers either, sources are lacking. Contemporaneous sources and more recent ones (used in this article before I edited it) state over and over again that the Programma 101 was a programmable desk calculator. This indicates it has a relevance to the history of computers but that is another topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It was sold as a programmable desktop calculator. But I don't think you can argue with Bell & Newell that it was a user-programmable stored-program computer; and personal. Here is another book that calls it a personal computer. And this book calls it the first personal computer (possibly based on Wikipedia). And this one says it's the "turning point" between personal calculators and personal computers. Here's another about all that. I'm not suggesting we endorse these viewpoints; but report them. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: I wish I had paid better attention to your points about this article. Knowing that you came here because of this problem is helpful. As an indicator of the state of things, History of personal computers had an oversize (400px) picture of the Programma 101 team, with a long caption, way out of proportion to the small pictures of actual computers in the rest of the section. WP:OR violations and POV/special interest pushing are major problems for Wikipedia and I am glad to have the opportunity to learn from someone with experience spotting these issues. —DIY Editor (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Fix the emphasis, cite better sources, tone down the claims, but don't just pretend it didn't exist just because someone is pushing it too much. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I personally would include some mention of it at this point but I'm not certain that is in keeping with policy. We may need to get help from WP:RSN or WP:NORN. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources keep being posted to support the Programma 101 that fall into the pitfalls of reliable sourcing, such as "not very third part" (comments on significant Italian inventions in an Italian museum), and not authoritative (a non-historian who probably copied Wikipedia). We can read "Computer Structures: Readings and Examples" here and it says over and over again in different sections that this was a programmable calculator. I do not mean to harp on this other than to say the history section of this article should contain the main points found in overall histories of the personal computer - "sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made". You can always find an individual source that claims something because of their own POV but if that same observation is totally absent in an overall history then its a tiny minority view and "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views". Programma 101 may belong in History of personal computers but that is also debatable, I note the still existent PUSH DIY Editor seems to see. I am glad we are taking a step back to see if we are reading mirrors of our own work, probably need to take one step further and say "if we wrote this today reading the compiled histories on this, what would we have?" Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Programma 101 does look and seem like a programmable calculator although programmable calculators are a subset of computers. Even if they are computers, that may leave them distinct from personal computers, without clear evidence they are included in the definition. These articles are about whatever is called a "personal computer" so how can they have something not really called that? There's no room in the article(s) for tangential material and no justification for putting it. There are other notable programmable calculators and other things that are "personal" and technically "computers" that don't belong in the personal computer articles. —DIY Editor (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If we follow your reasoning we should state that the Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane but just a rough ultralight or that Benz did not create the first the car but only a motorized tricycle for disabled people. A Personal Computer is defined as a general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and price make it feasible for individual use. In the history of Computer we find that the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM) is described as a computer and not a calculator so why a more innovative device like Programma 101 having a desktop size and a popular price should be downgraded to programmable calculator? Magnagr (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's good to have input from another editor on this. It was my initial impression that the Programma 101 obviously belonged in the article but I think the question has to be whether reliable sources place it in the category of "personal computers" or at least generally discuss it when discussing the history of personal computers. Also, whether it belongs in the History of personal computers article is somewhat separate from whether it belongs in this article. This article should just have a general overview, based on reliable secondary sources, while the main article can cover details. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Back from IRL, glad to see discussion. Just going through sources (and stuff off the top of my head) there is a basic definition of a personal computer - "it is a universally programmable machine intended for one user (and eventually becoming affordable and operable by most users). It was developed from the microprocessor, a device that became available in 1971". Sources are plentiful , 150 min documentary here. Which was the first machine to do this is debatable, Altair? Datapoint?. Calculator development did have a roll in this but it was the Japanese firm Busicom pushing Intel engineers to develop them a more capable integrated circuit for their new calculator (documentary here, transcript here). I think historical links in my last post and these give us a pretty solid historical background for a History section and these versions do not seem to be divergent - pretty much the same story all around. Unfortunately for Programma 101 fans, it is not listed as a progenitor. It may belong at History of computing hardware. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I personally disagree. In the history of computer there is a plethora of devices predating the invention of microprocessor and rightly considered computers. Programma 101 had features similar to the examples listed in the history of computer with size, capabilities, and price feasible for individual use so why it should not be included among the PC? The lack of references in english about Programma 101 is related to the fact that many authors don't consider Italy as a country keen to technological innovation and so they have overlooked the Olivetti's achievement. Magnagr (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems like quite a stretch to say that so many authors are omitting the Programma 101 out of prejudice against Italy. How about references in other languages? If only Italian sources promote it as one of the first personal computers that seems fairly weak to me. In fact these claims only add to the impression that the Programma 101 is being pushed on wikipedia by pro-Italian interests rather than neutral ones. That said, if I were writing the article without regard to Wikipedia policy, personally I would include the Programma 101 and Xerox Alto (and any other similar pre-microprocessor computers) as obvious steps in the process - but the question is what wikipedia policy and guidelines indicate. I think if we applied this same scrutiny to some of the other machines mentioned they would also not be found to be described as personal computers by reliable sources, so perhaps it is not necessary that they be so explicitly described. I'm not clear on how WP:OR applies here, it's an interesting situation. —DIY Editor (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This book by Tom Lean covers the 101 as among the precedessors of the Altair. I think the reason it's usually omitted is that it was not microcomputer based. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: "other machines mentioned" - the history section reads like there is a mix up between small computers/minicomputers and a "personal computer". There is allot of text space given to small (half ton? Half a million dollar?) academic and engineering computers. The history section takes 9 paragraphs to get to what are considered to be PC's, small affordable computers intended for anyone - some notable predecessors are hit on before that but are kinda skipped over. Xerox Alto/PARC belongs in the history because that is the foundation of GUI. That the Programma 101 is "rightly considered (a) computer", but other than fitting on a desk, it has little to do with a personal computer. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The history is a bit uneven, for sure, but covering the various precursors seems like a good idea. Things were "personal" and "computer" in different ways. The 101 is important as it was a genuine end-user-programmable stored-program computer, desktop size, and affordable, in the 1960s. Sure, it was specialized for numerics, and sold as a calculator, but it was still a computer, and personal. Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

As the article reads now it differentiates PCs from things like smartphones, which are much more clearly "personal" and "computers" than the Programma 101. The question is not so much what led up to PCs, but what is clearly called a PC, or clearly included in mainstream histories of the PC. —DIY Editor (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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. ^{[citation needed]}--Wtshymanski (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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%)^[1] and 2017 Gartner data (-3.3%) ^[2] 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.^[3]

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)