Talk About Computerr

Part 1

What Is This Sound?

I heard at 0:25 on this video and I don't know what that computer sound effect's called. Can anyone tell me?

It's the default Windows XP alert sound. The kitten pressed a key that has no assigned function in the program that was open, and the sound played.OMG! It's Teh Pampas Cat! 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harware-overview for average readers

Yesterday I wrote a section on computer components, which got reverted, then rereverted and then reverted again. I know that it didn't add much info, but it did add another perspective. At the moment, the article focuses almost entirely on the logical side of a computer, an important aspect, but it doesn't explain what you see when you open a computer case. Such down to earth information should also be present. At the moment, there is not even a link to the computer hardware article. This is (or should be) an umbrella article, serving different readers, giving an overview of all computer-related aspects and pointing to other articles. I suppose the biggest problem (as usual) is that it is written by experts, which is good, but also usually means the style is rather inaccessible to most encyclopedia readers (this is not a tech corner). Specialised info can go into specialised articles, but this one should also give a grassroots explanation.

As an illustration of what I mean, I was making a 'roadmap' for my future computer requirements (I build them myself), for which I wanted to make a list of more and less vital components (as a visual aid), but decided it was easier to look it up in Wikipedia. To my surprise, I found no such list, so I made it myself. It should not necessarily be here, but it should be somewhere and then there should be a link to it in this article (preferably accompanied by a very short overview - the Wikipedia way) because this will be a first stop for people looking for such info.

As for the structure, I worked from the inside out, explaining that the mb connects everything together and then 'hook everything up' to that - can it be part of the mb, does it fit directly onto it, is a cable used and is or can it be inside the computer case - all stuff that isn't evident from the article right now. And also, which components are essential (a graphics card is, unless the mb has that functionality) and which aren't (a sound card isn't). Let me put it this way - such info should be in Wikipedia. Where should it go? DirkvdM 09:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was rereverting because User:Matt Britt is an established contributor and shouldn't have his changes reverted by a bot. As for the merits of one version over the other, I will side with him; Computers extend beyond PCs, and in my opinion, the new section was too list-y. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, my last question was where it should go, and you say personal computer, which makes a lot of sense, so I'll put it there. And I'll add a link to that article (and computer hardware) in the 'see also' section, because you may know the distinction between the two, but people look something up in an encyclopedia because they don't know much about it. It's in the intro, but somewhat inconspicuously. Maybe there should be a listing of the types of computer in a table next to the intro. Also, you say the list is too 'listy', but that's what it's supposed to be. What's wrong with lists? DirkvdM 07:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

About the list-y bit: according to Wikipedia:Embedded list,

“

Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed.

”

Of course, there are exceptions; ex: Georgia Institute of Technology#Colleges. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the first word is 'most' and that it speaks of entire articles consisting of a list. This was (or rather is, because it's now in the personal computer article) just a list inside an article. And it isn't even a list, it just has some lists in it. The alternative would be to enumerate them after each other (in-line), which is much less clear. That's a personal preference, I suppose (I like things to be as ordered as possible - blame it on my German background :) ), but I certainly won't be the only person who feels like this. I doubt if that text is meant to be applicable here. DirkvdM 10:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

Removal of text

I removed this text from the article:

Five Generations of Computers: Over the 20th century, there have been 5 different generations of computers. These include:

1. 1st Gen => 1940-1956: Vacuum Tubes
2. 2nd Gen => 1956 – 1963: Transistors
3. 3rd Gen => 1964 – 1971: Integrated Circuits
4. 4th Gen => 1971 – Present: Microprocessors
5. 5th Gen => Present & Beyond: AI

Because it appears to be original research. If someone has a source, there shouldn't be much of a problem with re-adding it, so long as it is communicated who proposed this model. Gracenotes^T § 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just re-removed this text. I agree on the OR claim, but also disagree to an extent with the classification: especially with the "Present and Beyond: AI". Firstly, this is casting speculation on what will drive the industry in the future and secondly 'AI' has been 'the next big thing' since the 1960's. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Gracenotes and Angus Lepper that the text is original research, speculation, and factually incorrect, all of which violate numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and should stay out of the article. --Coolcaesar 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The list is correct for the first four generations and is discussed in History of computing hardware, with more detail on the third and fourth generations in History of computing hardware (1960s-present). However there is to date no consensus as to what the fifth generation is (or will be) but for one possibility see Fifth generation computer. --Nibios 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

how can you tell if after your computer has been 'repaired' if someone has remote access to it

[edit] Image Improvement

I believe a better picture of the NASA Super Computer should be shown, as this one is quite an illusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unknown Interval (talk • contribs) 00:40, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Computer is not an anagram nor acronym for anything.

Please remove this sentence from this article: "The Computer is an anagram standing for 'Commonly Operated Machine Purposefully Used for Technology,Education and Research"

I do not have the established user authority necessary to do it myself.

First of all, whoever entered this claim confused 'anagram' and 'acronym'. Second, an apparently specious claim like this needs to be supported by a citation if it should have any hope of becoming a permanent addition to an article. The modern usage 'computer' has a simple and established etymology (from the word 'compute'). Third, if there is evidence of translating 'computer' as claimed in the sentence, it should be called a backronym and the evidence should be cited.Taajikhan 22:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that. That was a vandalous edit. · AndonicO ^Talk 23:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim was entered yesterday and i did not believe it, how ever i was not entirely sure of the possibility of it being incorrect, i reworded the sentence (yes confusing anagram and acronym) and added {{fact}}.the sentance added was Commonly Operated Machine Purposefully Used for Technology,Education and Research how ever [1] comes up with Common Operating Machine Particularly Used For Trade Education And Research [2] came up with the same thing. I shall reinstate a sentence in the article with these citations.Blacksmith ^talk 05:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC) gah, right heres 2 from yahoo [3][4] however it could be a backronym, it might be worth placing and addressing this in the article to clear it up and prevent further additions of this kind. e.g The word computer has several backronyms, most of which are similar to the following 'Commonly Operated Machine Purposefully Used for Technology,Education and Research'.

Etymology of the word 'Computer', as confirmed by the Oxford American Dictionary on my iMac, is from French computer, which is from Latin computare, to settle or to calculate. 'Computer' was originally a term for a person who computed data, and then carried over to the machines which could do the same thing. --Nucleusboy 23:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The two sources sited at last revision #158664892 are not convincing. Please do not put this claim back into the article without reliable citation and further discussion. Citation should include the original source of the acronym (akin to an etymology). If this claim is verified, it should be put in the History section, as the acronym is not a definition of the word today. Ajonlime 01:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ajonlime, we currently have four sources on this, i do beileve this is enough to claim it is at least an backronym, Nucleusboy, we have decided it is a backronym, the decision is just to add it into the article even if just to prevent further additions, or possible, 'Computer comes from the latin word compute....,'i think we should add this. do not say we should just leave the wikitionary link at the bottom, for in many other articles we do explain the meanting and origin of the word. Wikipedia should be a oner stop encyclopedia, and visitors shold have to go to as little pages as possible. An article should cover a broad range of subjects within one topic. This article, (not exactly certain whjat the entire content is, i mainly focus on the first section) should have an introduction, containing a brief description of what a computer is, what its is used for, its origin etc, and the following sectilons should expand on this.Blacksmith ^talk 09:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is simply no way that claim can be true because the word 'computer' was originally used for people who computed. That can't have been an ancronym where 'm' stood for 'machine' - so this is definitely bogus and needs to be deleted. Even calling it a backronym is wrong because back-formed acronyms are formed and then commonly used - this version of the word is NEVER used . SteveBaker 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea this would generate so much discussion when I posted this. Blacksmith, it's commendable that you want to include as much info as possible, but then you get into the core philosophy of what Wikipedia is about. I'm sure that's a whole different and expansive issue. In this case we need to consider what value it adds to the article. At this point I want to say to SteveBaker that I don't think we should apply absolutes here, I'm sure some people like to say that 'computer' stands for some long phrase. I don't think backronyms require common acceptance, as long as a word with a historical etymology rooted in normal words is then used to construct an acronym, it can be considered a backronym. Did that make sense? People also make backronyms for the sake of humor or to demonstrate their prowess with language, even if they never catch on with everyone else.

We need to ask, how crucial is this claim to a person's understanding of what computers are? Besides, where would it appropriately fit in the article, anyway? At best it's a piece of trivia, but trivia sections are discouraged. Maybe the etymology of computer should be put into the history section. Or better yet, both the scholarly and folk etymology (including the backronym definition) might find a better home in the Wiktionary.Taajikhan 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

hmm yeah i did get a bit carried away.Blacksmith ^talk 07:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It reminds me of the massive, and ever-growing, list of wacky euphemisms for masturbation that used to be farmed at the bottom of that article. (In the end it got moved to wikisaurus.) If we want to include every clever-dick name that some wise-guy ever called their computer at any time, we'd end up with a very long 'Popular culture' section indeed. --Nigelj 09:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)