Talk:Computer/Archive 3

message: Let's not get into revert wars over American or British spelling, please. --Robert Merkel 04:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling... 

message: It strikes me as somewhat disturbing that the first line of this article implies that a computer has to execute stored programs.  Plenty of devices that are nearly universally called computers couldn't execute any instructions (like ENIAC).  The text should be modified somewhat; especially since the next section does an adequate job of explaining that computers have been around far longer than the Von Neumann architecture. -- uberpenguin 02:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ENIAC could be programmed - it had a plugboard kind of affair to do that.  This has been described as 'rewiring the computer to reprogram it' - but that's a little unfair.  This is no different (in principle) from a ROM-based computer that can only obey a single program.  I don't think we'd exclude something like a mask-programmed ROM-based microcontroller just because it's difficult (or even impossible) to change its program - so long as ENIAC followed instructions, it's a computer.  It's a grey area though.  A Jaquard loom follows programmed instructions - but it's not considered a computer because it doesn't "process data" using its program. SteveBaker 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening text 

message: Check a computer history text; Eckhart and Mauchly are probably responsible for the majority of ideas which von Neumann sketched out in his report. --Robert Merkel 02:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.  This is a basic point which is taught in all decent computer history classes.  Von Neumann's most important contribution was simply putting it all together in his famous report which then was circulated all over the place (and that's why we call them Von Neumann machines).  --Coolcaesar 19:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eckhart and Mauchly 

message: <Comment on the following phrase in Computer—A computer is a machine capable of processing data according to a program — a list of instructions. The data to be processed may represent many types of information including numbers, text, pictures, or sound.>
From Daniel C. Dennett's Consciousness Explained 1991; ISBN: 0316180661 p. 302:
:The philosopher Justin Leiber sums up the role of language in shaping our mental lives: 
::Looking at ourselves from the computer viewpoint, we cannot avoid seeing that natural language is our most important "programming language." This means that a vast portion of our knowledge and activity is, for us, best communicated and understood in our natural language... One could say that natural language was our first great original artifact and, since, as we increasingly realize, languages are machines, so natural language, with our brains to run it, was our primal invention of the universal computer. One could say this except for the sneaking suspicion that language isn't something we invented but something we became, not something we constructed but something in which we created, and recreated, ourselves. [Leiber, 1991, page 8]
Yesselman 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no big deal.  Leiber is simply putting a different spin on old ideas that were better articulated by Julian Jaynes, Richard Dawkins, Benjamin Lee Whorf, and Neal Stephenson (see Snow Crash).  And yes, there are already some people in neuroscience who argue that the human brain is essentially an analog computer.  Plus there's the sci-fi term wetware that's been around for a while. --Coolcaesar 08:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language is Software 

message: the last edit changed the external link http://www.tech-forums.net/ with http://www.compuforums.org/ leaving the same description of the link, these two forums are not the same, and so I find the edit questionable. Rv?
: It's probably someone promoting their favorite forum.  If there is no solid reason to use one or the other, consider having either both or neither. SteveBaker 14:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.compuforums.org/ was first added on 14 Sept 2005 which is a long time ago, perhaps there's a reason for that link, so I will just rv. for now. Anyone could delete the link altogether, thanks for your answer. --A/B 'Shipper 女 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: We've defined a computer (correctly IMHO) as:
  "A computer is a machine for manipulating data according to a list of instructions - a program."
...yet we talk about the Abacus, the Antikythera mechanism, and clockwork calculating devices as early computers.  These are NOT computers according to our own definition - they are merely calculators.  They can't follow a list of instructions - they are not "programmable".  Even Babbages difference engine wasn't programmable - that honor goes to his analytical engine - which was never built and may not even have worked.
Furthermore, if we allow the Abacus to be counted as a computer (or even as a calculator) then human fingers get the credit for being the first computer since all an abacus is is a mechanical aid to counting.  It doesn't automate any part of the process.  Also, if the Abacus makes it, then so must the slide-rule - which is a VASTLY more sophisticated calculating machine because it can multiply and divide.
This is inconsistent.  Either we must accept calculators (for want of a better term) as computers and change our headline definition to allow non-programmable machines to be computers - or we must rewrite the section that includes such mechanical wonders as the Antikythera and the Difference engine and explain that whilst they were antecedents of the computer - they are not computers because they are not programmable.  I suggest the second course of action.
SteveBaker 14:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up and you'll see me bringing up more or less the same issue.  I don't really agree with the headline definition of a computer since it only allows inclusion of modern programmable computers, not many older devices that could still be considered computers but were not programmable. -- uberpenguin 15:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Then you must also change the definition of 'Computer'...one or the other - you can't have both!  The article clearly defines what a computer is - then goes on to list a bunch of things that are clearly not computers under that definition.  We can argue about the definition - but no matter what, you have to admit that the article is inconsistent.  My change (which someone just Rv'ed) fixed that - if you don't agree with my change (or something similar to it) - then you MUST change the definition in the headline.   HOWEVER, if you do that then a difference engine is a computer, so is a slide-rule, an abacus and your fingers.  Come to think of it, a pile of rocks is a computer under that kind of definition because a pile of rocks is a primitive abacus.  I think the clear, sharp line that distinguishes a computer from a calculator is programmability - arguably it's a Church-Turing thing.  Draw that line and you must rule out the difference engine, the abacus and it's ilk.  We can still recognise the contribution of calculators to early computers - and perhaps even point out the grey areas - but there IS a bright line here. SteveBaker 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We begin the history section with saying that "Originally, the term "computer" referred to" something different. Maybe we could include your argument later in that passage to pick up the thought that the definition of a computer has evolved to programmable computational devices, to clearly distinguish between early computational devices and a modern computer.--Johnnyw 20:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the easiest way out of the situation is to have the opening definition apply to only programmable computers, describe the evolution of the term in the history section, and mainly concentrate on programmable computers in the rest of the article.  That more or less follows the format of most other good computer hardware related articles here. -- uberpenguin 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that the original meaning of the term "computer" referred to something different.  Human 'computers' were used in ways precisely the same as modern silicon computers.  The guy who ran the team "programmed" and "optimised" the use of the compters (people) in precisely the way a modern computer programmer does with his hardware.  To understand how these human computers were used, read some of the biographies of Richard Feynman who (amongst other things) ran the 'computer' group during the Manhatten project.  He organised the work-flow of his (human) computers - optimising their list of instuctions - making 'subroutines' that one group could calculate repetitively, using 'if' statements to skip over unneeded sections of his "program" depending on the results of previous calculations...it WAS programming.  The team of humans who did the work were both called computers and were "manipulating data according to a list of instructions" - which fits the modern definition of the word computer.  I don't think the meaning of the term has actually changed all that much. SteveBaker 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're blurring the line between definition and analogy  If you have to use quotations around "program" and "optimize" for your statement to hold water, then perhaps your suggestion to include human computers in the current article's definition is a bit too metaphoric.  Anyway, I'm not very interested in rewriting this article myself, so I won't really argue this much. -- uberpenguin 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My use of quotations was erroneous - my apologies for misleading.  I intended no analogy.  Human computers had been used like this for lots of tasks in many situations - but the clearest explanation I've found is in the writings of Richard P.Feynman.  There are many versions of this in different biographies - the one that I picked off my bookshelf first was Feynman's "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out".  In the chapter entitled "Los Alamos from the Bottom" we hear of the times when he was running the computer center at Los Alamos - consisting of dozens of humal computers with Marchant mechanical calculators.  He organised a system of colored index cards that were passed from person to person containing the data - with each person having a set of algorithmic steps to perform on each data element depending on the color of the file card.  This included instructions on who to pass the results on to and on what color of index card.  Any modern programmer would recognise what Feynman was doing.  He had a parallel array of computers (human ones) - each of which had a written program, data packets flowing in and out, and an arithmetic unit for each human computer in the form of the Marchant calculator.  He discusses optimising his procedures for doing this - and then eventually replacing his human calculators with IBM tabulators (which were evidently just non-programmable multipliers and adders).  This isn't just an analogy - it's a process that is in essence indistiguishable from an electronic cluster computer - except that it uses human computers.  The human computers with their index cards and Marchant calculators would (as I understand it) have no problem qualifying under the Church-Turing constraints. SteveBaker 04:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Can I make a suggestion at this point?  There's plenty of scope for an article on human computers.  --Robert Merkel 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these really computers? 

message: Either the "Computer" article needs to explain "computational" as seen through the eyes of Douglas Hofstatder, Donald E. Knuth and Alan Turing or a separate article created anew. Arturo Ortiz Tapia 13:06 hrs, +6 GMT., February 28th 2006
:Could you elaborate a little on what you mean by "computational"? --Robert Merkel 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computational 

message: seeing as many of us have reached the conclusion this is no longer a "good article", perhaps we should remove the tag? Vulcanstar6 04:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "good article"

message: I added a (differently worded) comment about ENIAC as decimal.  I am in the "ENIAC as first (insert definition) computer" camp, but I think that since the argument is often over "first computer" vs. "first reprogrammable computer" vs. "first electronic computer" vs. "first elecronic digital computer" vs. "first binary electronic reprogrammable digital computer", a brief mention (not as a limitation, but simply a distinction to the systems that used binary) is in order. -- Gnetwerker 17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sounding good, Steve.  Now I don't want to stir things up either, but can we just forget analogue computers here? These use(d) op-amps and capacitors directly to model and solve differential equations.  They were very important in helping engineers understand all kinds of damped oscillatory systems like shock-absorbers in car suspension systems and automatic control loops for heavy things like gun turrets and slow things like furnaces.  Maybe, as is currently going on in solar panel, solar cell etc, this, top level page could become more of a disambiguation page with a very general overview illustrating the range of meanings the word currently has, and has had in the past - then links to all the specific pages, like history of computers, computer architectures, personal computer, mainframe computer, supercomputer, analog computer, embedded computer, microcomputer etc. (Interestingly, I just typed all those article names off the top of my head, and now I see they're all blue.  I haven't gone to read them all yet!) --Nigelj 15:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENIAC == decimal 

message: So does anybody want to write a paragraph or two about the alternative computing models discussed above?  --Robert Merkel 00:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative computing models... 

message: I was surprised to see the Jacquard loom not mentioned in the history section of the computer article. I don't know if it was left out by design or overlooked. I've always had the impression that the Jacquard loom was considered a key development in digital computers. I added a quick mention just before Babbage. Rsduhamel 03:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good addition; it's a bit of a judgement call on what things to include and what to leave on in that section, but you're right that the Jacquard loom was a pretty important example of precursor technology. --Robert Merkel 07:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The three pieces of the puzzle of modern computers are the arithmetic part, the programmability part and the storage part.  We have lots of stuff about calculators and other arithmetic devices. The Jaquard loom (which is undoubtedly an important step on the programmability side) is a valuable addition.  Thanks!  What do we need to say about storage?  We don't mention mercury-acoustic memory, drum storage, the Hollerith card punch system...there is a lot left to say! SteveBaker 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacquard 

message: I've removed this section because it contained numerous overtly POV statements and several rather wild claims that were unsourced.  What's more, the information probably doesn't require an entirely separate section within this article when any significant developments in Russian computer technology should be seamlessly integrated with the rest of the article.  I ask the author of that paragraph to reference some of his claims and give more detail about which developments he feels are most important to mention in this article. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-27 03:40Z
:This has nothing to do with POV statements or wild claims. I was simply quoting an article from a program known for its journatlistic integrity. The reason why so little is known is because of the cold war. Back then everything that was going on in the Sovjet Union was a secret for the west, and when the war was over the whole thing started to fade into oblivion when it was shut down. That's why there is so little information about it. If you can find a way to integrate it with the rest og the article, that's fine. If you don't read Norwegian, maybe someone can translate it for you; http://www.nrk.no/kanal/nrk_p2/verdt_a_vite/1956658.html And a short interview partly in English; http://www.nrk.no/dynasx?p_lenke_id=244350&p_artikkel_id=1956658&mswmext=.asx
::Your contribution was also far too detailed for an overview article; it probably belongs more to  history of computing hardware.   Frankly, I'm not sure it's even significant enough to mention here.  None of the really big developments in computing happened first in the Warsaw Pact; they managed to reverse engineer or independently invent most things the West came up with, but they didn't beat the West to the punch on anything major.  In fact, as our article on the ES EVM suggests, it's even possible that the political leadership's emphasis on cloning Western designs rather than developing their own technology screwed up their own computer industry.  --Robert Merkel 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good stuff - it just doesn't belong in this article.  I suggest you create a new article and put it in there.  An article on Computing in Russia could certainly be linked to from here. SteveBaker 18:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. In my opinion, it is irrelevant if it had any impact in the present technology or where the original inspiration came from. It is still a part of computer history. And yes, it was a bad idea to include mix western and russian computer technology. Maybe someone could write an article about, but that would have to be someone who knows how to write articles about computers.
For those who are interested in what was deleted:
Russian computers
"Parallell with what was going on in the west, USSR had their own computer evolution and technology. The first was made in Akademgorodok at the end of the 50's and named M20, and the last one at the end of the 60's which was called Big Electronic Computational Machine, or BESM 6. Measured in qaulity, these were just as good or even better than those in the west. Later generations were also made, but these were influenced by western technology, or by IBM 360 to be more precise. USSR even created their own personal computer in 1983, called Chronos. Its operative system got the name Exelcior. This program was later improved and ended up reminding about Windows in some areas, which was an example of parallel development. This personal computers were more modern and had the same speed as the PCs that existed in the west at the same time. The russian scientists were working on and making prototypes of advanced integrated circuits for their Chronos, such as special circuits for signal processing which had the same function as present graphics cards and sound cards, but the impact of perestroika would put a permanent end of this alterantive direction in computer science and technology. If the evolution had continuted, it would probably have ended up as a good alterantive to the present and dominant standards."  Rhynchosaur 16:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian computers section 

message: The article mentioned the SAGE computor. A link showed a 86000 based computer from a colorado company.
The SAGE AN/FSQ7 Tube Computer At NYADS McGuire AFB
N.J. was made by IBM at Kingston New York. I was a Blue Suiter who attended the Computer School at 
Kingston New York in 1961. Air Force Blue Suiter. It was a lot of fun working on that old beast. Later I worked at 
McChord AFB Washington, on the CC/DC Sage complex.I rarely ever see the name SAGE mentioned.75.20.220.32 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dcstu, next time, just be bold and fix the link.  I've made the correction. --Robert Merkel 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  computer networks 

message: Computers have been used to coordinate information in multiple locations since the 1950s, with the US military's SAGE system the first large-scale example of such a system, which led to a number of special-purpose commercial systems like Sabre.
I am a newbie. I didn't wish to disturb the written text refering to the sage link. The link goes to a computer co in Colorado.
My comment refers to the Military (USAF) AN/FSQ7 Sage
Computer. A second generation Tube (valve) Machine 
manufactured by IBM at Kingston, New York.Dcstu41 20:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dcstu, next time, just be bold and fix the link.  I've made the correction. --Robert Merkel 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Networking and the Internet

message: what bit patterns are represented by the following hexadecimal notations?
i)BC                        ii)9A
How many cells can be in a computers main memory if each address can be represented by three hexadecimal digits?
:This isn't really the place to seek help with questions like that. -- mattb @ 2006-09-28T14:21Z
: BC=10111100, 9A=10011010,  Three hex digits is 12 bits so 4096 addresses are available.
: ...and yes, this is the wrong place to ask. SteveBaker 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions 

message: The major rework of this article has been proceeding slowly (see Computer/Temp for the progress so far.  I think we are close to the point where we can remove the present Computer article and move Computer/Temp up to replace it.
The changes are drastic - so don't be surprised to see vast chunks of the current article simply vanishing.  The intention is most definitely NOT to try to say everything there is to say about computers in one gargantuan text.  The intent is to provide a simple introduction to each of the major subject areas and to defer to the many excellent daughter articles that are out there.
I'd like the change over to go smoothly and without major upset from people who might feel that a lot of their work is being destroyed.  So I'd ask for the following:
# Just so we keep things together, please discuss any problems you have with Computer/Temp on it's own talk page - not here.
# There is definitely information in the current Computer article that isn't in Computer/Temp - that is 100% deliberate.  However - if there is information in Computer that isn't in Computer/Temp and it's not in any of the articles mentioned as a "Main article: ..." in Computer/Temp - then we need to know about that.  Probably, that means expanding the referenced article because even Computer/Temp is awfully long already.  Anyway - if you find something like that, please let's discuss it on Computer/Temp's talk page.
# Obviously we need facts to be checked, prose to be polished and references to be added.
# The new Computer article needs to be a featured article - so as soon as we move Computer/Temp up there, we need to start seriously attacking it as FA reviewers will.
Thanks in advance. SteveBaker 05:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Computer/Temp]] 

message: We are very close to moving Computer/Temp to Computer - the article as it is now will abruptly cease to exist and be replaced by the new version... SteveBaker 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Warning!!!