Talk:Computer organization

message: The article as it stands is basically a direct copy from the "reference." I can whip up something if it's alright to basically blank out the page and start again. Thoughts? RyanEberhart
:Do it, surely. Thanks --Ioannes Pragensis 07:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status, copy and paste 

message: The original author got things the wrong way, it should be:
* Architecture - The specifications of a system, as visible to the user.
* Organization - The implementation of a system, as visible to the designer/implementor. 
Thus, architecture answers the question "what?" and organization answers the question "how?" about a system. For example, the choice of an instruction set is part of the CPU's architecture, while the design of the control unit is part of it's organization. --Vrza 01:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed this earlier. I am taking my information from Hennessy's book on the subject. I do not know what your source is. Unfortunately, I do not have that book with me as I left it at college. I will try to find a copy and properly site my references. RyanEberhart 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The difference between computer organization and architecture 

message: This article appears mostly to be an attempt to establish terminology, with little actual content (and, in fact, no clear definition of what that terminology should be).
As there appear to be problems actually finding sources who agree with the terminology, I'm going to propose it for deletion.  Debates about terminology, a priori, do not even belong on Wikipedia, where they can be avoided.
RandomP 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: I'd like to strongly suggest that this article be renamed.  There seems to be a great deal of disagreement surrounding the term computer organization.  As currently written, I don't see a difference between computer organization, as used here, and the less-ambiguous existing article on CPU design (which, incidentally, is the same as microarchitecture).
I think we're lacking an article on the (also less ambiguously termed) field of computer system architecture, which encompasses not just the CPU but also the I/O and peripheral subsystem (disks, north bridge, USB port, etc.)  Also see the work of "system architecture" vs. "CPU design" groups at industrial research labs such as at HP and IBM.
Summary: Computer organization, an ambiguous term, should be replaced by one or more of the more well-defined terms microarchitecture/CPU design, or computer system architecture.  Also to be avoided: computer architecture, which is often used to refer to one or more of the three subterms microarchitecture, computer system architecture or instruction set architecture.
Su-steve 01:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer system architecture 

message: The only place where I have seen the term "Computer Organization" is for a few Computer Science text-books. Within the industry, the term microarchitecture is much more prevalent. At least, that's the more "correct" term used. Unfortunately, alot of people confuse organization/microarchitecture with ISA design and just called the work "architecture". I agree that the microarchitecture article and this one ought to be merged. Dyl 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Microarchitecture]] ?