Talk:Single-board computer

message: Currently, the article states that all SBCs have to be microcomputers. But how about the Data General Nova? Please comment. --Wernher 00:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Nova series was very close to the modern SBC, but still needed separate core on the backplane. It would be a few more years before RAM was adequately compact to produce a true SBC. --Eponymous Coward 09:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apart from stunts like the "Kenbak", was there ever a single board computer build with random SSI logic (no LIS, no microprocessor)?  Kind of the point that microprocessors made it not only possible, but advantageous to put the whole computer on one board. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the gate count of even a 4004 or 6502, probably not. If it is possible, you will most likely find it here. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Have all SBCs actually been µcomputers?

message: Have cleaned up and expanded the article a bit, but it could use a picture of a embedded SBC, anyone know where to get a copyright-free one?  Have removed the cleanup and stub tags since I think the article is OKish now, but anyone disagrees feel free to replace then and I'll take another shot at it. Astaroth5 16:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: there ya go, not a great photo, but good enough for ebay.  Taken by me and released into PD. Sweavo 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Added some current information and the photo of the SBC in a backplane. Chassisplans 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Cleanup

message: There is a discussion at Talk:List of single-board computers#Scope - whether to include single-board microcontrollers that may be of interest to editors of this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion 

message: The market for SBCs have exploded, yet this article paints a picture from the old days! It does not mention the most defining concepts of modern SBCs, like SoC, SoM, GPIO, shields, developer boards, home automation, android, linux, u-boot…
The way it defines «single-board computer» is also problematic — if «two distinct architectures» wasn't a poor enough justification for not counting backplanes as boards, it hardly facilitates any more discussion of >1 board scenarioes, like:
* A SoM makes up 1 board in a 2-board computer, the other being the connecor board that exposes (different subsets of) the SoM's connectors. A great example is the Wandboard — very similar to the Nitrogen6x, except being 2 boards.
* Shields / accessory modules: Some SBCs have attachable hardware peripherals. Examples range from the big expensive Arndale board, to the cheap small pcDuino.
In defining SBC, we should require only the general purpose computer to be on a single board — this is the embedded part of the embedded computer. There are too many examples where peripherals (aka special purpose, or application specific parts of the embedded system) are made as separate boards. Especially among those with a "board" form factor (in my opinion, the most genuine representants of the SBC revolution). The exact number of boards is an implementation detail.
84.209.119.158 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Written before the SBC revolution?