Talk:Home computer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] IBM PC really no home computer

"The list below shows the more popular and/or historically significant home/personal computers (and computer ranges) of the 1980s and their initial year of release." and you've removed the IBM PC. WTF? -Tagishsimon

The original PC (incl PC-XT, PC-AT) was no home computer; for that its price point was set far too high for the absolute majority of consumers. And the PCjr was a flop, so neither does that machine warrant a mention in this article. I therefore removed the PC image (misleading for illustrating the category 'home computers') as well as its list entry in ==Notable home computers==. Not until the advent of consumer-friendly priced PC clones in the (mid-to-)late 1980s were PCs particularly relevant as home computers. BTW, another illustration should be found. --Wernher 00:15, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Is that evidence-based or your POV? --Tagishsimon
Thanks for your trust in my seriousness. ;-\ :-) It is quite evident from historical sources that the PC was priced to be, and indeed intended as, a business tool; the word 'Personal' was more an indicator of IBM's perceived market segment in the business world (i.e. single business employees/executives wanting to have the advantage of their own local spreadsheet/word processing tool) rather than the sense of ordinary people using it at home. And lo and behold, because IBM wanted in on the home market, they launched the PCjr.
That said, one should perhaps write something in the article about the distinction between home computers and business-oriented personal computers... --Wernher 00:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
In fact, such an indication was already in place in the intro text, but I tacked on a mild disclaimer regarding the PC and its many offspring, just in case. --Wernher 01:22, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
You know what the old IBM PCs are good at these days? Being boat anchors. --Robo-Jesus
Keep in mind that the standard config for a original IBM PC was more like a home computer, however. It have no floppy, only casette tape, and have CGA graphics.
It was a home computer, at least it intended to be one. They were just so expensive to make in the USA, and they were "built like a tank." To keep IBM from loosing money (Which they did. Alot!), they had to sell them at really high prices that only businesses could afford.
My conclusion, put it back on the list, but give a brief description on what I said. 03:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77
My conclusion - i took it out again. the IBM PC and the Macintosh 128k have no place in a list of home computers, end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computer list needs to be concise

Just to give a rationale for my revert of User:65.87.129.55's recent modifications to the "Notable home computers" list: the list is meant as a quick reference to the most common/notable home computers, and, as such, does not need to give more that a bare essence of characteristics of each machine. The interested reader will get the details by visiting the articles. --Wernher 00:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Follow-up regarding my pruning of the computer list of 25 Sep 2005 (check the diff to see the removals) :

I boldly commented out all the previously listed Japanese computers except the MSX, which was marketed more or less worldwide, and had some popularity outside its home market, especially in certain countries. It also represented the novel concept, in home computing, of attempting to establish a cross-vendor standard platform for several manufacturers to adopt (the latter presumably having to pay royalties to MS & ASCII).

If there are weighty reasons to reinstate one or more of the other Japanese computers into the list, arguments should be held forward for that case. One point might be that the Japanese home market is quite large (125m+ people), and as such should count more than smaller single countries. However, there is also a large number of home computers made in the more-populated U.S. which have not been included. --Wernher 16:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Odyssey entry should be restored

I think that the Odyssey entry should be restored. Just by being the first attempt at a home gaming device it owns its place on the notable consoles list. And I did also disagree with the editor when he said it was "too early to have an impact". It was indeed because it was a very early release that the Odyssey had any impact after all. It was a key factor for the development of the video-game industry, and had great impact in the development of the Atari system, mainly because of patents owned by Magnavox due to it´s early realease of the Odyssey. Loudenvier 08:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, well argued; I take your point. See my recent reinstatement of the Odyssey item. --Wernher 17:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I´ve added a little more on patent info. It´s still concise. I thought it would be good "instant" information to show on the entry that patents affected such ones as Mattel, Nintendo, etc. By the way I´m not interested in Odyssey, I´ve never saw one. I was born in 1976, and I did not even knew of its existence (I´ve played an Odyssey2 in the 80´s, but that´s another story). But since I´m interested in retrogamming (I was a game developer for the MSX, here in Brazil) and computer and console history, I think that everything that seems important to the industry should be present in wikipedia.

[edit] Apple ][ really no home-computer either? (perhaps we should (de)promote IBM-PC to home-computer too)

Quoting Apple II article:

  • The Apple II was one of the most popular personal computers of the 1980s
  • The original retail price was $1298 with 4KB of RAM and $2638 with 48KB of RAM.
  • The Apple II was the first computer that most people had ever seen, and it was affordable for middle-class families. Its popularity enabled the entire computer game market; the educational software market; a boom in the word processor and computer printer market; and the absolute "killer app" for business: VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet. VisiCalc alone sold many Apple II's to many business people. On the other hand, the success in the home market inspired the creation of many other inexpensive home computers such as the VIC-20 (1980) and Commodore 64 (1982), which through their significantly lower price point introduced computers to several million more home users (grabbing some of Apple's market share in the process).

Quoting IBM-PC article:

  • Although not cheap, at a base price of $1,565 it was affordable for businesses

I think that the Apple II only had any impact in the home-computing area because there were no other options at it´s time. When the PC was realeased, although techically supperior and around the same price range, there were lot´s of other actual home-computers on the market. The IBM-PC was affordable for the middle-class, it was only not worth it. I think there should be some clarification on this matter in the article. It´s my opinion that the Apple II was a personnal computer that happened to have some impact in the home computer scene (or that it even helped starting it). It was not a home-computer per se. Loudenvier 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Apple ][ had a major impact for three reasons: it had a color screen, it had expansion slots, and it had a low cost disk drive. Anarchist42 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The TRS-80 which was priced at $595 and had the most number of software titles available till 1980. Alatari 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TRS-80 and Atari 400/800

It's odd that the TRS-80 which was priced at $595 and sold 100k units and was the most successful machine from 1977 to 1981 only being seriously competed with by Atari sales is neglected in these articles. The success of the Apple ][ marketing program to schools and the number of children growing up with them seems to have paid off. Alatari 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for the blanking

Remember the replacement of the whole article with just one sentence? That was because I took "Home computer" literally.

[edit] Time frames

From what I understand you say the apple II is the first home computer in 1977. On the "history of computing hardware" they say "The MITS Altair, the first home computer, was featured on the cover of Popular Electronics for January 1975. It was the world's first mass-produced personal computer kit"

I'm not sure if this is due to a disagreement in what a home computer is. I thought it should be highlighted though.

Thanks

MarkeyC

[edit] Outright Mediocrity

Tnis article needs a complete re-write . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.227.70 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the input. What, exactly, is wrong with it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article seems outdated

The current text of the article could have been written in the early 90's. There doesn't appear to be any information on the last two decades of computing. Is there a reason for such omissions? --Android Mouse 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since home computers were a phenomenon of the late 80s, there are no omissions since "the last two decades of computing" only concern personal computers. Anarchist42 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't believe there was a distinction between the two. From the Personal computer article, "Personal computers are also known as microcomputers and home computers." Perhaps a merge is in order? Or a more appropriate distinction between the two? --Android Mouse 18:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between the two and the articles should not be merged. Better naming could help, however. Most people don't know that home computers were home PCs from the '70s to the early '90s. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So what is the actual difference between a home computer and a personal computer? From the Home computer article: "They are also known as personal computers." Both articles seem to indicate the terms are equivalent. --Android Mouse 20:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If we define the Personal Computer without regard to price or portability but which has resources dedicated to a single user then the two articles would deviate significantly. Where do you suggest we take the definitions of 'Home Computer' and 'Personal Computer' from? Alatari 21:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
From everything I've read, Personal Computer is defined with regards to price and portability[1]. I'd personally like to see some citation or reference indicating that the terms actually have different meanings and feel the articles should state the difference(s) more clearly. The last sentence of the lead section basically states that the terms are essentially the same and only a matter of preferance:
"Use of the term "home computer" largely died out at the end of the decade (in the U.S.) or in the early 1990s (in Europe). This was due to the rise of the IBM PC compatible personal computer (the IBM PC and its clones are not covered in this article), and the consequent preference for the term "PC" rather than "home computer.""
--Android Mouse 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of the early meanings of 'Personal Computer' were akin to Leela's wrist computer. Casio tried to define it with their Casio PB-80/100[2]. Where do you get your information of the usage of 'home computer' being dead. I still call this computer a home computer to differentiate from the one I have at work. And I'm not alone... I need to figure out who put that last comment into the article. It probably should be struck. Alatari 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
>>Where do you get your information of the usage of 'home computer' being dead.
The lead section of the article. --Android Mouse 21:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll strike that section. People calling their computers 'microcomputer' is rare and maybe on;y us older people use that term but home computer seems to be alive and well. I'll research this further. Combining the 3 articles Microcomputer, Home Computer and Personal Computer will be major endeavor and not sure it's worth it. Alatari 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not doubting it will be a major endeavor, but I think in the long run it will be worth it. Having multiple articles on the same subject is a duplication of efforts at best. --Android Mouse 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


the three terms are very different and no merge should happen. Microcomputer = Altai, IMSAI, pre 1977. Home computer = C64, Atari 800XL, ST, Amiga, 1977-1989, Personal Computer = Wintel, Mac, 1989- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You could say that a home computer is a personal microcomputer marketed to home users. And you'd be right. You couldn't have a home computer or low-cost personal computer unless it was a microcomputer. The terms overlap. Debate. Show your work. Only write on one side of the paper. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
the terms become more precise. narrower definitions override broader ones and excise meaning out of the preexisting matrix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Home Computer's 'death'

It is very unclear that the usage of the term 'Home Computer' is dead. I still use it to refer to the machine not at work and I don't mean the game console or the laptop. I mean the desktop personal computer. It is possible once computers start controlling the house as in Eureka's sheriff's bunker the 'Home Computer' article will take on new meaning. Pulled: (Use of the term "home computer" largely died out at the end of the decade (in the U.S.) or in the early 1990s (in Europe). This was due to the rise of the IBM PC compatible personal computer (the IBM PC and its clones are not covered in this article), and the consequent preference for the term "PC" rather than "home computer." ) Alatari 22:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Personal computer article

I'm proposing this article be merged with the personal computer article. I haven't seen a citation that clearly distinguishes between the two terms. If you do believe there is a clear distinction then please provide a citation-- as currently both articles indicate the terms are interchangeable. --Android Mouse 06:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: The term home computer refers to consumer computers of the early era, from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. The term personal computer (often abbreviated PC) refers to current-era computers. The term "home computer" has fallen out of wide use because PCs are widely used in homes and at places of business. If this isn't clear in the article, portions should be re-written to make this distinction clear. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Also Oppose. There was a decided split in marketing between the Atari/Commodore/Timex type machines and the expandable desktop computers which typically cost a decimal order of magnitude more. True, very many people used IBM PC, XT type machines as "home computers" but these had far more capabilities than the typical 6502 hooked up to the family TV. The "home computer" segment only disappeared when the business-type machines finally got really cheap, too; while you could easily build a "home computer" type machine to sell for around $100, there's no more reason to do so (no money to be made!)--Wtshymanski 14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: as stated above, home computers are historic, whereas personal computers are contemporary. Anarchist42 17:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the personal computer article essentially covers everything in the home computer article but more. I'll also point out again the Home computer article states "They are also known as personal computers." The fact that the term 'home computer' has largely fallen out of use and been replaced by the term pc indicates that there is little difference between them. --Android Mouse 18:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Of course the term home computer has dropped out use, the low end home computers have been replaced by the low cost IBM Personal Computer descendant. That doesn't change the history of the 1970s and 1980s. -- SWTPC6800 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So why does the personal computer article cover the history of the 1970s and 1980s? If the articles remain seperate, wouldn't it make more sense to have the personal computer article not cover the pre IBM PC era beyond a brief summary? Gutting the majority of the "Computers at home" section in the PC article and adding the {{main|Home computer}} template to that section would make the distinction between the two more clear. The "Pre-IBM-PC personal business computer systems" section in the PC article also seems out of place if the articles remain seperate. --Android Mouse 03:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course the 'pedia shouldn't have redundant information when possible. The best way to avoid this is by having brief descriptions and links to main articles as you describe. The information from the "computers at home" should probably be merged into this article and the text in that article be shortened to a brief overview with the template directing readers to this article. But the two articles, in their entirety, should not be merged.
Also, I find it disturbing that the articles say that "home computers" are sometimes called "personal computers". We just stated above that they are not the same thing. Let's get our terminology right and get it in the articles. Just my $.02... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good. Consistency is key. I'll move down the merge tag to the "computers at home section". --Android Mouse 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you just did the opposite of what I suggested. I said the information from the personal computer article should be merged into this one. You did it the other way around. But we should clarify that "home computer" means something distinct from "personal computer". They are often used interchangeably. But we need to clarify that when we talk about "home computer", we mean something very specific. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
>>I said the information from the personal computer article should be merged into this one.
Which is why I removed the merge tag from the Home comptuer article and moved the tag down to the "Computers at home" section in the PC article. --Android Mouse 19:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The way the tag is worded, it makes it sound like you want to merge the home computer contents into the "Computers at home" section: It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Home computer. It's worded ambiguously. My bad, I guess, for jumping to conclusions. But the tag's wording isn't exactly clear. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Like I stated above the term 'Home Computer' is soon to be changing as a machine which controls the functions within a home. 'Personal computer's are ones that can go with a person anywhere. Merging the two articles would create a great deal of future editing hassles. We need to just clarify that the terms have been interchangeable in the past. Alatari 13:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What's your opinion of the partial merge idea as outlined in the last few comments above yours? --Android Mouse 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see all the history in the articles updated into Timeline of computing disambiged by decades and smaller increments into the 1990's and later for the sheer number of innovations. The section in Personal Computer on Computers in the Home does seem to fit in with Home Computer article although the sections about the DataPoint 2200 and various items from the Blinken lights timeline do belong in the Personal Computer History. The later sections which refer to PDA's Tablets, Desktops, etc. those are all personal computer devices and should be the article's focus. Whereas all the information on the 1960's and 70's machines could be pushed to the individual machines' articles to avoid making the Personal Computer article seem outdated and archaic.
BTW, I don't understand how to fix the timeline template to make it more readable. Anyone direct me to resources on picking it apart would be thanked heartily. Alatari 10:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If these terms mean anything at all, then "home computers" are a subset of "personal computers". The "home computer" of the '70s and '80s was not an MS DOS computer or PC-Clone, often had better graphics and sound than "office" personal computers of the period, had much less expandability, no networking, and was slightly differentiated from a dedicated "game console" by having some kind of readily user-accessible programming (short of burning EPROMs) (at least an alphanumeric keyboard), mass storage and printing capabilities, which a game console would not have. Still deserves to be two separate articles - put the PDAs and such in with "personal computer" but the "home computer" phenomenon deserves recognition - there's umpety-million Commodore 64s still showing up at garage sales today. Tons of overlap on all sides, of course- there was business software written for C64s and lots of people played games on XTs at home (and at work) - but as a class, the "home computer" was a distinctive type of hardware and market - aimed (I suspect) at parents who were supposed to think that the kids needed a computer at home, but who could not afford to buy an XT. The "personal computer" article *must* include background at least back into the 1960s precisely because the generation born since 1981 think IBM invented the personal computer. They gotta know the context! You can get a catalog of the newest gigahertz toys off any news stand - that's trivial and rapidly obsolete anyway - but historical context is rare and the ideal thing for Wikipedia to document. --Wtshymanski 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Support I mainly support the merge because there is a gradual evolution of computers since they were introduced as consumer items. Even looking back, drawing a distinction is hard. Was the Mac significantly different from the Apple II? Was the Apple II different from a Commodore 64? Yes, some used TVs, not monitors, and some used tapes for storage, but monitors and TVs are again becoming interchangeable, and tapes are still used for backup (interestingly, due to price, the same reason they were used in the 80s). Reading through the Home computer article, it's mostly lists, not actual content, so that alone suggests we merge and link to lists. At the very least, the term "Home computer" isn't specific enough for the article. 100% OR, but I think most people would think their PC is certainly a "Home computer." Someone above claimed there was a distinction between the two. Please cite a source. While it isn't the OED, Websters treats them as synonyms[3]. 69.12.143.197 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But at different times "home computer" has meant different things. If it was hooked up to the family TV and a cassette recorder, that is quite a different entity than a Wintel box that Junior does his homework on. --Wtshymanski 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The home computer was a cultural phenomenon of the late 1970s and the 1980s. It was not the same thing as the PC/Mac we take for granted today. Clean up if needed, but keep the article. Scolaire 12:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Could someone state the difference between the two and find a source for it?69.12.143.197 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is this so hard? Home computer is use in the home Home Computer and possibly will be a new synonym for domotic computers Domotic Computer and personal computers include devices that can be taken anywhere and is expanding to include cell phones, PDAs, etc Personal Computer Def. #3 Alatari 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
But if you happen to have a VAX 750 at home, that doesn't make it a "home computer" either. More than one VAX is living out its declining years in some enthusiast's basement but they were NEVER intended as a "home computer". Walking on my hands doesn't make my mittens boots, either. --Wtshymanski 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with History of computing hardware (1960s-present)

Merge with History of computing hardware (1960s-present). This article mainly discusses the history of a particular era of computers (70's - 80's), vs. the concept of a home computer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs) 04:12, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Oppose The home computer was a cultural phenomenon of the late 1970s and the 1980s. It was not the same thing as the PC/Mac we take for granted today. Clean up if needed, but keep the article. Scolaire 12:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Question: Why are there two merge debates going on simultaneously? Scolaire 12:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Because more than two articles can be merged? The history article can be an overview with references to the various segments. --Wtshymanski 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - the home computer phenomenon deserves its own article. Think of all those terrified parents out there turning to William Shatner and Bill Cosby to get advice on educating their children. Computers used to be the wave of the future, don't you know? --Wtshymanski 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Taking off the tag - it's been weeks. --Wtshymanski 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What I mean by a home computer

Here's what I think this article should be describing:

A personal microcomputer that:

  • Must have a low first cost (i.e., less than a $1795 Osborne or Mac).
  • Works (or can work) with a TV as output - this means 40 col text, usually.
  • Usually color pixel-addressable graphics.
  • Sound, usually more than a single square wave beeper.
  • Often a joystick interface.
  • Often uses cassette tape (only) for mass storage.
  • Optional expandability for things like floppy disks or better video.
  • Might have a ROM cartridge slot.
  • Must have an alphanumeric keyboard.
  • Must have some user programmability short of taking out the soldering iron and EPROM burner (usually some stunted version of BASIC), usually a ROM BASIC, sometimes a cartridge.
  • Sold to consumers with some notion of educational use, some game playing, recreational programming, personal productivity (of the checkbook-balancing, letters-to-Grandma, homework assignment, recipie box replacment, church group mailing list level).
  • Must have both games and word processors available as software.

Some instances:

  • VIC 20 or Commodore 64 - Heck, yes. If I had to pick a definition it would BE the C64. Though there was a business-targeted suitcase portable C 64.
  • Osborne 1 - Definitely not. No graphics, no TV output (usually), no sound, way too costly ($1795 at introduction). Yes, you could use it at home. You can also use a VAX at home if you have room for it.
  • IBM PC - Not really, even with a CGA card. Too costly.
  • IBM PC Jr - Would have been (a successful home computer), at about half the price. Certainly addressed at the home market. And you can take disks to the office and use them!
  • Commodore Amiga - Way more capable than a C64 - but the price point was eventually there. Just as some homes are nicer than mine, some home computers are much nicer than mine.
  • Anything with Microsoft Windows - Sorry, that's what *replaced* the home computer.

It's not crisply defined so discussions as to if the Binford 6100 was or was not a "home computer" are profitless. But there were tens of millions of these things sold so it's an important bit of computing history. Don't merge! --Wtshymanski 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

General guidelines are good, but how are you differentiating Home Computers from PCs? 171.71.37.207 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can. How is it useful to make the distinction? A home computer is by any reasonable definition a "personal computer" in the sense that a person can afford to buy it and it is used by one individual at a time. All home computers that meet most of my criteria above are "personal computers", too. The IBM PC wasn't really targeted at the "home computer" market since it was too costly, although like the Commodore 64 it could be configured with composite video output and a cassette recorder. There were some time-sharing experiments back in the '60s where the happy homeowner would use a Teletype terminal to dial-up a "shared" mainframe system; that would be about the only case I could dream up of a "home" computer (in the sense of being used by people for non-business, household uses, even if it was located miles away in an air-conditioned dinosaur pen) that wasn't a "personal" computer. --Wtshymanski 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
these guidelines are good ones, but I think three others are even more important to define a true home computer
  • The availability of a BASIC interpreter as standard, included with every system. So the user could start learning to program immediately.
  • A strong design effort to optimize the computers video and sound capabilities, especially for the support of video games or other entertainment purposes.
  • Geared toward connection to a TV set (using a composite video or RF output) rather than to an expensive dedicated monitor. So the user did not have to buy a monitor but could use his home TV.
Mahjongg 14:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If you were thinking of a stereotypical home computer of this period, it would have BASIC and be hooked up to a TV set, and would have some kind of color graphics and sound. Of course, always with minor exceptions - there was at least one home computer marketed with FORTH in ROM, for instance, and I don't doubt there were other minor variants. Anyone born since 1981 has no idea how pervasive these were in the late '80s and early '90s - your child was going to be a hobo if you didn't buy Cosby's or Shatner's box, which was much cheaper than the IBM PC sitting on Dad's desktop in the office. --Wtshymanski 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd also add 'incompatible with everything else' to the list. I don't think anyone who wasn't THERE realizes how segmented everything was back then. Each 'platform' was its own world. We didn't even have the concept of a platform because every make of computer was necessarily incompatible with every other make - that was just the nature of computers... if a computer was 'compatible' that meant IBM. Business computer, no games. Yawn.

[edit] Premature FA nomination

How can an article be seriously considered for FA if it has no references? Get the references in first, *then* nominate for FA. FA status is supposed to indicate some of Wikipedia's best work. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This was indeed a premature FAC nomination; I have archived it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Home computer/archive1. A better first step would be peer review. Good luck! Maralia (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear sentence

I removed this sentence from the article:

In Europe the British made systems like the BBC Micro, Sinclair's ZX81 and Spectrum, and the Amstrad/Schneider CPC were much more popular than in the USA, Only surpassed by the C64.

because it is unclear. Does it mean that the BBC Micro, the Z81, the Spectrum and the Amstrad/Schneider sold more units than other systems sold in the US? Or that they were more popular with Europeans than they were with Americans, but didn't necessarily sell more total units? And was the C64 better than all those systems in Europe or the US? It needs to be clarified. It also really needs a reference. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you knew all the answers to your own questions already. The British systems were much more popular in Europe than in the US, and the popularity of these British systems (especially the Spectrum) was only overshadowed by the C64, for example the Atari systems weren't that popular as they were seen to be overly expensive. Ill try to construct the sentence again, and ill try to find a reference (or two). Mahjongg (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm sorry if my sentences are a bit construed, its true that I write rambling prose in my own native language, let alone in English. Thanks for smoothening it up a bit. Mahjongg (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)