Talk:Microcomputer revolution

Redirect

This article immediately lists "personal computer revolution" as an alternative name for "microprocessor revolution" when there's already History of personal computers. The MR article is a peculiar essay that jumps around while missing the major milestones. No mention of the Apple II, Commodore PET, or TRS-80? I'm redirecting it to History of personal computers which is more fact based. Dgpop (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Essay-like

A lot of the content on this page reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article.David Delony (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. WP:SOFIXIT applies. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What parts sound essayish, espeically? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary updates

Surely there's more than one source we could quote to idnetify the disruptive effect of random software updates trying to install themselves when you're trying to get useful work (or at least, something other than updating software) done on the computer? I think this was even sent up on "Simpsons" when a laptop was paralyzed by downloading an "update" in the middle of a presentation. Surely any Windows user has this experience on a weekly basis? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there is; I'm just not sure what that has to do with the microcomputer revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 17:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed " For gaming, EGA and later VGA graphics were more capable than the technology these PCs were replacing. " as that's a bold faced fucking lie.

home computers before microprocessors

This article seems to assume that home brewed computers only happened with the advent of the microprocessor. This is just not true.john f82.132.233.219 (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This would be fascinating to add to the article, but we need sources. There must have been precious few home-brewed computers before the microprocessor - aside from Echo IV, I can't think of any documented examples of non-trivial home-brew systems. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The home computer revolution section is highly misleading

I'm not sure what the function of this section is, actually. The Commodore Magazine article from which it's derived ultimately states that the revolution was right on course, but this section implies that it stated the revolution was dead. Furthermore, in 1984 no one was running around derogatorily calling computer users nerds, geeks, or hackers - and "hackers" wasn't exactly derogatory, the news portrayed them as wunderkind. If you're going to suggest that a large percentage of people considered the personal computer a fad, you should back it up with more than a single article, or with more than two infamous quotes (Olsen's quote was derided, even at the time). The quote regarding not having found a reason to own a computer is misleading as well, as he meant that the computer was not ready to be ubiquitous, not that people did not want them. By and large, in the early 80s, computers were much loved by everyone, they just weren't necessities

A quick note: in 1987 a huge percentage of all american households were people from a much earlier, very different era. Home computers were largely owned by families with teens, and younger adults who had the energy to learn a new technology. If you assume that the home computer market only really appealed to half of all households, then the 15% ownership actually jumps to 30% of the relevant demographic... hardly a fad.

Lastly, early 8-bit machines weren't relegated to closets, basements, etc. in some massive effort to purge them - many of them were in use all the way into the early 90s, literally right up to the point where they were too outdated to be useful.

Da9iel (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of citations and overall tone

This article has been tagged since 2009 for lack of citations, which it still appears to have only for certain sections while large portions are completely without. I also agree with the 2010 tag for essay-like tone. "Microcomputer revolution" only turns up about 21,200 results on google. Not many for a term that is related to such an important topic, so it's not surprising it hasn't gotten much attention in 7 years. The article receives very few edits. What is the right way to handle an article like this with a large amount of text that needs citations or a rewrite? Removing text without a plan to replace it seems wasteful. DIY Editor (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microcomputer revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624041133/http://kalama.doe.hawaii.edu/hern/articles/horseless_p2.html to http://kalama.doe.hawaii.edu/hern/articles/horseless_p2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)