Talk:Open architecture

It's about more than hardware

Certainly hardware compatibilty and commonality has a great deal to do w/ OA, but software applications have equal importance in the the OA construct. The key to OA is that is serves as a business model allowing competition in the market fostering innovation and improvement in computing systems. Much more to follow... Tomdisy 12:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No follow up Tomdisy!!! Shame, although Tomdisy seems to have given up on wikipedia totally, no longer a user. I'd also suggest "Open standards" covers this, I may be wrong but I think IBM might have coined, or used this term to "extend and control" the public discussions

Competition and price?

Open architecture is good for competition and price too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frap (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Other computers?

What other computers have open architectures, what other computers have closed architectures? Commodore 64? SPARCstation? -- Frap (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete term?

In practice, I think this term has been largely replaced by ideas like "modular" or other more specific concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.6.142 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the point?

Quote:

Windows has very well established Multilanguage platform distributed along the Globe as well as supporting and supplying Governments and countries with its products.

I do not see the point of this statement contributing to open architecture topic.

213.61.254.67 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Unibus was First

This was open architecture a long time before any mentioned in herein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unibus 107.179.163.54 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to pin down the hardware part a bit...

I am here because I saw the Amiga 500 mentioned in the popup article summary while absently hovering over a link. The 500 is a particularly confusing example, and I changed it to the 2000. As I understand the article, a computer with open architecture hardware allows the user to install from three to twelve plug in expansion cards using non-proprietary connectors and tools. I could also argue that it says only AppleII computers or proprietary bus standards (not connectors) are limited to 12 slots. I think putting an upper bound on the number of expansions is obviously silly, but I really do not understand where this article is trying to draw the line.

The whole AppleII series is used as an open example after the IIc is called out as closed.

The Amiga 500 has exactly 2 interfaces intended for expansions, a memory card and an external chassis. (We are not going to count the external floppy connector, right?) The memory card uses a pin header connector which is pretty standard, the external connector is a card edge, pretty standard, but 86 pins, so a little weird. Arguably neither is actually a "slot". The external connector was inherited from the Amiga 1000 where it was intended to connect a chassis containing a backplane for zorro1 cards. On both the 1000 and the 500 it was not uncommon for external expansions to provide a copy of the card-edge bus connector to allow stacking expansions. The 500 also has lots of socketed chips, and plenty of expansions took advantage of that fact rather than the intended expansion connectors.

The Compact Macintoshes are called out as closed, but the SE at least tried... ...still needed a slightly weird screwdriver, though...

How about the commodore 64? The cartridge and user ports let you do quite a bit, but that is only 2...

Mini-ITX motherboards only have room for 1 traditional expansion board. They may have 2 or more M.2 slots, which seems noteworthy. How about Thunderbolt? ...or just USB?

I am starting to convince myself that this might not be clear cut... 2600:1700:165F:C140:0:0:0:41 (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)