Talk:Personal computer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Big cleanup / rewrite

I've started to work on cleaning up this article. So far I've only touched up the existing content, but it still needs some reorganizing, addition, and deletion. I've added various notes throughout the text where I noticed need for improvement. Hopefully we can steer this away from being a PC enthusiast's guide to something a bit more like an encyclopedia article. If you'd like to lend a hand, feel free, or drop a line here if you'd like to comment on the changes I'm making. -- uberpenguin 06:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is an "exploded" common Wintel PC? Can my AMD suffice ;D? 68.39.174.238 19:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Exploded view ... The hope is to replace the photographs with a diagram or two and to avoid making them over-specific. For example, an item ought to be labeled "CPU" rather than "x86 CPU" or "AMD Athlon XP" ... -- uberpenguin 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to give it a try. Can you perhaps suggest a list of what parts that should be included and at what level of detail they should be illustrated? –Gustavb 04:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Exploded view of a personal computer
1. Monitor	5. Expansion cards	9. Mouse
2. Motherboard	6. Power supply unit	10. Keyboard
3. CPU (Microprocessor)	7. Optical disc drive
4. Main memory (RAM)	8. Hard disk drive (HDD)

I'd say display (CRT, LCD, whatever), input (mouse, keyboard?), and exploded computer (CPU, mainboard/motherboard, main memory (RAM), hard disk, power supply, expansion cards). The detail doesn't have to be incredibly high; don't bother denoting that the box that holds everything together is a "case" or these are "cables" or what one expansion card's purpose is compared to the next. I also don't particularly care what shape the PC takes (could be some IBM PC compatible, Mac lookalike, etc). Probably would be best to fashion it after a fairly modern PC shape since the history section will contain images of examples from earlier generations. I would stay away from illustrating an all-in-one type form factor since it's more difficult to produce a sane exploded view of such a thing. Thanks for your consideration and help! -- uberpenguin 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have now started drawing, here's what I've done so far: Image:Personal computer, exploded.svg. It's very much a work in progress – probably about 1/5 is done. I will upload new revisions as I proceed. –Gustavb 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks great so far. Thanks so much for working on this! -- uberpenguin 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It looks wonderful. Make sure you keep it in perspective though, which you are doing a very good job at I might add. --Mushroom King 00:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I might add, when you get around to the labeling, use "CPU (microprocessor)" for the CPU label. It's more specific and accurate for the purposes of this article. -- uberpenguin 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice feedback! Yes, keeping the perspective is probably the hardest part when doing 3D with a 2D application – I recently added help lines to make it easier. I've also uploaded a new version, still much a work in progress though (about 2/5). Regarding the labeling, do you prefer "inline" labeling (names in the illustration) over numbers and labels in the caption? Inline style makes it faster to read, but on the other hand it makes linking and translation (for other wikis) harder… –Gustavb 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you think works better. I don't particularly care. -- uberpenguin 15:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with uberpenguin; whatever you think works better. --Mushroom King 04:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I chose the numbers+caption alternative. My concern right now is whether it's clear enough… at the size shown to the right it's a bit hard to distinguish what is what on the motherboard (and making it bigger than that in the actual article is probably not a good idea?). Aside from that, any comments? –Gustavb 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks fantastic to me. The size is fine; the only thing I'd change is the label "DVD player" to "Optical disc drive" to be more general. Other than that minor qualm, it's awesome. Bravo! Now we'll have to write a high quality article to go with the diagram. -- uberpenguin 22:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, you are right about the "DVD player", it's unnecessary specific… changed. I'm pretty satisfied now, so feel free to place it wherever you like it in the article. –Gustavb 00:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a (low res copy of) a rather simpler one I did earlier, which I'd be willing to share under a CC-like licence. [1] Any good? Thruston 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Software

It seems that there is a Giant hole where software should be in this article. What do you think? --Mushroom King 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is a giant hole... I'm trying to get it to win WP:AID because I don't want to rewrite the whole thing myself. -- uberpenguin 04:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I just voted. Do I need to add any justifications why I voted or is a signature good enough?--Mushroom King 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good enough. -- uberpenguin 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hard drive

There needs to be a rewrite on the Hard disk drive section. I don't see any mention of non-volatile, platters, or write heads anywhere. It gets much into detail about parts that surround the hard disk drive, but it never actually defines it. --Mushroom King 05:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about this and realised there should be a Storage catagory, where it splits into Hard Disk and CDs.--Mushroom King 14:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Secondary storage would be a viable alternative to just "Hard disk". However, the secondary storage article will require some expansion if we want it to be our main point. The hole is just getting bigger and bigger... --Mushroom King 03:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To be more general, we should prefer the terms primary storage, secondary storage, etc (tertiary storage isn't too common with PCs). Rather than just directly linking to those articles, the relevant sections should explain what specific types of storage are generally used with PCs. Remember that even in the PC realm nothing dictates that one must use a hard disk for mass storage. -- uberpenguin 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

More work

Okay, I'm starting to try to make sense of what we already have and what we need. Right now I'm merely revising the article for flow and clarity and reworking what is already there. I'm not making too many major content changes as of yet. One thing that is very notable is that the history section mostly talks about minicomputers and just barely skims the explosion of actual personal computers during the mid-80s and beyond. That definitely needs to be changed. I'm going to strip down the "Configuration" section (incidentally, it still needs a better name) to bare bones and expand from there. PC configuration should be relatively short and as general as possible. This article should really concentrate on the history and development of personal computers and their impact, not the details of what goes into your ATX tower. -- uberpenguin 18:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that History of computing hardware (1960s-present) has a rather excellent layout and coverage, and I'll probably be stealing some of that for this article's history section. -- uberpenguin 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the history should be rewritten and focussed on the dominance of particular machines in the business, educational and gaming markets by years starting 1975. --Alatari 08:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Woz

Although I've been using PC's since the PCjr, I know very little about the history of Personal Computers. But even I know enough to know that Steve Wozniak, the freakin' FATHER OF THE PC, should at least have his own section. Then I discover he isn't mentioned at all. I'm no fan of Apple products, but it's unbelievable that I had to add a reference to Woz. Someone with more in-depth knowledge than I needs to come up with a good, meaty paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.111.235.14 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 April 2006

"Father of the PC" is a pretty large editorial stretch, but you're right that Apple doesn't get nearly enough attention in this article. The whole thing needs rewriting; feel free to do it if you like. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-05 23:34Z

Macs aren't PCs. They even say so in their ads... Danorux 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Macs are PCs. They are computers designed and sold for personal usage. Let the marketers quibble over semantics, but as we define a PC, the Macintosh is a PC. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-11 22:22Z

Exactly...Macs are 'Personal Computers' the marketing directed against this term is so damn annoying because its a really simple and definitive phrase encompassing these machines.

The claim that the Apple II was the first successful personal computer and sold 2 million units is misleading. Those weren't all sold in 1977 and there were months when the TRS-80 outpaced Apple II's sales. We need hard cold figures here. Alatari 15:04, 20 June 2007

Found some sales figures: "Total share: 30 years of personal computer market share figures", Jeremy Reimer Dec.14, 2005. Apple lagged in 3rd or 4th place at all times but 1982. TRS-80 dominated till 1979, it's clones and Tandy went head to head with the new Atari 1980 with Apple tied for 3rd with PET, 1981 saw Apple, Tandy and Atari neck and neck with Tandy clones and others outpacing each individually, 1982 was Atari's big year, 1983 C64 and IBM squelched the rest continuing the trend in to 1987. After 1987 IBM PC and Clones were 70% with Apple at 15% and after 1995 well it's 95% msWindows Alatari 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image size

The point of thumbnails is that readers can decide for theselves whether or not to look at the large image, and that page-loading is speeded up for those on dial-up connections. Enlarging an image to 400px defeats the object; it insists that people see the large version. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Elimination of photographs

I notice there seems to have been a push to completely eliminate real photographs of modern PCs from this page, They are saying see talk page but all i can find is the one comment at the start of this section. I personally find this a little disturbing. Plugwash 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mixed up when I wrote that comment (was thinking about a similar discussion on Talk:Computer). Here's the issue, every few weeks someone adds a vanity photo of their PC to this (or the Computer) article. I object to this on several grounds. Modern desktop PC photos are uninteresting since almost everyone reading the article is already sitting in front of one. The images are usually poorly composed and much less attractive than the nice illustrations we have now. What's more, if we allow one user's PC vanity photo to stay, what stops every other user who has ever added their PC's mugshot to this article from adding it back, citing NPOV or something equally ludicris? For these reasons, I'm strongly against adding photos of peoples' desktops to this article. However, I'm very sorry for implying that there was some prior discussion here that doesn't actually exist. If you want to discuss it now, go ahead; I've made my points. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-05 03:24Z

IMO thats like saying we should have no photos at cat because people will use it as an excuse to push vanity images. I also disagree with the uninteresing comment, yes people will be sitting in front of a PC but there are quite a few styles that can be discussed along with thier pros and cons.

Also imo that "stylised illustration" at the top of the page is even more uninteresting than a photograph. Plugwash 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hardware - Add PPU?

I just wanted to know if anyone thinks that th Physics prosessing card should be aded to the hardware list. Maybe we should wait another year or something until they become standard, just seeing what other people thought. --Mincetro 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that what you speak of is little more than a specialized niche DSP... No. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-21 05:03Z

Hardware - Add Printer?

A key item that I feel is missing is the printer. Many of the systems shown/described are closer to networked business systems using an implied shared printer resource; even historically, the vast majority of "personal" computers either came with a printer or had it as a must-have accessory. Early types were the thermal and impact dot matrix, followed largely by the daisywheel and thimblewheel, and then of course the ubiquitous inkjet (laser printers were never really cheap enough to be offered as a standard option with a truly personal PC that wasn't a business machine).

In addition, today one sees systems for sale that include as "standard" both a NIC (network interface - difficult to call it a card these days when sometimes it is integrated into the motherboard) and a recordable disk device - usually CD/RW but increasingly DVD-RW and variants of both. Modems are increasingly left out of the package, since the rise of broadband in the form of flavors of DSL (mostly aDSL but I've used also sDSL) and the fall-off of ISDN.

"Personal Computer" many years ago (30+) simply meant one that was used exclusively by one individual rather than shared with others (as in a dumb terminal). It was more often found in a mainframe or minicomputer environment. The meaning of the term has evolved just as the machines have.

I'd be happy to chip in sections except that I'm swamped with writing a ton of other stuff and I'm just spread too thin :( AncientBrit 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Ugly, ugly composition in the history section now - advent of what? "computer terminal based architectures" is not even correct, nor literate. Could a native English speaker with some time please copyedit this to make it less painful to read? ( I'm adding it to my to-do list). Needs a better sense of the difference between batch mode computing and "personal" interactive computing and the origins back at MIT and so forth; also some contrast to the very first electronic computers which were used in much more interactive a way than the batch mode machines. --Wtshymanski 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been on my todo list for months, but I decided that Computer was more important to fix first. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-16 18:32Z

Worked on a rewrite of the first pharagraph focusing on the term personal computer as an affordable, small private use machine. Found lots of sources hoping to quell any citation objections. Alatari 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Found a great resoucre on the sales figures of personal computers from 1976 on. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/3 It shows what I lived through. The Apple was 3rd place for 2 years into 1980 Alatari 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

first kit PC?

from http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link9808/0362.html

email from Owen Hill of Microbee history:

Jim did design EDUC 8 (1979 or so) and legend has it that Jim's computer was probably the first hobby-built PC in the world! It was published in Electronics Australia just prior to the MITS Altair article appeared in Popular Electronics the US. The editors of Popular Electronics did later admit, reluctantly, that EA had published the first home PC design.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Woodward (talk • contribs) 06:57, 23 August 2006

1979 would put it well after the first kit AIM or even the first complete Apple II or TRS-80. Alatari 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Add recycling section

Hello all. I was thinking that a good addition to the article would be a paragraph about recycling. It is my opinion that most people do not know that they have a recycling option for their computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.248.237 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 October 2006

Ken Olsen quote

I have some problems with the Ken Olsen quote as presented. For one thing, according to the Snopes page on this subject, the actual quote is "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."

In addition, this quote is seriously taken out of context. According the the previously mentioned snopes page, the "home computers" that Mr. Olsen is talking about are not the same thing as what we currently think of as PC's. In the manner this quote is used it appears untrue.

Really, it ought to be removed, but for now I have just put in a verify tag. If no one can find a contradicting source, then this quote ought to go. Ricree101 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the comment to this talk page. It is clear Olsen was referring to home controlling machines not the terminals he already had in his home allowing his wife access to Scrabble and his son access to MIT. Wozniak had a major part to play in the microcomputer revolution of the 70's but this comment doesn't keep a NPOV direction for the article:

Minicomputers were available to smaller organizations than those that once used mainframes, but were not aimed at individuals, Ken Olsen, founder of DEC, has been widely quoted as saying in 1971 "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home"[2] This was understandable, considering what DEC was offering: only a fairly large organization could use or afford a machine the size of an average home refrigerator that required external terminals to operate and program. A few individuals, such as Steve Wozniak, had differing views, as will be seen below.

Alatari 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First image

It seems to me that the image at the top of the page should probably be of a modern personal computer. Perhaps we could select a model that is particularly iconic or popular. I think the first image should reflect what people think of when they think of personal computers, and the Altair 8800 is probably not it. — The Storm Surfer 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can use the pictogram style diagram suggested above and update it every year, but to pick a popular model for the first image is asking for further flaming, debate and politics in this article. Alatari 12:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PC vs MAC

Why a MAC (at least the non-native windows compatible) are not a PC?.

Because PC came from IBM Personal Computer, where "Personal Computer" is a SLOGAN, not a true meaning. It's a fact since almost any PC machine is not a computer but a microcomputer.

So, where a MAC's user say that a MAC is also a PC it's quite false, since a MAC can be called a personal microcomputer, not a personal computer.

What's the difference into a computer and a microcomputer?. In single words if you can lift it then it's a microcomputer!.

May be there are some fuss about "Personal Computer (PC)" (category) and "personal computer" (adjetive).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magallanes (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 May 2007

The term "Personal Computer"

The term Personal Computer was in usage in 1975 by Byte Magazine. See how casually the term is used while referring to microcomputer field in general: http://www.digibarn.com/collections/mags/byte-sept-oct-1975/one/4.jpg Third Column top half starting "In the personal computing field..."

In the latest IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Shapiro reports what may be the earliest print appearance of "personal computer": It's in an ad for Hewlett-Packard's first desktop computer, published in the 4 October 1968 issue of Science. The ad, which also ran in other journals, beats the earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)--an article in Byte magazine--by nearly 8 years.

Alatari 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging the Home computer article into this one

I've proposed the Home computer article be merged into this one because both articles indicate the terms are interchangeable. In order to avoid creating two conversations, please comment on the merge at the home computer talk page. --Android Mouse 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: I think this section should be edited down and "Main article: Home computer" inserted below the section heading. There does need to be a separate article on the home computer and most of what's in this section belongs in it, not here. Scolaire 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup revisited

User:A Link to the Past who rated this page said the list were too extensive. These could be moved into the Timeline of computing and refer users there. I'm unfamiliar with how to fix the Timeline template and make it more readable. Alatari 11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Post-IBM-PC personal business computer systems

Some of the computers in this list are not even personal computers, such as the SGI Indigo or Onyx. The Indigo was a high end workstation while the Onyx was a visualisation system or graphics supercomputer. The same goes for the SPARCstations which are workstations with up to four microprocessors costing around 30 grand. I have no idea why they would be listed here, should really be edited out -- Rilak 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they were designed to be used by a single person, (at any one point in time) defines that they were personal computers, as opposed to the earlier mainframe computers that served many users at the same time. That they were high end systems does not invalidate this fact. Mahjongg 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Being intended for use by a single user does not make a computer a PC. The article itself states: 'A personal computer (PC) is a computer whose price, size, and capabilities make it useful for individuals.' Neither the Indigo, Onyx nor the SPARCstation meet any of these requirements. One can also categorise a computer by examining the architecture, features and capabilities. If we look at the Onyx system architecture, it is in fact based on the POWER CHALLENGE or Origin supercomputers and have many features and capabilities (for the time) that were completely alien in PCs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rilak (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You made my point for me. Architecture doesn't matter. Just price, size and capabilities. The SGI Indy was competing head to head with Macintoshes Alatari 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Architecture does matter because it determines price, size and capabilities. For example, one method used in the mid 1990s to increase the L2 cache bandwidth was to increase the width of the dedicated L2 cache bus. This would raise pin count and increase the number of wires present on the PCB of the motherboard or daughtercard, thus increasing the cost of manufacturing and thus purchase, as well as the size and capability of a computer.

As for your comments regarding the Indy, I was talking about the Indigo, not the Indy which was SGI's low cost budget computer, which I do acknowledge to be a machine that was designed to compete in the digital publishing market as well as for business use such as video conferencing through the IndyCam.

While I agree with your mention that the Indigo and Onyx as well as other workstations can be purchased second for a cheap price today and be used as a personal computer today, when they were originally released, they certainly did not cost 'a few hundred dollars' nor were they used as a such purposes. A look at the OpenGL Performance section for 1996 at SPEC.org will give an interesting insight into the configurations and cost of workstations compared to PCs. Rilak 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess we have a question to be answered. Classify by the price now or the original price? Makes sense to keep them classified by historical context. So can you link your BM results for various machines all circa 1996? Alatari 17:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The information for the pricing of workstations and PCs circa 1996 can be found at: http://www.spec.org/gwpg/Feb96/opc/opc.cdrs.summary.price.html Rilak 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If I read this right the Digital AlphaStation 600 5/300 ZLXp-E3 would be the machine worth the most due to it's performance. We don't have a quantity in the affordable part of the definition but people seem willing to spend up to $3500 for personal computers no matter what year over the last decade. So classify all machines under $3500 on the COmposite index as personal computers? Alatari 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The link I've provided lists all the computers from least expensive to most expensive. The composite index shows the price per a unit of performance, not how much the computer costs, which would be listed in the list price column. As for saying that all computers under $3,500 dollars are not PCs I don't think that would be a good way to define it, as PCs have ranged anywhere from a five grand 386 in the early 1990s to the $300 budget machine today. This article's definition of a PC: 'A personal computer (PC) is a computer whose price, size, and capabilities make it useful for individuals.' is adequate I think. But what is the verdict regarding the Indigo, Onyx and other similar computers. Should they be classified as PCs or not? Rilak 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So the smaller the number the better. Two points: Those results were weighted almost exclusively to graphics capabilities and none of the Intel based machines had 3d accelerated video cards making the comparisons invalid. I assume this was to hide the fact that the cheap Intel based machines with excellent video cards could compete with the high end workstations. So we'll need overall performance benchmarks. As for the pricing: Yes they were priced out of the personal ownership market then but I can get and Indigo2 for under $200 and install Linux making it my own personal computer. So either we allow any affordable machine to fall under the definition of personal computer or we have to rewrite the definition with a built in 'of that era' clause. Alatari 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I do understand the train of thought that states that a computer that is completely out of the price range for a mere individual person, or which is merely a subsystem for a mainframe, (or another large and expensive computer that is in itself too expensive for a normal person) and therefore cannot be a personal computer, the historical fact is that personal computers were named as such because they were designed to be used by one single person! That is why the Datapoint 2200 can be thought of as (one of) the first personal computers. If you look at it from that historical perspective the fact that it took the capital of a large company to pay for one is in fact irrelevant. However I accept that at a later date, especially after the introduction of the home computer, the term became diluted to mean only those systems that a person could afford, however that is not the historical meaning!.

Also, when factoring price into the decision whether a historical computer can be categorized as a "personal" computer the only reasonable thing is to look at the historical price of the computer, not what it's worth now as scrap iron. Mahjongg 10:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition doesn't mention historical pricing and the Intergraph machines from 8 years ago are still useful and inexpensive for personal use. I have many clients in doctors offices that refuse to upgrade because productivity might decline. I'm still servicing some Win 98 machines. Alatari 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The comparisons of the PCs and workstations on the SPEC page are not invalid. They represented the best each of the companies at that time had to offer. I have done some research into computer graphics in the mid 1990s and I have not found any PC hardware that had any practical (usable for production quality, technical and scientific applications) 3D graphics options. If anyone has anything to contribute, please post links to reputable sources.

The Freedom cards were PCI cards and the x86 boxes could run Solaris with installed Freedom Graphics cards yet they failed to do the benchmark with only the x86 CPU being the changed variable. That makes the results biased to the high end manufacturers and invalidates the benchmark. Look closely at who paid for the study and who benefits from the results. Alatari 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

To also say that every single computer in the history of man is a PC if it was designed for a single person to use is pointless and does not represent the vast variety of single user systems. It is misleading to portray a $30,000 with exotic (for the time) architecture as a common PC that everyone had access to. We must also keep up to date with definitions. The original meaning of PC as being a computer that a single person uses may be correct for the particular time (maybe before workstations) but definitions change.

I think that if we cannot come to a consensus regarding the distinction of PCs or workstations or any other similar single user computer, than we should split the PC page into separate parts, each detailing the definition of PC in the context of any particular historical period with listed examples just like the Wikipedia article on workstations. Definitions of words change as technology and society evolves. It would be misleading and incorrect to stay with the original definition after general views have changed, much like the definition of English words for example.

I wholeheartedly agree. The term is still evolving and some inclusion of historical pricing needs to be added to the definition. Just remember that performance is one thing that is measurable but pricing is truly subjective. If you can convince a CEO that your Sun Workstations are vastly superior than an in house built x86 and have them pay 10x the price even though the actual performance differences are in the 5% range you're a super salesperson. That still doesn't make your workstation not a personal computer. Are we going to adhere to marketing definitions of what computers are or to technical definitions? We have to keep an eye on marketers from high profit manufacturers coming into Wikipedia and playing around with the articles to enhance their customers perspectives. Alatari 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

While workstations and PCs are being debated, I would like to point out that the Onyx is not exactly a workstation. While one model in the Onyx and Onyx2 series were workstations, the rest of the models, while sharing the same branding are clearly, without any doubt, graphics supercomputers based on the POWER CHALLENGE and Origin supercomputer architectures, as evidenced by SGI's Onyx2 Technical Report as well as later SGI datasheets and were certainly always used in multiple user environments. Rilak 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)