Talk:Computer/Archive 2

Oleg, no, it wasn't done with consultation. I've just gone ahead and done it. Over the next few days, I hope I (with assistance from others if they want) can work it into a state where it is clearly superior to the existing article, at which point it can replace that article and be the basis for further work.

I decided on a fork because I couldn't achieve the ground-up reworking I wanted in one go, and I didn't want to leave the article in a screwed-up state. --Robert Merkel 00:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Above-the-fold
The fact that the text that comes before the TOC is several paragraphs of detailed content seems to be a step backward. Certainly entymology and related info doesn't need to go there, does it? -Harmil 01:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro

 * Perhaps the key distinguishing feature between what we today call "computers" and the earlier mechanical devices is that these devices, ingenious though many were, could only be used to do a limited number of tasks. Modern digital computers are, by contrast, extremely versatile. In fact, they are universal information processing machines.

This is a bit prosy, and doesn't convey information as clearly as it should. Perhaps:


 * The distinguishing feature of modern computers is that they are universal information processing machines.

The subsequent Church-Turing info really belongs in a section of its own, later on.


 * Therefore, the same computer designs have been adapted for an infinite variety of tasks

That's impossible. Infinite time would be required.


 * from playing music to controlling the flight of aeroplanes, and millions of others.

Klunky....


 * This article concentrates mainly on the modern, universal, programmable computer. Discussion of earlier types can be found in History of computing hardware.

A section called "History" with the usual:


 * Discussion of earlier types can be found in History of computing hardware.

lead-in.


 * Computers are present in a huge variety of physical packages.

That should be re-worded. First off, "huge" is subjective and vague. Also, "physical packages" is redundant.

What, exactly was your concern with the original intro? It seems adequate.... -Harmil 01:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Programs

 * the Firefox web browser is created from roughly 2 million lines of computer code, and there are many projects of even bigger scope.

That needs to be re-worded. As is, it just doesn't scan well at all. -Harmil 01:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

stored program architecture
The stored program architecture link in the section title is not necessary. Just make it a link in the paragraph text. -Harmil 01:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Overall feel
Thanks for those comments, but what I'm really asking is whether you think the article as a whole is more coherent and presents a more useful summary than the current Computer article, and could serve as a replacement (after which it would of course be subject to further editing. --Robert Merkel 05:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In general I like it! There are parts to make better (see what they said above.. ;-) ), but it is quite better disposed then the old one, which was more or less just a bunch of somewhat related text pieces thrown together. This one, however, seems to have a thread from start to end. I tried to chip in some improvements here and there.


 * Also I made a change to the sentence about Moore's law in the beginning. To be exact, it says that you can integrate more and more transistors in one package as time goes. Historically, this has meant faster computers (ie higher clockspeed, easy measure!), however, right now that development isn't going in that direction as much as it used to - the development goes at more and more distributed systems, dualcores etc, while the clock frequencies aren't really moving (that much at least). The term "more powerful" is for a layman essentially identical to "faster", but to an expert, it is more coherent with this recent development. TERdON 14:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In the last edit you did (making a new, promising, history section!), that link to the article on analog computers were removed. I do understand that digital computers are the usual thing today and the main topic of the article - however there is an argument to at least let a single sentence in the history link to the analogue counterpart - if not, this is an article that only deals with the digital computer (oops, that seems to redirect here, but still). I do know that the link is available in the computer history article, so this might be a question for debate though. Computers, IMHO, refers to both somewhat, and it would be a wise idea to be general and also point on computers not seen today... Overall, still a good initiative. TERdON 03:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)