Talk:Holographic processing unit

Redirect
Why are you redirecting this? This page is supposed to be about one of the technologies involved: a new kind of processor that was mentioned in one of the oficial videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.103.56 (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I undid the redirect, I think this should have it's own article and I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way, please discuss any redirects here and gain consensus before redirecting the page again. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not really an article. This is barely more than a tagline. Most importantly, this is not a stub. Per the guideline: "A stub is an article […] that is capable of expansion." That is not currently the case for this topic. "If a stub has little verifiable information, […] it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." Dancter (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would argue that this undoubtedly will be expanded upon as more information becomes available. I will try to expand it with whatever information I can find to get it up to the stub quality, however the information is verifiable from a multitude of sources and as Microsoft releases more information, it will be easy to expand. Not to mention it's likely use in future devices other than the HoloLens, which would make merging it with that article undesirable. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In trying to support your argument, you are puffing the article up by introducing editorial speculation, including unfiltered marketing spin, and inferring things not actually stated in the references you use for them. This is part of the reason why I think this should be merged. Right now, there is little substantive information available to support an article. When enough information is released to support a separate article, it is not significantly more difficult for someone familiar with redirects to split the content back here. That time will also be apparent in the natural course of covering the topic in the related article. Dancter (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect in time that this article will be able to stand on its own. I would support keeping it here as a stub rather than merging and redirecting.  Time will tell whether or not HPUs become a thing, but at the moment I would agree that this article is likely to be expanded upon as more information becomes available. Zell Faze (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi all! IMHO HPU is just a branding name from Microsoft to make it looks cool and high tech, but I guess it has no fundamental differences from any other co-processor. It may even only be an FPGA for all we know. Of course it's design specifically for the Hololens, but's that's like all co-processor or FPGAs around :) As to whether it deserves a dedicated article or not on Wikipedia, I've no idea ;) --Gregmiret (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Afterall, this HPU is not a standard for the technology, and will be used exclusively by HoloLens so i don't see why this needs to have its own article, it should be a section in the Windows Holographic article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OussDB (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * HPU is clearly custom silicon. Would you suggest to merge CPU with CoProcessor? It's a unique device. 24.57.132.149 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

--- HI everyone - Lets consolidate here: OBVIOUSLY the HPU should be mentioned and described on the Microsoft HoloLens section, BUT that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a page specifically for the HPU alone. From my understanding, HPU is a name of an information processing chip, a chip that might appear in many different products other than the HoloLens... Therefore, the HPU deserves its own section, similar to CPU and GPU. Joining the HPU in the same article as HoloLens will only postpone the FACT that they will have to be separated eventually in the future. HoloLens is an individual product that will have a LIMITED SHELF LIFE and can become obsolete as a whole, while HPU is the defining name for processing chips that will continue to exist and be updated way beyond the the expired lifetime of the HoloLens. Saying HPU should be only mentioned in the HoloLens section is like saying the CPU should be only mentioned in the Mac Pro section. Oxymoron Dilema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaiJak84 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That the HPU "will continue to exist and be updated way beyond the expired lifetime of the HoloLens" is pure speculation, and not a FACT, any more than it was a FACT that the New England Patriots would win Super Bowl XLIX before it actually happened. Microsoft has not even hinted at further applications for the HPU at this point. Others in this thread have expressed that the HPU was designed specifically for the HoloLens.
 * You insist that the HPU establishes an entire class of processors, despite having no concrete information, and Microsoft not actually saying that. Having a page now, when there is no real information, only invites eager editors to fill the page with low-quality information, non-neutral speculation and original research, and marketing hype. This has already happened. While "Essentially HPU's understand the world around you" is typical language for a product brochure, it is an absurdly reductive description to have in an encyclopedia. Your analogy with the CPU and the Mac Pro doesn't hold up. The CPU was well-known and understood long before the Mac Pro existed. Despite your claim of FACT, the HPU is only known to be utilized in the HoloLens. Saying the HPU should have its own article at this point is like saying that, had Wikipedia existed then, blast processing would have had warranted having its own article from the moment Sega mentioned it in an ad. Whatever happens with the HPU in the future does not validate having this kind of article now. Per content policy, Wikipedia should not assert any FACT that isn't directly verifiable by a reliable source. To "postpone," as you dismissively describe it, is the appropriate course of action. Dancter (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind, after consideration Dancter is probably correct, this is WP:TOOSOON and also falls under WP:CRYSTAL this may warrant an article in the future, but there is no evidence that this technology is new, or will remain relevant past the life of the HoloLens. As has been pointed out, Microsoft's use of Hologram/Holographic is not even technically correct, so can the name "holographic processing unit" be technically correct, probably not in this case. I think before we can have an article we need to be able to establish how this chip differs from other co-processors and also it needs to see use in something other than the HoloLens. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't merge. The HPU is a distinct device to implement holographic technology. It deserves it's own article, and this is not a "stub". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.132.149 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Usage of 'Holography'/'Hologram'/'Holographic'
I would like to point out that one should be carefull with the usage of the term 'holography' in the context of both HPU and the hololens. As one can read in the main article about holography, an actual hologram (and it's results) is very different from the techniques used in the hololens (which is in essence just augmented reality visualised on a see through display). The usage of 'holograms' by Microsoft is only marketing. Therefore I propose to remove the word 'holographic' in 'it allows HoloLens to merge virtual holographic objects'. The article about the hololens doesn't seem to have these issues at the moment. Also: I think one may add the hololens to 'Things often confused with holograms' in the holography article (I will also add a note there). Jerisson (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you recommend wording it? What if we put 'holographic-like objects'? Do you have a better term? -War wizard90 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer to simply put 'virtual objects' as is also done in the augmented reality article. But maybe I'm just nitpicking and one can use the more popular usage of the terms holography/holograms (as often seen in movies), which tends to differ quite a lot from the real meaning of a hologram (see holography).Jerisson (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, this is not holographic technology in the definition that I am familiar with. Egil (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This is Holographic technology.  Hologram/Holographic definition; "http://www.thefreedictionary.com/holograms" "a three-dimensional representation in photographic form, recorded on film by a reflected laser beam of a subject illuminated by part of the same laser beam."  HoloLens is reflected light into the eye.  Same principle, same effect, same usage and understanding.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.132.149 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are being conspicuously selective in the definition you chose to cite. Out of all the ones listed at that page, you decide to use the one with the most muddled description of the interferometric process involved in holography. Even by that definition, the HoloLens would not fit, as the "three-dimensional representation" produced by HoloLens is not recorded on film. Dancter (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)