Talk:List of computer hardware manufacturers

Manufacturers or Brands?
I'm of the opinion that the "Power Supply" section should include ONLY manufacturers--literally, those who initially build the units. I.e., FSP, Seven Team, Deerfield, etc. The actual distributors/branders of the PSUs are a separate issue.

The logical counter-argument to this is that we don't normally go by the manufacturer's name--however, in this industry only the ORIGINAL component mfg. is important--the brand name of itself is typically of no quality assurance, it's what's "under the hood" that counts. TrevorRC 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have heard that some brands have the same stuff inside as other, but it is hard to know which only rebrands and which actually manufacturers the whole thing. I guess we could have a subheading for the Power supply section which list the manufacturers... -- Frap 00:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * i agree, who actually makes the PSU is what really counts, and many consumers (granted mostly computer enthusiasts, myself included), as well as industry professionals, also base their purchases on the original manufacturers.(unknown author, this comment)


 * would like to include external links to mfr ID lists, eg, | Database of PSU OEMs, websites and UL numbers (jonnyguru.com)2z2z (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I once used FCC ID to find drivers by actual mfr of an obscurely rebadged CRT.2z2z (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

i must also disagree with the way graphics cards are presented. in all fairness, i think there has to be two categories; 1 PCB makers, that integrate the core with PCB's, RAM, VRM's, and so fourth, and 2 the actual manufacturers of the graphics core. even tho some (like ATI) would qualify for both.


 * same here, it should be "Video Cards" and "Video Chipsets" or something like that. -- Bboyskidz 05:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not just PSUs or Video cards that this issue applies to, it's most pieces of computer hardware. We've got four catagories here: companies that solely rebrand availible hardware, companies that design their own hardware but don't manufacture any of it, companies that both design and manufacture hardware and companies that manufacture hardware for other people's designs. How should this be split up, and can anyone suggest some appropriate terms for the resulting lists?

People come to this page to find the truth behind the brand labels. I think organizing it with a list of ODMs, what they manufacture, and who they supply to. Another way which is kind of backwards but more useful to the general user is a OEM based list with their various ODMs for the various components. Also, lists need to differentiate between what is historical information and what is current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.131.60.157 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Computer manufacturers
What about adding a list of computer manufacturers? or should that be its own page? there is a list of competitors on the Acer page that could be added here.

Also, to stop this page from being so lonely, why not add this page as a link on all of the companies listed here? (i.e. in their "see also" sections) -- Bboyskidz 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing motherboard manufacturer
Looks like Albatron was left out of the motherboard manufacturer list.

Their website is http://www.albatron.com.tw

Keyscan
A Canadian maker of Access control systems. Not sure if it fits into any of these categories, but though I should bring to your attention as it is not the same company as the KeyScan you have listed (but it does now bluelink your redlink). Exit2DOS2000  •T•C•  07:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

possible new display manyfacturer?
AUO I run over it after opening a asus eee pc. What do you think? --Chomwitt (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, they don't make any end-user products. They just manufacture the panels which are used by other manufacturers in their products. -- Frap (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This list is not about major computer manufacturers. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Organization of the list
There does not seem to be any particular order to the sections. It seems like some of these could be grouped together into categories like "input devices", "storage devices", etc. I would love to see some other ideas on this. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am finally getting back to this list. I think the best organization would be to follow the Basic computer components for organization and sub sorting. If an entry is not in the template already, we place the section in this article as close to the appropriate section as that template. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Scope of list
This list reads like a directory of manufacturers. that is against WP guidelines (WP:DIR). I would strongly recommend that this be limited to companies that already have articles, or that have references showing they are pc hardware manu. AND are notable, per many other lists like this. a redlink does not notability confer.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the WP guidelines entry to review would be WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCOMPANY. This list falls under the definitions discussed in these two entries. Having read them I believe we can have this list with the following guidelines:
 * If a company has an associated Wikipedia article that identifies a sourced statement that they produce PC hardware as we define on the main page of this article, they can be listed here.
 * If a company would otherwise qualify, but there is no current Wikipedia article, a source will need to be added to this list next to each occurrence of their entry.
 * A company that does not have a legitimate source in a current linked article or in this article cannot be listed.
 * I will start making a review of this article following this guideline. I there is disagreement I am happy to stop and talk about it here. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Floppy disk
No floppy disk? They still make them! -- Hinata  talk  16:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I started a section for FDDs and included 4 companies (Alps, NEC, Mitsumi, TEAC) but it might be expanded. --MrBurns (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Include or not include historical manufacturers
This list includes historical CPU manufacturers like Transmeta, but I didn't find IBM on the motherboad manufacturer list, althought they made the first PC-motherboard ever (see IBM 5150). This is a bit of an inconsitency. --MrBurns (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No,i suggest only current mfrs should be included. Recently merged brands may be given in brackets. There are only three major HDD mfrs today. Remaining Brands are given in brackets. This is a list of manufacturers, not brands.-Polytope4d (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No,There is a seperate page for defunct manufacturesrs already.Ethanpet113 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. There is also a List of computer system manufacturers, which should probably be kept separate. As hardware continues to evolve, the criteria for inclusion in such lists will too. It may be helpful to better define the criteria for inclusion in each list in the lead section for each. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

List of PC hardware manufacturers → List of computer hardware manufacturers – The current title of this page is inadequate to represent its contents. Computer hardware may be used in clusters, super computers, micro computers, robotics, industrial control panels ect.. Ethanpet113 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick move - I think this is non-contentious and can be moved now. The reasoning the nominator has given is succinct and to the point; and accurately satisfies a move. If there is no negative response in the next 24 hours, I am happy to non-admin close this.  iComputer  SaysNo 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got ahead of myself. As I have taken part in the debate, I can't close it.  iComputer  SaysNo 23:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment though does it cover computer equipment manufacturers who don't also manufacture for the home/PC/desktop/laptop market? (ie. embedded only, specialty only, big-iron only) -- 70.24.245.196 (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think changing it to encompass more will allow it to cover the areas you are discussing? Chicken or the egg problem  iComputer  SaysNo 23:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Expansion of scope may be a good thing, but what are the limits of such a list? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support; title would better reflect content, seems uncontroversial to me. bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Don't include users of OEMs! It makes the list completely useless.
I can't stress this enough. The main point of a list like this is to list manufacturers, not who sticked their name on it. -- f s  05:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Page hasn't been updated for a while
New Companies -Cryorig -Bitfenix I'll add more when I think of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.255.25.173 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Defunct List
Please put a Defunct list at the end of every category, instead of writing "Ceased manufacturing..." every time.-Polytope4d (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: should defunct companies be listed at all?-Polytope4d (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest deleting defunct companies rather than separately listing them since the list would become rather long. I suppose we could create separate articles for each category as in List of defunct hard disk manufacturers I'll add a link to this into the category. Tom94022 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Optical Disk Drive Section Inaccurate
The Optical Disk Drive section includes a number of companies that merely brand ODDs manufactured by other parties. Unfortunately I know of no RS that would make correcting this section easy. I deleted the obviious errors. Note ODDs today are mainly DVDs although there might still be one or two MO or just CD manufacturers around. Tom94022 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, according to a 2016 article, "TSST has stopped manufacturing optical drives" and "this will leave just LG Hitachi making optical drives by 2017." The article further notes ASUS does not make its own ODDs but was relying on TSST. Tom94022 (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Use in line links where no Wiki article currently exists
I suggest this article is an appropriate place for in line links where no Wiki article exists. Absent such a link there is no way to tell if in fact anything listed here is indeed a manufacturer.

The issue arose with Areca which happens to also be a plant and have an article and a disambiguation page. After checking that the listing was valid on this page by going to Areca's website I added it to the Areca_(disambiguation) and pointed this article there where the in-line link goes to Areca's website. IMO this is not spam but a legitimate informative in line link and should be applied to most of the red links in this article. Comments? Tom94022 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for initiating discussion on this. I believe what you are proposing is contrary to WP:ELLIST. Consensus was that the company is not notable so it shouldn't be red linked, per MOS:DABRED. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is pretty clear that MOS:DABRED doesn't apply to this article; its not a disambiguation page. I don't think there is any consensus that the company was not notable so WP:ELLIST does not apply; as it states, "This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria." By the definition of this article any current manufacturer meets the list's inclusion criteria.  A red link added to this article indicates the editor who added it thinks an article should be created for the company but in the mean time in line citations point to the the validation of the company's inclusion.  I suppose one could use a red link with a reference but that would become unsightly.  Either way, I think pointing to something that validates a company's inclusion in this article is valuable and shouldn't be precluded by some strict reading of some WP.  Tom94022 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point. The page notice on this page clearly states "No red links. No unlinked entries. Every entry in this list must have an article written and reliable sources to support inclusion, else it will be removed." There is no Areca article. Therefore, it should not be included here. You have instead linked Areca to a disambiguation page, which you shouldn't be doing on purpose, per WP:INTDAB. You added an external link to the Areca disambiguation page, which is contrary to Disambiguation. And you created a red link there, contrary to WP:DABRED, when the community concluded that the the company is not notable. I am reverting those issues now. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose changing the page notice to read: It appears the page notice was posted in 2006 without discussion and I note that contrary to the page notice there are a number of red links on the page. Furthermore, IMO having an entry with a reliable source makes the article much better than leaving out an entry. Finally I note that many of the links to articles do not support inclusion in this list since an article may exist but the company linked either never manufactured or has ceased to manufacture the item. I would appreciate hearing from other editors. Tom94022 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From:"No red links. No unlinked entries. Every entry in this list must have an article written and reliable sources to support inclusion, else it will be removed.
 * To:"Every entry in this list must link to a relevent article or to at least one reliable source to support inclusion, else it will be removed."

At this point we are the only two editor's commenting. If I go ahead and make the changes will you revert? If so I will ask for a third opinion right now. Otherwise I will make the changes and see if anyone else cares. Tom94022 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Forgot edit summary
Forgot edit summary for my edit: [|//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_computer_hardware_manufacturers&oldid=1180699264]: Update list of defunct companies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.170.45 (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaming chairs?
List of computer hardware manufacturers

Sure, gaming chairs are related to computers, but it would be a stretch to put them in a list of computer hardware manufacturers. I propose removing this section entirely.

50.98.170.45 (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Palit/Galaxy
Added Galaxy Microsystems, as it's not owned by Palit Microsystems. Palit only acquired its subdivision - Galaxy Technology. Elk Salmon (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)