Talk:List of home computers by category

Article's existence

This list was created to avoid duplication of several lists in various articles. On the whole it might be better if it was integrated into the List of home computers entry. -- Mic 13:34 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that both lists are worth having, since they provide useful, differently indexed entries into the world of home computers. So I suggest we update both articles as needed. --Wernher 14:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Odd inclusions

Osborne 1? Kaypro? These are strange choices for "home" computers since they were really aimed at business and professinal users, at best for students doing word processing. No graphics or sound on these machines, so not really the tradional "games box that you can also write BASIC programs on". --Wtshymanski 18:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're completely right. Trimming of article done. --Wernher 23:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the DEC Rainbow has been taken off the list (justifiably...not the same sort of machine), perhaps we should also remove the PDP 11 clone and definitely remove the Radio Shack TRS 80 Model 11 - this 8-inch floppy drive system was never intended for household use. (Just because true geeks dragged VAXes back to the house doesn't make a VAX a home computer either - you've got to classify by intended market, not by the exceptions). --Wtshymanski 13:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, how is the TRS-80 Model II, III, or IV a home computer? (The Model I, sure.) And was the Apple III ever marketed at home users?

Headline text

In what sense is the Colecovision a home computer? At least the Atari 2600 had an optional Basic cartridge and keyboard attachment (actually, two--one from Atari, one from Spectravideo). Even worse: Nintendo Gameboy?

Can you really call the Aquarius 2 a home computer when they never even finished designing it?

Also, if the DEC Rainbow was taken off the list, someone added it back.Falcotron 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit Wars

I thought the 32-bit category was a bit odd. The Motorola 68000 had ~~16-bit~~32-bit internal registers and 16-bit wide memory. The whole point of the 68008 was that it had ~~16-bit~~32-bit registers and 8-bit wide memory - narrower memory makes a machine cheaper to build. I'm not sure that any of the Amiga or ST machines lasted long enough for a full 32-bit-wide 68000 family processor. National Semiconductor called their chip 32016 because it had 32-bit registers and a 16-bit wide memory. The PC Jr used the 8088, with 16-bit registers and 8-bit wide memory (like the 68008). Classification of processor "bit" size is not something I feel passionately enough about any more to change in this article, but if I were doing the classification I'd do it on memory bandwidth and not marketing hype. I don't know that it's even useful to categorize by "bit width" since other factors completely dominate how the machine performs. --Wtshymanski 13:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the old categorization was not by data bus width, or the 8088 and 68008 should both be in the 8-bit section, etc. This is more useful. Mirror Vax 14:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, the ST and Amiga came with later 68K family chips (including the 68060, though that last one only via third parties). Mirror Vax 14:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am mistaken. The 68000 has 32- bit registers for data - I just looked at the programmer's model in "MC68000 16-Bit Microprocessor User's Manual, Second Edition", Motorola, (1980). But as evident from the title, Motorola thought of this as a 16-bit processor ( just ast Intel properly called the 8088 an "8-bit" processor in their old data books). I'll have to look at the ST article to see if any of them had a 68020 or better. The corrections aren't useful, I suppose; back when I cared about this sort of thing I think I would have argued that the memory bus size was as important as register size in an overall performance-determining way, but I'm no longer sure that is true. --Wtshymanski 16:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Data bus width is just an implementation detail, like clock frequency. The key thing is the programming model. The progression between CPU architectures is driven primarily by memory addressing limits. Mirror Vax 17:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IBM PC a home computer?

I'm a little uneasy with the fact that the IBM PC its clones are now part of this list. Even though the borders between home computers and personal computers admittedly were a little fuzzy in those days (especially the late 70s and early-to-mid-80s), I'd argue that that was an effect primarily by marketing. The Apple II, for instance, was marketed from the start as a "personal computer" even though it was also very much being directed towards the (upper middle class) home market (evidenced by many colorful magazine ads). The IBM PC, on the other hand, was never sold in as a "home computer"; that was the "job" of the PCjr (in which it failed miserably, though). Hence, I say we should remove the PC as such from the list, as it doesn't fit in the company of 1980s home computers.

The only other "problem" now, IMO, is the Mac. Was it marketed as much as a home computer as a personal computer? The pricing might've been quite prohibitive for much of the 'home computing demographic', or what? Please comment. --Wernher 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I modified the list to make it clearer that some clones are marketed as a home computer. Yuhong 01:19, '19 December 2005 (UTC)':I took "Home computer" literally. -- Yuhong 03:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[:I see. Anyway, according to the home computer article, "the home computer is a consumer-friendly word for the second generation of microcomputers (the technical term that was previously used), entering the market in 1977 and becoming common during the 1980s. [...]The home computer largely died out at the end]] of the decade (in the U.S.) or in the early 1990s (in Europe) due to the rise of the IBM PC compatible personal'''''''''''''''' computer (the IBM PC and its clones are not covered in this article)."

That's why we should perhaps restrict this list, as well, to home computers of the above definition, and clearly explain, in the intro text, that we're not covering PC clones (other than the PCjr and very similar offerings of the 80s), while still acknowledging the fact that modern PC's are also used to a large extent as personal computers in people's homes, and thus fulfill the needs served by the home computers of the 80s, and much, much more, of course). --Wernher 12:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If modern PC clones don't count as home computers, then why does the Intel Mac Mini or iMac Core Duo qualify? In what sense is a Wintel budget or gamer box less of a home computer than a Mac? It's especially odd to see a 64-bit x86 heading that contains nothing but future Mac models. That's an 80s home computer category? Falcotron 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO also, the new Macs and particularly the x86-64 boxes doesn't belong here at all. See my comment to the 'rant' below on this discussion page. I lean towards the opinion that we should let this article be a 'dedicated home computer' list; the generic PCs are today's home computers also, OK, but more to the point they are today's general purpose computers, used in everything from low- and high performance embedded systems, via medium power home PCs, to high performance CAD workstations, and also in grid supercomputer configurations. So to call PCs 'home computers' as such is much too restrictive! --Wernher 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple II clones

I was a bit surprised to not see any mention of Apple clones besides the Franklins and Lasers. I especially remember the 6502/Z80-powered Orange + Two (see http://www.zock.com/8-Bit/D_Orange+2.HTML for a reference in German), but there were dozens of others. It might be worth adding a Miscellaneous heading with one entry for "Apple II clones." (We could get a list by scouring the Apple ][ clone sites, but that seems unnecessary.) Falcotron 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add any Apple II clones you know of; they were home computers, and, accordingly, they should be listed! :-) We must aim to let the list show what a plethora of home computers that existed over the years. --Wernher 17:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermarket Accelerators and Coprocessors

The BBC Micro is listed under Z80 because an aftermarket external processor module was available, and the C64/C128 is listed under 65C816 because an aftermarket accelerator was available. If these are going to be included, the Apple II, II+, and IIe should be listed under Z80, and the IIe under the 65C816, because similar products were available for the Apples. There were also x86 coprocessor boards for the Mac and Amiga (although the Mac is already listed under x86, as mentioned above). I don't think any of these should be listed. Falcotron 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a Z80 co-processor module for the C64 as well, just to add to the list! --Phooto 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16 bit Atari?

Didn't Atari have a line of 16-bit computers between the XL series and the ST? An XE with a 65C816 or something like that? Falcotron 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no such thing existed. There are several third party extensions to XL/XE series providing 65C816, though: Turbo-816, Sweet 16, Hyperspeed XL/XE, Warp 4, PF7. Incidentally, "Sweet 16" was an early codename for Atari 1200XL, but it is pure accident, that a third party 65C816 board was later named so as well. 82.210.159.30 12:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

32-bit machines

The list doesn't appear to include NeXTStations (68K), Sun 3 series (68K), SGI IRIS (68K), Omron Luna (88K), or for that matter, entire lines of processors, like the intel i860 and the intel i960, which are not x86 based. --Anonymous

SGI IRIS home computers? Really. And who, if anyone, bought Sun 3 series workstations privately when they were contemporary (i.e., when they were high performance compared to home computers and also business PCs, for that matter) at their far-out-of-the-reach-for-ordinary-people price, as well as being made for local area networks in engineering and university lab settings? The same goes for NeXTStations, I think. --Wernher 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rant on arbitrary / fuzzy distinctions and the removal of information

Modern PCs and Macs on the list

On the topic of including PCs on this list. PC's are home computers, and always have been. PC was a trademark on IBM's first foray into the home computer market, and was later used as and alternate term for home computers. The only good reason I see to exclude today's PC's is that there are few standardized boxes, and most OEM companies have a large selection of machines combining a larger number of components with no (or very little) standardization. In this sense, only standardized machines like the Mac boxes really have a true identity among today’s home computers, making them more of a gimme for inclusion in this list. Perhaps the best idea for the x86 line of PCs and their successors is to link to a processor timeline/categorization. If anyone is aware of machines in this line that have solid identities (i.e., they didn't have 400 variants with differing capabilities) they should include them.

IIRC, the original IBM PC was introduced as a 'small business computer' much more than a home computer. But of course, the distinction is a little fuzzy, as many people used it as a 'home office' business computer, and as such, in their homes. However, I think very few people actually bought it to use only as a hobbyist's home computer, because the IBM PC (before clones appeared on the scene) cost quite a lot more than the 'dedicated home computers' at the time. But here again there are exceptions, such as the overly expensive Apple II line (which was marketed as a personal computer for the home, but was very much used in businesspeople's offices for running Visicalc spreadsheets...), compared with, say, the relatively inexpensive early TRS-80s and Commodore's 8-bit machines. To compete with those on their own terms, IBM created the IBM PCjr home computer (which flopped, however). I guess the thing is that the phrase 'home computer' as understood here, is the 1980s usage...

Today's home computers are nearly all PCs and Macs, and a separate home computer niche below those PCs in performance obviously does not exist, as you correctly state in your comment. Nowadays, as we all know, ironically many people's gaming PCs are more powerful than most* office PCs :-) (*all except CAD/professional graphics/workstation type PCs, that is) --Wernher 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Computer vs. Personal Computer vs. Hobbyist Computer vs. NOT

I think that most of the distinctions being made here (Macs, PCs, TRS-80s, etc) are arbitrary. Yes, a VAX brought home is not a home computer, but just because some of these machines were only in the 'homes' of hobbyists, does not mean they don't belong on this list. Initially, it was only hobbyists who had home computers. For instance, while it can be argued that the TRS-80s are more businesslike machines, they were sold to the public at Radio Shack.

The statement about a "games box that you can also write BASIC programs on" is arbitrary beyond belief. These don't have to be games boxes at all (though I remember playing Adventure on a TRS-80 text only box with 8" drives as a kid). This is not a "game system with keyboard" article, these are low cost low power personal-use computers (relative to expensive powerful business-use minicomputers / mainframes / servers / supercomputers) owned by regular people and used in the home. Heck, even the TRS-80 Coco had Microware Systems Corporation's OS-9 for business users, but that did not make it a minicomputer.

There is a big difference between a machine that an engineer brings home, and one that was purchased for the home, and I feel that that is the difference that should be used as the guideline here. Arbitrarily removing machines based on vague distinctions, such as game-playing capability or floppy disk size, misses the point that these were machines that were in homes because it didn't take a business to afford one. They were affordable because there was a fairly big difference in performance between them and the (relative atom-smasher) minicomputers of the same timeframe.

This is not a particularly fuzzy distinction. These are not the machines that cost more then than some new cars today... not the machines that were more at home in NASA's mission control than in your basement. These were machines that ham radio operators, scifi fans, and burgeoning computer geeks could buy (sometimes piece by piece--a la the Altair) and use to (as one of my friends once said), “become part of the future today.” Continuing to insist on tying such a useful list to ambiguous nomenclature (i.e., personal-, home-, micro-, etc.) is a sure recipe for data to be dropped entirely (does everyone who pulls it from one list go looking to make sure that it is kept on a more appropriate one?). If people want to categorize these machines as microcomputers, home computers, personal computers, etc., then perhaps this article should be categorized that way and called List of computers used in the home. --John 11:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>END RANT HERE :-)<<<<

As I kind of hinted at above, perhaps an article in the line of "List of 1980s home computers" or "List of dedicated home computers" would be more fitting? Or a little easier (and perhaps better), keep the title but list the computers by decade? Also, specify for each machine, whether it was a dedicated home computer, a meant-for-business computer, or a mix? --Wernher 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here it ends, M.B.I.C.

Video game consoles vs. home computers

If it didn't have a keyboard, you could not use it for word processing, BASIC programming, calling BBSes, etc.. If it didn't have a tape deck or floppy drive, you couldn't save anything you'd written on it. I've taken out the Colecovision and Nintendo NES entries, since their articles make it clear these are primarily game consoles and not home computers. I've also taken out some misclassified items - for example Ohio Scientific made small busines systems, not targeted at the 1980's home market, and PDP 11 clones were also not targeted at the K-mart shopper who wanted to bring home a computer for the kids. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable lists

Where can I read about how to make those sortable lists I see in some articles? Then we could have only one list, and the user could click on a column heading and sort by manufacturer, name, year of introduction, processor word size, video chip, and possibly country of origin. See the table in Mains power systems for an example. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Table and Help:Sorting. Not sure if they are a good fit for this page though. --Stefan ^talk 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the video hardware list and I agree a sortable table won't work well for that list, but it could merge this list "by category" ( strange name, should be "by processor", everything can be sorted "by category") and the other list of home computers. Won't have time to try it this week, but lazy August evenings might be the time. I'll do a prototype before touching the main article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

I'm double-checking this list against List of home computers and if I find a machine here that's not listed there, I'll add it. I've only got the Z80 machines to check and then I'll make this article redirect to List of home computers which now has a sortable column for the CPU type. I've left out some of the very late Power PC machines, because they don't seem to be aimed at the retail mass market. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 1/2 years later...this should be merged to "List of home computers" with a "processor" field in a table. And now I know how to sort tables. Suggest merge. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]