Talk:Desktop computer/Archive 1

AIO section should be revised

This segment seems to be quite biased. It makes all older AIOs sound like the Retina MacBook Pro, which is just not accurate. IMHO most all apple AIOs were quite upgradeable until the most recent iteration, and, though I don't know about others, nothing about being all in one excludes upgradeability, seeing as LCD's can be easily removed. GeekX (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this true?

Under the subhead All In One, the following statement appears -- These types of desktop computers save desk space, but are limited when it comes to expansion to improve their capabilities. Is that true? What does it mean by improve their capabilities? Moriori 20:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Add memory, replace processor, update graphics/audio card... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.152.234 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed floppy disk drive from components

Its been completly phased out, except through usb on all new computers.

Superway25 07:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

since when have floppy disks been phased out? I may be misunderstanding you here, but I see floppy drives all the time, and consider them fairly standard? They may not be used as much as they once were, but they definetly still carry an important role in computing. Capi crimm 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove floppies. You can get a floppy drive in the vast majority of computers through the onboard FDD port. Just because a lot of manufacturers don't include them by default doesn't mean you can only get them through USB. You, my dear friend Superway, are a newb.Triikan 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article merger

The section on 'configuration' in personal computer seems redundant to the section in this article. Since the section in personal computer is more detailed maybe it should be moved here. Personal computers encompass more than just desktops and that article will need to reflect that. Alatari 03:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Case Design or General Description?

I have been taught that the term desktop was a case design, the first personal computer case design that sits on top of the desk flat while the monitor was on top of it. The definition that both personal computer and this article has is that it's a personal computer, nothing else. In the computer case article, it describes the desktop case as the former definition. With personal computer and desktop computer as synonymous, and that there could also be an article such as "Tower Computer" made stating the same thing because all pictures in this article are towers, it would probably be best to merge or at least consider the case.

I will try writing a section explaining this. I'm not very experienced, but at least it would help. --Bookinvestor 07:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Personal computer

This article is redundant with personal computer and ought to be merged; the impact, importance and effects of personal computers have nothing to do with where the box sits - in the heydey of AT-clones, you could put the same box on top the desk or sitting on end under the desk, and rotate the nameplates to suit. The opening line is particularly painful to read right now! --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is rather tricky. In the past, desktop computers have where defined as, besides many other things, computers small and light enough to be placed on a desk. Of course, this usage is mostly obsolete today, but how would the historical definitions of this term be covered? Further more, how will other uses of this term be covered, for example a desktop computer referring to a type of case? Perhaps the content relating to personal computers should be merged into the relevant article, while anything that is not remain? Rilak (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look tricky at all to me - there's nothing in the article that describes anything not true of a post 1981 personal computer. I'd be fascinated by a discussion of "big iron" or at least "old iron" but this article has no historical depth at all. Anytihg small and ligth enough to be put on a desk must have been intended for use directly by the enduser and not by a professional operating staff, so I think the definition of "personal computer" applies even if it was a $20,000 1975-era IBM 5100. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Back in the early 1990s, if I am not mistaken, quite a few workstation vendors were making desktop (as in small and light enough to be placed on a desk) form factor computers. Although I cannot give exact prices, there were not exactly cheap, especially compared to the high cost of personal computers for that era. Examples of such machines would be the Sun Microsystems Sparcstation and Silicon Graphics Indigo 2. There were probably many more such machines. Also, not every non desktop computer is 'big iron'. SGI's SGI Onyx line up, besides the giant multi rack supercomputer models, also featured deskside form factor workstations, intended for single user use. Anyways, I'm not saying that what is redundant in relation to personal computers shouldn't be merged, but I think there is some content there that should remain, such as the definition(s) of a desktop computer: eg. a computer small and light enough to be placed on a desk or a computer that lies flat instead of standing like a tower. Rilak (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Back in the early 1990's' is not exactly lost in the mists of time (except possibly in the context of Wikischolarship especially in the computer context). I don't think "desktop computer" is a significant classification for computers - no-one says "I need to buy a computer that fits on top of a desk" except possibly set designers. And what about those comptuers that were *built into* a desk and therefore had a desktop as part of their enclosure? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the distance (or lack of) of the period (the 1990s) has got to do with this discussion. Anyways, how is the term 'desktop computer' not be significant? It is the definition of a computer that can be placed on the desk, and the definition of a case form factor. This is anecdotal, but in certain settings such as an office or school, even in modern, the people who procure computers specifically ask for desktop case form factor computers when buying. Just because in some areas this term does not apply, it does not mean that it isn't important to the rest of the world. Further more, this term has been used extensively historically, when workstations were heavy and bulky and it was a big trend to make them smaller. This alone is enough justification to keep an article which discusses the two main definitions. As for the merge of information that is redundant and should be better covered in the personal computer article, I don't think it is a bad idea. However, it is better to wait for the comment of other editors first before deciding. Rilak (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to other comments. I don't think there's any significant unique information in desktop computer that can't be handled with a line or two in the personal computer article. Also the existing desktop article is poorly written and unreferenced; it would be less work to strip out the unique information and put it into personal computer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose not to merge but to focus in this article on the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages compared with laptops. Most other contents should be moved to personal computer. Andries (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How about adding this table?

Comparison of common form factors between desktops and laptops

device	version?	Exterior/Interior sizes?	desktop	laptop (big)	laptop (small)/subnotebook
HDD		disc diameter	5.25 inch	3.5 inch	2.5 inch
		extern. size
Optical disc			146x41.3x200 mm (WxHxD - without bezel) *Front bezel : 1481 x 42 x 5 mm	wxhxd=x 12.7 x mm	wxhxd=x 9.5 x mm
memory			DIMM	Sodimm	mini So DiMM
External bus	PCI			PC card
	PCI Express			ExpressCard
mother board			ATX, microATX, FlexATX, mini-ITX, BTX among others	non-standard	non-standard
key board			non-standard, external	non-standard	non-standard
screen size			non-standard, external	17", 15.4", 14"	12"

Andries (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

what is the point of all in one computers?

Is there anything in common between "all in one" computers, and desktop computers? Same goes for laptops. Why compare desktop computers with laptops? Why not with pda's and mainframes as well? Not to mention that now-a-days the term refers to the case more likely and the pic is of a tower case? 124.177.184.228 (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from the article, "Prior to the wide spread of microprocessors a computer that could fit on a desk was considered remarkably small. Today the phrase usually indicates a particular style of computer case." As explained in the article, the term "desktop computer" applies to computers that fit on a desk in addition of a style of computer case. Rilak (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination by "portable" computers

I believe there is a need to extensively address why desktop computers are being unpopular. Why the Desktop Gets No Respect, and Should Komitsuki (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Desktop computers aren't unpopular, they are extremely popular which is perhaps why sales of new PCs have slowed - "everyone" already has one. Danrok (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

First Desktop Computer

Hello,

I see that the first desktop computer is not mentioned within this page (see it's Wiki at Programma 101) The first desktop computer was the Olivetti Programma 101, presented by Olivetti at the the 1964 New York World's Fair. I think that it deserve to be cited.

All my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.152.240.236 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No mention of custom-built PCs?

Custom PC building is a thriving subculture especially among gamers and enthusiasts, and it not being mentioned in the article seems a bit odd. It's certainly notable; there's all kinds of coverage from all kinds of sources. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)