Talk:National Semiconductor/Archives/2014

Fairchild Semiconductor affiliation with National Semiconductor

Firstly, well done editor of the timeline for National's manufacturing highlights.

It confirms my experience. Please allow me to explain for those not minding me becoming a bit technical. I do electronics circuit designing and obtained a substantial number of National's CD40106 Schmitt trigger hex inverter IC chips. When I learned several years ago that National was getting out of logic IC manufacture, I was a bit concerned because the characteristics of the National-made chip were exceptional in many applications. In fact, CD40106 chips made by other companies were a bit disappointing in where the gate voltage trigger points were. The National chips were able to produce a good square wave using just a capacitor and resistor connected to a single gate (not considering normal power supply ancillary components), quite often a design advantage, which I believe National took special pains to ensure.

I had been somewhat lamenting the unavailability of the National CD40106 and very recently thoughts of the loss returned as I was building a circuit with a Fairchild CD40106 IC. It occurred to me that the Fairchild chip was like the National chip pertaining to gate trigger set points, and had the unusual ability to easily produce a good square wave signal with just a cap and resistor in the oscillator.

When I saw Fairchild's affiliation with National as depicted by the timeline, it confirmed my belief that the Fairchild chips were made using National's processes, at least, and possibly the very same equipment, further evidenced by the metal coating that had been on the discontinued National CD40106 chip legs also being on the Fairchild chips.

So, well done editor. I hope me getting a bit technical was OK here as well as me, in general, mentioning the correlation of my experience with the timeline. Dcebr (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

Redirect this page to Texas Instrument since Texas Instrument acquired National Semiconductor. Instead content should be put as part of Texas Instrument Article. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

|I'm undoing the redirect. NS has been an important player in the semiconductor industry for 40 years or so, and had its own corporate history distinct from TI. NS as a distinct entity may have ceased to exist, but that doesn't mean the WP article should just disappear into thin air.Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. National semiconductor is a company no longer notable and the content should be move to the main page Texas Instrument. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your position. Historical information remains relevant even if the company no longer exists. In this particular case, I was looking for some historical information on NS but ended up at the TI article which did not contain the info I was looking for, while the NS article does. Your line of reasoning may be valid for e.g. a startup that gets acquired by some large company before it manages to have significant impact by itself, but not for a company that has been a significant presence in its field for 40 years. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Any related history and information could be included in the main article. Being part of another article doesn't mean that it is not being informative. Thanks. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The redirect proposal appears to be a pointy one based on the proposer's own experience as a paid editor. I see no reason for it and will not support it. Deb (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support your argument. From my point of view:

1. Texas Instrument acquired National Semiconductor 2. National Semiconductor no longer have product lines of their own 3. Additional and Notable Information could be included under Texas Instrument Main Page

Thanks. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

What argument? From your point of view, a page you created was redirected because you did not provide adequate references or evidence of notability. You looked around for a company with a similar profile, but you failed to take into account that two wrongs don't make a right. This article will not be redirected without consensus - so, unless you can find an established editor who agrees with you, it will be staying where it is. Deb (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the issue objectively, it is about National Semiconductor being part of the Texas Instrument. The content is not notable enough to have an article of its own. The content of this article could well be included in the Texas Instrument page to enrich its portfolio. Also, it would make the whole thing more organized and easy to understand. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of this in existence on the project, so your argument does not hold water. Deb (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions

This is an interesting article. I'd like to make a few comments and questions.

1. In the "Leadership under Brian L. Halla" section I read "put out feelers" and "come to fruition". I wonder if the passages could be a little clearer and if they should be rewritten.

2. Under the "Acquisition by Texas Instruments" section I read "the Chinese minister". Who is the Chinese minister? Is it the Chinese ministry or something? Why is even China involved in an American company?

3. Below the table with the manufacturing locations, I read "Migdal (tower)" and "Ha'Emeq (valley). I don't see the meaning of the words in the parentheses.

4. It is not clear if National Semiconductor completely disappeared under the name Texas Semiconductor since LinkedIn still shows several people under National Semiconductor. Maybe a note could be added under the "Acquisition by Texas Instruments" section.

ICE77 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)