- VCF South West - June 14 - 16, Davidson-Gundy Alumni Center at University of Texas at Dallas
- VCF West - Aug 2 - 3, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
- VCF Midwest - Sept 7 - 8 2024, Schaumburg, IL
- VCF SoCal - Mid February 2025, Location TBD, Southern CA
- VCF East - April 2025, Infoage Museum, Wall NJ
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
See if you agree.
- Thread starter facattack
- Start date
With this broad definition, is a video game console ALSO a computer?
Of course. Even advanced calculators and watches can be considered computers.
glitch
Veteran Member
Sure, the TI-83+ even uses a Z80!
carlsson
Veteran Member
Yes, a video game is a computer even if it just got 64 bytes of RAM, which I think is the least amount any CPU and ROM based system ever had. Maybe you just think about personal computers, servers and home computers when you hear the word "computer"?
Chuck(G)
25k Member
Read some of the ANSI X3 language specs. The use of the word "computer" includes people and is clearly laid out in the beginning. Yes, you as a person can execute FORTRAN!
It has nothing to do with electronics at all.
It has nothing to do with electronics at all.
Read some of the ANSI X3 language specs. The use of the word "computer" includes people and is clearly laid out in the beginning. Yes, you as a person can execute FORTRAN!
It has nothing to do with electronics at all.
as soon as you mentioned that I thought of thufir from dune...
Chuck(G)
25k Member
It's worth noting that the use of the word "computer" within IBM didn't come into general use until the late 1950's. The 704, for example, was labeled as a "Data Processing System" or 'Data Processing Machine", not a computer.
Originally, "computer" simply meant "one who computes"--you could be a "computer" for the Army, for example, working out artillery trajectory tables... The use of "computer" I think, became shorthand for "computing machine" (recall that it's the ACM, not AC, for example).
Language is fluid; now the term "computer" is taken to imply a machine of some sort. Perhaps the meaning may again shift.
CP/M User
Veteran Member
Well from that perspective it can be, though then you've got Analogue Computers which clearly aren't electronic. The Abacus has been described as a computer of sorts, the same would apply with Babbages machine. These are only examples of devices which are perhaps described now as computers, in their day they were probably described as machines, which seems to be what the Harvard Mark I was first described as.
I think of mainframes and super computers as well.
CP/M User
Veteran Member
I think what's wrong about the way the question is answered is the tangent it spins into.
For instance:
Is absolutely fine in some cases, even though one can argue it doesn't need to be "electronic".
However:
Is leading into a question like "What sort of things can you do on a computer?"
"What is a computer?" is the sort of question which could be answered in dot points. Early forms of computers are considered Analog from the Abacus which is an early form of Calculating and other machines have also being specifically built though the ages (hundreds or even thousands of years ago - Abacus is believed to date back to 3000 BC), which usually have a specific task. Modern electronic machines which go back to the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s I'm quite sure how they group those machines cause their Low Powered (technically & high maintenance if they had Valves in them), though big in scale. Machines from the 1960s maybe deemed as Minicomputers, though through the ages the term Minicomputer has been rewritten cause the power of them changes. This is perhaps the reason why Computers have been put into Generations as a means of categorising them. Explaining what an electronic computer is means one should put computers into groups, there was an really good website somewhere which explained the different Computer Generations which went into the detail on what those machines were about, cause they obviously had a purpose in order for them to be built!
For instance:
Is absolutely fine in some cases, even though one can argue it doesn't need to be "electronic".
However:
Is leading into a question like "What sort of things can you do on a computer?"
"What is a computer?" is the sort of question which could be answered in dot points. Early forms of computers are considered Analog from the Abacus which is an early form of Calculating and other machines have also being specifically built though the ages (hundreds or even thousands of years ago - Abacus is believed to date back to 3000 BC), which usually have a specific task. Modern electronic machines which go back to the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s I'm quite sure how they group those machines cause their Low Powered (technically & high maintenance if they had Valves in them), though big in scale. Machines from the 1960s maybe deemed as Minicomputers, though through the ages the term Minicomputer has been rewritten cause the power of them changes. This is perhaps the reason why Computers have been put into Generations as a means of categorising them. Explaining what an electronic computer is means one should put computers into groups, there was an really good website somewhere which explained the different Computer Generations which went into the detail on what those machines were about, cause they obviously had a purpose in order for them to be built!
That's not a definition of the word "computer" - that's the answer to the question "What can a computer be?". Storing and retrieving are not necessary to have a "computer" - only processing is. It's typically more useful to have at least some form of temporary storage, but you can have something that is technically a "computer" without one. Talking about what you can use it for is pretty damn irrelevant to "What is a Computer", especially since it contradicts their definition directly - in terms of my below proposed definition, they have defined it as "B", while suggesting it be taken as "C". They even list a calculator in their next paragraph as a type of computer - can a standard (I don't refer to advanced graphing calculators like the TI-83/84, etc.) calculator surf the Internet? Can it play games? It would be a poor-ass game where you've got an eight-segment display to work with even if you felt like hooking up a flash ROM and hacking the crap out of the poor thing.
Computer:
a. Something that feeds input through a processing function and produces output.
b. Any electronic device capable of processing input data, even in a fixed function with no user input features, and producing output based on that data.
c. In colloquial modern English, this term is most often used in reference to the multipurpose processing devices now found in most homes and businesses. These devices almost always run a complicated program to abstract the user from having to interact with the hardware in any low-level sense, reducing the amount of knowledge required for their use.
I just wrote this multi-part definition - it's from no dictionary. I think that's about as concise and comprehensive as a definition could get on the subject. "A" is the literal definition, "B" is the modern, technically-correct (as in "technical", not as in "technicality") definition, and "C" is the colloquial definition.
When reading definition "B" - keep this in mind:
If you remove the keyboard and mouse from a modern PC, is it still a computer? Absolutely. It can even still do things. You could remove everything from it and it's still a computer. The rest of it makes up a "computer system".
I think the bare minimum for an electronic computer to exist is a power input, fixed function logic (a single NOT gate would be the simplest fixed function logic, but I'm not sure if that qualifies.. there's probably a line drawn somewhere), an input wire, and an output wire.
Computer:
a. Something that feeds input through a processing function and produces output.
b. Any electronic device capable of processing input data, even in a fixed function with no user input features, and producing output based on that data.
c. In colloquial modern English, this term is most often used in reference to the multipurpose processing devices now found in most homes and businesses. These devices almost always run a complicated program to abstract the user from having to interact with the hardware in any low-level sense, reducing the amount of knowledge required for their use.
I just wrote this multi-part definition - it's from no dictionary. I think that's about as concise and comprehensive as a definition could get on the subject. "A" is the literal definition, "B" is the modern, technically-correct (as in "technical", not as in "technicality") definition, and "C" is the colloquial definition.
When reading definition "B" - keep this in mind:
If you remove the keyboard and mouse from a modern PC, is it still a computer? Absolutely. It can even still do things. You could remove everything from it and it's still a computer. The rest of it makes up a "computer system".
I think the bare minimum for an electronic computer to exist is a power input, fixed function logic (a single NOT gate would be the simplest fixed function logic, but I'm not sure if that qualifies.. there's probably a line drawn somewhere), an input wire, and an output wire.
Last edited:
Chuck(G)
25k Member
So, my old slide rule is a computer?
How about a differential flow meter on a natural gas pipeline (no electrical power involved; essentially solves Bernoulli's equation for flow rate)?
How about a planimeter? Lord Kelvin's Harmonic Analyser? Torres y Quevedo's "El Ajedrecista"?
How about a Bomar Brain?
How about a differential flow meter on a natural gas pipeline (no electrical power involved; essentially solves Bernoulli's equation for flow rate)?
How about a planimeter? Lord Kelvin's Harmonic Analyser? Torres y Quevedo's "El Ajedrecista"?
How about a Bomar Brain?
Yes.
Yes.
I'd have to know what the rest were, but presuming your train of thought, all yes.
They're mechanical computers. They don't fit the modern use of the term, and certainly not the colloquial one, but they are computers nonetheless.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer - the earliest (known) computer is ~150BC, the Antikythera Mechanism. It's referenced there.
Yes.
I'd have to know what the rest were, but presuming your train of thought, all yes.
They're mechanical computers. They don't fit the modern use of the term, and certainly not the colloquial one, but they are computers nonetheless.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer - the earliest (known) computer is ~150BC, the Antikythera Mechanism. It's referenced there.
GADFRAN
Experienced Member
And the next related question – “ the difference between computers and humans “ – depending on how you want to define each of course - note the recent IBM “ Watson “ [a male name – leader of IBM] computer versus two males on a Jeopardy game.
Yes, it was good and fast – but at getting “factoids” – that is not “human thinking !”
But of course, how do you define “thinking ?”
One definition could be putting “factoids” together to do something productive beyond just reciting the factoids.
I sent some letters to the editor to various publications with respect to why was not the “female” perspective involved ?
Then what about other ethnic / cultural groups, religions, etc. – since we are now such an intensive “global” economy.
All these groups can think so very differently –e.g., “Women’s Ways of Knowing” by Belenky and others.
They mention in these articles HAL in the 2001 and 2010 space odyssey series – but HAL was deceived by humans with their own agenda – HAL got bad info from them and acted accordingly !
So this post should get a lot of very diverse responses about all of this – “ let it fly “ – we all can be educated in so many ways – it can be very stimulating – thinking out of the box and our comfort zones !
Note the recent Time Magazine cover story and articles and USA Today article.
By 2045, a single computer Time noted would have more capacity than all the humans on the planet !
But again, does capacity [power?] eventually lead to thinking ?
Just how would that happen – programmed in by humans, just appear after a certain level of capacity / power, etc.?
If interested – when I started in the 1970’s in computing with a big NSF funded program to get computing into academe – students, faculty and administration – we had some sessions at a leader at that time - Dartmouth College.
Very startling was that they found grammar school students damaging the computers since the computers would not think like they did ! They were just so frustrated ! Sound familiar today ?
Lot more info if interested, but I said my piece, how about others ?
Stay tuned – it is going to be quite the ride !
Frank
Yes, it was good and fast – but at getting “factoids” – that is not “human thinking !”
But of course, how do you define “thinking ?”
One definition could be putting “factoids” together to do something productive beyond just reciting the factoids.
I sent some letters to the editor to various publications with respect to why was not the “female” perspective involved ?
Then what about other ethnic / cultural groups, religions, etc. – since we are now such an intensive “global” economy.
All these groups can think so very differently –e.g., “Women’s Ways of Knowing” by Belenky and others.
They mention in these articles HAL in the 2001 and 2010 space odyssey series – but HAL was deceived by humans with their own agenda – HAL got bad info from them and acted accordingly !
So this post should get a lot of very diverse responses about all of this – “ let it fly “ – we all can be educated in so many ways – it can be very stimulating – thinking out of the box and our comfort zones !
Note the recent Time Magazine cover story and articles and USA Today article.
By 2045, a single computer Time noted would have more capacity than all the humans on the planet !
But again, does capacity [power?] eventually lead to thinking ?
Just how would that happen – programmed in by humans, just appear after a certain level of capacity / power, etc.?
If interested – when I started in the 1970’s in computing with a big NSF funded program to get computing into academe – students, faculty and administration – we had some sessions at a leader at that time - Dartmouth College.
Very startling was that they found grammar school students damaging the computers since the computers would not think like they did ! They were just so frustrated ! Sound familiar today ?
Lot more info if interested, but I said my piece, how about others ?
Stay tuned – it is going to be quite the ride !
Frank
Humans are a type of computer - bioelectrochemical computers, to be precise - and that's just the brain. There are also other computers throughout the body, notably ganglionic nerve clusters - it's a regular LAN party in there. :D
In the colloquial sense, the difference between a computer and a human, when you pose the same problem to be solved to each, is that the programming of the computer is less sophisticated but more poignant than the "programming" of the human mind. A human is capable of solving a problem that a computer might not be able to, because the computer's programming is always limited, while a human can reprogram itself dynamically, and in fact does so on a constant basis. A computer, BECAUSE it's limited in it's functionality, is faster at solving the problems that it is programmed to be able to solve - it's more efficient at what it CAN do.
We may find ourselves using bioelectrochemical (or similar) computers in the future, capable of reasoning for themselves and dynamically finding the path to a solution. At that point we're quite liable to see a computer become sentient. It's possible before then, but until you introduce that biological component to the machine it's far less likely to occur. The capacity to reason is the "big thing" that separates us from what most people consider a computer - it's the capacity to reason that drives our wants and self-preservation instincts. It's a short path from there to sentience.
I wish you could make a living as a philosopher, like those fancy-robed folks in ancient Greece.
In the colloquial sense, the difference between a computer and a human, when you pose the same problem to be solved to each, is that the programming of the computer is less sophisticated but more poignant than the "programming" of the human mind. A human is capable of solving a problem that a computer might not be able to, because the computer's programming is always limited, while a human can reprogram itself dynamically, and in fact does so on a constant basis. A computer, BECAUSE it's limited in it's functionality, is faster at solving the problems that it is programmed to be able to solve - it's more efficient at what it CAN do.
We may find ourselves using bioelectrochemical (or similar) computers in the future, capable of reasoning for themselves and dynamically finding the path to a solution. At that point we're quite liable to see a computer become sentient. It's possible before then, but until you introduce that biological component to the machine it's far less likely to occur. The capacity to reason is the "big thing" that separates us from what most people consider a computer - it's the capacity to reason that drives our wants and self-preservation instincts. It's a short path from there to sentience.
I wish you could make a living as a philosopher, like those fancy-robed folks in ancient Greece.
Last edited:
Chuckster_in_Jax
Veteran Member
Don't forget that a microprocessor can be used for 2 things:
1) General purpose computing as in a PC, mainframe..etc.
2) A controller - applications like automobiles, machinery, appliances.
They all work off of a stored program.
1) General purpose computing as in a PC, mainframe..etc.
2) A controller - applications like automobiles, machinery, appliances.
They all work off of a stored program.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
See, now this is where I draw a line between calculator and computer. A slide rule is a calculating device, as were Napier's Bones. It always has the same capability and cannot be programmed or expanded in function.
Programmability in and of itself isn't sufficient--a Jacquard loom is programmable--as is a player piano or music box or phonograph.
So, is an IBM 407 accounting machine a computer? IBM didn't think so, but it was programmable (by plugboard). It can make simple decisions based on data; it can perform arithmetic; it can operate on input and create output based on iinput. Yet it'd be hard to find anyone that would call it a "computer" in a modern sense.
Is the ability for a device to modify its programming central to the idea of a computer? If so, you'd have to disqualify a large number of microcontrollers and other Harvard architecture machines.
After decades in the business, I still can't come up with a razor's edge definition of what a computer really is, such that I can say "x is a computer, but y is not".
Perhaps the role a device fills means more than its makeup. There was a column in one of the design magazines recently about how it was probably more cost-efficient for low volumes to substitute 8-pin microcontrollers for the venerable NE555 timer IC. Clearly, those uCs aren't acting in the role of a computer--they're emulating an analog timer IC.
And that's an increasingly common scenario, as the price of silicon plummets...
martincrow
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2
Video game can be called a computer, sounds interesting, but we should look at the exact definition of the computer, it is a device which has input and output method to perform a task, same is with video game, we give command with the joystick and get the output.