Jump to content

Talk:NEC/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comments

Maybe I'm missing something here but why is the mobile phone listed separately? Shouldn't it go under NEC Corporation? --82.181.25.86 19:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I probably agree with you. Perhaps one could mention areas (such as making of mobile phones) where NEC Corporation is active. Jonas Olson 14:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition of NEC

Well, we all know NEC is a japanese electronic company. But, beside that, is there other meaning of the word 'NEC'?

Nippon Electric Company.cmacd 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1940's

why lack information in the 1940s? 203.171.64.188 13:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


That is kind of my fault. I originally used the NEC History published on the NEC web site to help outline the article. There is little detail about the wartime management of NEC in the web site history. In the book, NEC Corporation, The First 80 Years, it tells how NEC became partly nationalized and it's large western stock holders became an issue for NEC. It is my take that the whole set of events during WWII were/are a sensitive issue for issue for NEC. I had not added the history about WWII because I didn't want to do it in an way that would embarrass NEC. I’m a descendent of one of the NEC founders, though I’m not affiliated with NEC in any other way. I do feel like I have a stake in being sensitive, about how the NEC story is told. I’ll try to add the history that is available to me.

Rbcwa 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Turbografx?

Didn't NEC make the Turbografx16? If so, I think someone who knows about it should mention it here. -Unknownwarrior33 04:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Turbografx page says NEC was one of the developers, yes. Someone write something about it. No, not me ;P RafaelLopez 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
NEC liscenced the tech from Hudson Soft to make the system. I added it in. 68.42.168.172 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references

The text has numerous sections lacking properly citing its references. "World War II has been described as being the company's blackest days of its first eighty years." Described by whom? RafaelLopez 02:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't use many citations because most of the information came from: 

NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation, The First 80 Years, 1984, ISBN 4-931172-01-6.

I hold a copy of the book. I do have the book listed as a reference.

I had hoped to find additional references, but have not found them yet. I suspect that most of the information I'm after is in Japanese. My uncle holds some additional references, but I will not be able to take a look at them until 2008. The references are rare enough that I don't want him to subject the books to the postal system.

Rbcwa 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I went through and added some inline references. Rbcwa (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nihon Denki Kabushiki Gaisha

In a parallel cut and pasted article, this "(also called as Nihon Denki Kabushiki Gaisha)" was added, but no source was provided and the Google test is not conclusive.. --Edcolins 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Its official name is "Nippon Denki (にっぽんでんき)." However, in Japan, many people (even some NEC employees, national network TV announcers) pronounce the company name as "Nihon Denki (にほんでんき)." Google search: にっぽんでんき vs にほんでんき Please see: Names of Japan. --Krtek2125 12:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC); modified --Krtek2125 23:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NEC Pronunciation

How is NEC properly pronounced?

I have always pronounced it N.E.C., as three letters, but I've heard other people pronounce the letters as a single word, with the same pronunciation as the word neck.

Thanks.


It's N.E.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.241.8.250 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WPJ Commentary

This article is pretty close to B-class. It's a good article anyway. Very few of the articles on corporations go into any detail about the history of their early days, like this one does. I marked a couple places that need citations, but generally speaking, every paragraph should have at least one citation. More may be needed depending on facts or claims presented. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I added in the citations, I hold a copy of the reference (NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation, The First 80 Years, 1984, ISBN 4-931172-01-6). Unfortunately, I don't have any other references to use right now. There is a Japanese language 100 year history of the company that I hope to get access to in the near future. I'll add more as it becomes available. Rbcwa (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy re Semiconductor Achievements

As someone who'd worked in the semiconductor development arm for the past 25 years, I'd just like to add that some of the claims made have been 'bigged up' (I suppose if most of the facts are coming from a corporation's self-published book, this is to be expected. The text seems to deal with NEC as a semiconductor manufacturer in isolation from that community and makes no mention of the technology changes and divestures the company went through during it's downturn. To give a quick potted history: NEC was a major player in semiconductor manufacture in the 80s and early 90s, but most specifically in the commodity DRAM market. From the mid-90s onwards, NEC encountered difficulties as new players entered the market with competitive technologies. The corresponding increase in production caused world prices to fall to levels that made DRAM production all but unsustainable for NEC. In 1999, NEC hived-off its DRAM manufacturing to a separate entity bundled together with Hitachi to form NEC Hitachi Memory. Over time, Mitusbishi DRAM was added and the name changed to Elpida. NEC divested itself of its shares and now owns only around 3% of stock. In just a few short years, NEC went from being the #1 semiconductor manufacturer in the early 1990s to almost exiting the market in the early 2000s. With the formation of Renesas (together with the parts not already hived-off to Elpida) NEC, Mitsubishi and Hitachi are back in the top 10 world rankings. However, it should be remembered that the semiconductor market is highly sectorised. As an example, the world's #1 (Intel), #2 (Samsung) and #4 (Renesas) do not compete with each other in any significant way, each being dominant in their own sectors.

Two quotes that I think should be removed are coincidentally right next to each other. "In 1997 NEC developed 4Gbit DRAM...". And "In 1998, NEC opened the world's most advanced semiconductor R&D facility."

"In 1997 NEC developed 4Gbit DRAM..." In 1997, NEC announced the development of a 'prototype' 4GB DRAM. However, within the industry the announcement of prototype accomplishments should be viewed with a large shovel-full of scepticism. They are often aimed at spoiling a competitor's concurrent technological achievement, are (if I'm being kind) extremely optimistic and represent production viability not currently obtainable, or (if I'm being unkind), are simply outright lies. Only just recently (2010) did Elpida announce the sale of 4GB DRAM - 13 years later.

"In 1998, NEC opened the world's most advanced semiconductor R&D facility." The problem with this statement is that we do not know by what measure it was the 'most advanced'? There are always ongoing new fields of research into semiconductor design. Within the industry, the measure of the technological prowess of a semiconductor manufacturer is the level of their current most-advanced chip accepted for production release. There are two general measures: the minimum linewidth (that is to say, how small is the smallest resolution printable). There are ways to 'cheat' on this figure, to make it look smaller than it actually is, so the reader must be aware that some numbers are not truly comparable. Another measure is the size of the wafer that the ICs are manufactured on. In this case, the bigger the better. Linewidth sizes develop as incremental and continuous reduction. Wafer size changes usually only happen once every few years, such is the development and subsequent manufacturing cost. R&D into the last wafer-size increase (from 200mm to 300mm) began in 1998 with a joint venture between Siemens and Motorola at Siemen's Dresden site. This is still the current largest wafer-size used in production, and would have a claim to be the most advanced R&D facility of it's time (at least for wafer size)- although 300mm wafers were not released for sale until 2000. Alternatively, as a sign of achievement, one could look at what awards the fab (semiconductor manufacturing sites are referred to as 'fabs') has won. The most prestigious of these are arguably Semiconductor International Magazine's "Fab of the Year" award, or the SEMI (semiconductor manufacturor's organisation) award of the same name. In 1998, it went to the then-AMD start-up fab in Dresden, Germany. The Siemens/Motorola 300mm site won in 2000, when it released production-worthy product. There are numerous ongoing arms of research in the field of semiconductor manufacture, some, although vital and necessary, could not be classed as 'advanced' in any technological sense. Some R&D sites research into physical properties at a level that is almost detached from any manufacturing capability: does that make it advanced or simply not yet production-worthy? So, without any data, it is impossible to see by what measure NEC claimed to have the most advanced R&D facility (it should also be remembered that this is at a time when NEC was exiting the semiconductor manufacturing market). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.13.59 (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

NEC → NEC (Japanese corporation) – (see talk page) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

NEC has produced a couple of mobile phones in the UK, I certainly had a NEC e616 a couple of years ago. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
On the second thought, maybe it could be moved to NEC Corporation? Beagel (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move log

18:10, 14 June 2006 Reflex Reaction moved page NEC Corporation to NEC (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies))

NEC Corporation

NEC Corporation is the official name of the company, as given in the article lead, and provides natural disambiguation for NEC (disambiguation). The page history shows there have been two cut & paste attempts to revert the 2006 move (see above) which made the corporation the primary topic. About 170 pages link to NEC Corporation. There's no harm in linking to NEC Corporation as a more specific link to the corporation, which would lay the groundwork for any possible future reversal of primary topic status. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NEC/Archives/2013&oldid=1043892590"