Talk:Transistor computer

One hobbyist's project

Q1 Computer --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but the speculation about discrete transistors and early SSI being the most "interesting" for hobbyists is complete nonsense. The price of early transistors was measured in several dollars per unit. The cost of the most simple gate would have been in the tens of dollars. Early SSI chips had a very similar price point. A complete computer, even without much memory, would have meant tens of thousands of dollars in investment for a hobbyist, which was close to the price of a small house at the time. The first time that CPUs and memory chips became cheap enough to be of interest to amateurs was around the time that the first MSI and LSI controllers and microprocessors became available, which brought the cost down hundredfold, from tens of thousands to hundreds of dollars.

I have to agree with one of the other comments: as long as this stays in there, this article is complete bunk and should be removed, even though some of the information is interesting.

I take your point, but note that the Wilkinson book was published in 1968. OK, so schools and hobbyists were not making 2G computers when 2G computers first came out, but what is described in those pages is the makings of a discrete transistor computer (and hence 2G), even if industry was on to later generations by then. I must admit, though, that the Wilkinson book does hide the memory issue under the carpet (hence the word "models" in the title, I suppose). TheAMmollusc (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This Article Is Bunk and Moot

Computers today use transistors, just read Moore's Law to determine that. This article reads as if Transistors are no longer used in computers and needs a major re-editing. 50.47.131.149 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, just for you. We of course meant "discrete" transistors, and now the lead says so. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

First computer using semiconductors made earlier than stated here

Assuming that not only transistor-based, but also diode-based computers are accounted as "second generation", I'd like to add the following note. According to this Russian source, the first computer based on semiconductors (i.e. second generation) wasn't made in 1953 but in 1951:

"В конце 1948 года сотрудники Энергетического института им. Крижижановского Брук и Рамеев получают авторское свидетельство на ЭВМ с общей шиной, а в 1950-1951 гг. создают ее. В этой машине впервые в мире вместо электронных ламп используются полупроводниковые (купроксные) диоды."

(In late 1948, Brook and Rameev of the Krizhizhanovsky Energy Institute receive a patent on a computer with a shared bus, and in 1950-1951 create it. In this machine, for the first time in the world, semiconductor (copper oxide) diodes were used instead of vacuum tubes.)

--Лъчезар 14:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. However, we would need to check what they used for doing the amplification. Diode gates are all very well, but they are attenuating. You can only cascade a limited number of them before you need to amplify the signal back up to the original level: and for that, you need a transistor (as in Diode-Transistor-Logic, DTL) or a thermionic valve or a electromechanical relay. TheAMmollusc (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fascinating. Even if it turns out that computer was not "fully solid-state", I think it is relevant enough to mention in the history section of this article as one of the early steps that led to later fully solid-state computers.

Where can we get references that describe that machine in more detail?

If it turns out that it is possible to build an entire CPU entirely from diodes, then the diode logic article will need some major updating.

--DavidCary (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Transac

A search of Wikipedia for "Transac" shows many articles, including this transistor computer, that briefly mention it. Is there enough information and references in all those brief mentions, when gathered in one place, to build a Wikipedia article about that series of machines? (Apparently the series includes the Transac models C-1000, C-1100, S-1000, and S-2000). --DavidCary (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

These are currently covered in Philco computers. I would expand the coverage there and consider a WP:SPLIT if a stand-alone article starts to look viable. ~Kvng (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

merge

I suggest merging transistorized computer into transistor computer. As far as I can tell, a single article could cover these topics with a sentence or two to specify the difference, if any. --DavidCary (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirected. No material from this article appears to have been moved to this article ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Individual vs. discrete

What is the difference between individual and discrete transistors? The transistor article says "Although several companies each produce over a billion individually packaged (known as discrete) MOS transistors every year, ..." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If you can pick up one transistor and move it around all by itself (in an individual package with only three visible direct connections to the transistor within) without also lifting hundreds or millions of others...it's a discrete transistor. Wikipedia is admittedly very confused on this point. Take everything here with a block of salt. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

only operated?

@185.69.144.113: In your edit summary you wrote: "only precedes verb to which it appplies", which - as a rule - is correct, but we want to modify the phrase "slow speed", not the verb "operated". "it only operated at the slow speed" means that it operated but did not do anything else. "it operated only at the slow speed" means that it could not operate at the higher speed. And this is a huge difference. To make it more clear: If you "only kissed her" you did not have sex with her, but if you "kissed only her" you did not kiss other girls, but we do not know whether you did anything else with her ;-) So, please, restore the previous version. By the way, you have probably never heard about misplaced modifiers, like most native speakers of English. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You did not respond, so I restored my version. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)