Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Post Reply
Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Wild Card on Mon Feb 21st at 4:55am 2005


I've been spending the last month writing an article on computer hardware, and was wondering if anyone wanted to check it out. Its very long, but I need some of the gurus to check the information in it. *me looks towards Crono*

Heres the link:
http://www.angelfire.com/trek/NCC74656/Hardware_paper.pdf

Thanks
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by French Toast on Mon Feb 21st at 5:02am 2005


I don't have the time seeing as I'm going to bed but I'm sure it's really good.

Keep up the good work Wild Card, awesome stuff. [addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by $loth on Mon Feb 21st at 7:34am 2005


I'll read it when I get back, i've got college soon but will be back at about 3.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Crono on Mon Feb 21st at 8:28am 2005


ENIAC couldn't have possibly used Binary representation, although I'm not familiar with the system. I've never gone that far back in my studies, since I have no need for a computer science history class. However, binary was "invented" to speed up computer cycles, since it's faster to count base 2 then it is to count base 10. Humans use Hexadecimal which is base 16 if they intend on "reading" binary information (hint hint, first step in reverse engineering software). I think there's maybe two or three people on the planet who can actually read binary ... one of which was used by Macintosh so they could copyright and patent software (it would give proof that software output was a copyright-able form)

... WC ... there were many computers before the X86 architecture was invented by Intel. I haven't even finished the first few paragraphs and I can tell that you need to invest some more time researching architectures (you should also refer to a computer by it's architecture name, not the model/title).

Also ... your grammar needs a lot of work. There's many repetitions you don't need (which would probably knock this paper down a few pages).

Intel isn't trying to "keep up" with the AMD 64. They have a completely different architecture which is in it's third generation: Intanium. It's a 64-Bit processor they developed with HP. Look it up.

Your description of "what a processor does" should be more specific.

You need to organize the paper differently. I would imagine you should explain each hardware device (just a general explanation) in the introduction. Explain each piece in a couple sentences of it's base functionality so you can build up a knowledge base with the reader. You can then reference this information through out the paper without flying off on a tangent (which is what you're doing now). So, when you say "then the processor sends it back" you can say "The processor then gives a memory write command", make sense?

I'm still not very far through this, but I sure hope you talk, accurately, about how the CPU, BUS, Chipset, Memory, and devices work together in the computer. Since this is probably the most important thing you would want to explain. You don't even need to talk about specific speeds that are out now to do this.

Why are you dragging the ENIAC system through the paper? You should have used it as an example of a primitive processor for a little background information and that's it. If you continue to drag it along you're not doing what you said you wanted to do in the paper, which is to inform people how THEIR computer works on the inside. Why give them trivia about something that's not good enough to be a paper weight anymore?

You also haven't mentioned pipelining, which is what multiprocessor systems are used for. The AMD 64 chips have this. In fact all 64-Bit chips have this.

I don't think I can read much more of this, sorry. It's really poorly written. Not in the sense of content (kind of) but rather in the organization. It flows as if you were sitting there talking, which is not a good thing, it has the feel of a poorly delivered lecture. I've only read the first six pages and I'm already bored out of my mind. And I've read parts of the Silmarillion!

I'm not trying to be mean, but your paper is at a SUPER rough draft stage. I don't think you should be showing it to anyone at the moment. Save one or two people that are willing to help you organize it better.

Also, I don't think you should refer to your information as ?expert knowledge? because a lot of it is off AND you have absolutely no references. [addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Wild Card on Wed Feb 23rd at 3:38am 2005


Crono, I respect your knowledge, but the purpose of the article is to teach computer users about their boxes. So they can learn their inner workings. I use the ENIAC as an example of one of the first computers invented. If it didnt use binary, then what did it use? I mean, it had to use binary right?

I can assume there were computers before X86, and even then Im not entirely sure what X86 is anymore... but I know that all industry home and small office desktops and laptops are X86, so there isnt much point explaining otherwise as the article is designed to explain exactly that, home and small office desktops and laptops.

Please, do explain more on them then, Im always willing to learn.

As for grammar, well, its my way of writing. I've been looking over it trying to remove repeating statements and words but some I left on purpose. I dont think its THAT bad...

When I say Intel is trying to keep up, I mean with AMD's desktop solutions... Because Intel is lacking behind. Im not taking into consideration server processors such as Opterons, Xeons, Itaniums, etc.

And I do consider what I have wrote expert knowledge, in its field of standard desktop computing. Because I can count on one hand, people that I know that truly understand how their computer works. I'd have to guess 99% of computer users have to effing clue how it works.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Crono on Wed Feb 23rd at 4:30am 2005


That doesn't make what you said correct though. If you don't want my advice or help, then don't accept it (and most definitely don't ask for it). But as it stands your paper is a major chore to read, you can't really personally judge that by the way as you will be biased to what you write, because you believe you're 100% correct. Also, I said RESEARCH computer architectures, it's not that hard to find information on them. I have no idea what that machine used, but the entire idea of binary came up in the late 50s or so ... I believe Borland stole the idea from some professor at a California institute .. but it's been awhile since I read it in my architecture book. In any case, it was developed because computers were too slow, they were trying to speed them up. I'm not entirely sure, I've never had to go back that far in history, but the entire point is that you don't know for sure. Having no source means you are no where near complete in any aspect. As it stands, to someone who knows nothing, as you claim your audience does, cannot tell if this is all opinion, made up, or real facts. You've made a lot of assumptions and have little ground to stand on in the paper. The most predominant damaging factor in the paper is still the organization, however.

But whatever, you're probably not going to take anything I say to heart and will do as much as you can to leave the paper as it is. But don't expect many people to take it too seriously. Especially considering the subject material and your obvious lack in command on it. I personally wouldn't imagine taking on this type of an assignment, there's far too much you would need to know to REALLY make it all simple and easily understandable AND still being accurate while giving good information.

I'm not trying to offend you, but it is quite obvious that what this paper really tries to accomplish is your personal opinion on how everything works ... based on what you think is correct. That, however, doesn't mean it IS correct.

I suggest using what you have as an outline for a second draft in which you find REPUTABLE sources and develop better organization. Otherwise, forget it, stop writing it now. No one will believe you or take the paper seriously past individuals you personally know. [addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Wild Card on Wed Feb 23rd at 4:37am 2005


? quote:
I'm not trying to offend you, but it is quite obvious that what this paper really tries to accomplish is your personal opinion on how everything works ... based on what you think is correct. That, however, doesn't mean it IS correct.


I know some of the stuff I have written down is assumtions, and what I think is correct. And thats what Im looking for. Like say for example the memory section, where I talk about FPM and EDO and SD and DDR SD etc... Or in hard drives when I state that 1terabyte is in fact 8 ....... ..... ... bytes instead of 10 .... bla bla,,, you get the point.

I will read up on architecture, but its not my main focus as all home and small officer use the same X86 (as far as I know) and I dont know of any others.

I still dont know why you say the structure of the article is bad though. Intro, then each component has it's own section... Whats wrong with that?

I do accept critisizm, for it will make the paper better in the end.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Crono on Wed Feb 23rd at 5:18am 2005


The overall section structure is fine, but the structure with in that is TERRIBLE. You bounce around on many different topics within a given area.

There are many other architectures you could talk about instead. Jumping from a barely known computer like ENIAC to X86 is ludicrous. There's IBM360 and Borland Stack machines to name some major competitors at the time. Not to mention the Macintosh L68 is still alive and kicking (not sure what the current G-architecture is ... an IBM flavor, I think.) You might want to speak more about other things that are out there instead of focusing on two architectures. For example, it would be good to point out that the AMD 64/FX chips are still an X86 architecture. There are other 64-bit architectures out there competing (Intel EPIC, for example, which also has workstation and desktops, they're made by HP, go to their site and search for them, they cost about $4,000)

I mean to be perfectly honest, you should have a section talking about general connectivity before you EVER mention speeds inside a computer system, and if you want to cover how memory works in this aspect (which take courses upon courses to actually understand) this is the place to do it. That would be some of the most valuable information you could deliver. It'd also be a good idea to have a small section on power and heating that isn't biased. The general 'norm' is that a general user needs something like 450Watts of power to run their system and that's plain bulls**t. That is overuse and insane overkill for most current systems. Again you'd have to go through and look at all the general parts and deduce exactly how much power is needed. How much voltage does each drive, board, processor, and stick of ram use? These are the real questions and the ones that will help the most in the end.

Now, I know for a fact you're fan crazy. It's alright, I guess. But you must realize that you don't even need a case fan at all for your computer to function properly (or well). Maybe talk about the x86 specifications standard as well. It would be a good idea to have a case fan or two because it would give air flow in the case and make build up of dust and lint less of a problem. But as for that actually cooling the parts down, it's not really needed.

That's kind of like having heat syncs on the ram ... I doubt they get hot enough to really warrant that.

All these things are in the realm of "looks" and "coolness" and should not be confused with necessity. It's things like this that you have to look out for.

But back to what I was saying:
All that talk about the difference between form types needs to go. Why would you explain that and not architecture? Taking that the form factors really give no real use unless you talk about building for other form factors ... other current form factors. In which case it should have it's own section that isn't in the introduction.

Is any of this making sense?

You need to change the order that you talk about things as well. Memory should be talked about either right before or right after processors. And you should specifically have a section on cache, bus, and chipset right after that THEN talk about the motherboard in general.

It would flow much better if the parts flowed into each other. From explaining the chipset and motherboard going into controllers, then cards, and THEN IDE devices would be a good idea. I also don't know if you explain this or not, but you should talk about how a system "talks" to the cards and drives. It's a very useful piece of knowledge that will give slight enlightenment. Simply explaining the things I've talked about in these posts would make someone MUCH more knowledgeable about their system and EVERYTHING I've mentioned is pretty general. I haven't mentioned speeds. However, a list of speeds would be a very good idea when you begin talking about building a computer. But at the stage when you're trying to understand it, don't bring speed into it, it just confuses it more then is needed.

So far in the paper, you've built little base or ground knowledge with the reader to reference to. That base knowledge would be very useful for explaining other things throughout the paper. The way you're writing it now will just frustrate someone if they have NO clue about how a computer works; that's who you're aiming at, remember?

Anyway, why don't you take some of the advice I've given and rework the processor, memory, and motherboard sections ... only. Keep it short and informative. I promise this will make it much better. You've got a behemoth of a paper right now and it seems very unmanageable. I mean I can barely read it because there's so many offshoots. [addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Wild Card on Wed Feb 23rd at 2:55pm 2005


I will look into adding sub categories to them maybe, such as for Processor:

Architectures
Construction
External speed
Internal speed
etc, etc, etc

Same for mobo and RAM. I guess the main reason I didnt explain the different architectures is because other than the X86, I dont know of others, and even then, I dont truely know X86. I know Macs are different, but Mac users are few and far apart.

I do explain the different motherboard formfactors though, because they all use the X86 architecture and, very often you'll still find someone or some business using AT boards... Like my public library...

I do agree on your comments for Power Supplies and for active cooling. I dont know if I did explain them or not yet, but I will.

If you could name off a few different architectures, like the X86, whatever was before that, and whatever is used in Macs, and maybe some references that I could read up on those, I would add another section on architecture. As Im assuming architecture is more than just the processor right?
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Crono on Wed Feb 23rd at 7:55pm 2005


Oh ... architecture doesn't have much to do with the processor (although it does include them)... Processors have their own architecture (SISC, RISC, etc). It's how everything else in the system works with them and such.

I named a few, you're going to have to find your own sources though. Most of what I've read are notes from my architecture class and in my books. You don't want to buy the book as you probably wouldn't understand it (It's pretty indepth and long) and it costs like $70-$100.

DON'T MAKE A SUBSECTION ON SPEED INSIDE ANY CATEGORY. Speed just confuses it. Talk about speed at the end in a section before "assembling". And within that have subsections of each part, CPU, Ram, Bus, GPU, HDD, etc.

Just to list some architectures, so you know what to look for:

X86 (obviously, current desktops)
IBM360 (Used in the 70s, 5100, etc, these didn't win because they're practically the most difficult architecture to program for ... ever.)
Borland Stack Machines (Competed with X86 and IBM360 in the 70s, lost because, even though it was generally faster, that speed wasn't guarenteed)
L68 (Mac, look it up to find which ones and if the current line still uses this architecure)
SPARC (Sun/ Solaris machines)
EPIC (Intel/HP Itanium machines)

Now ... you can also look at Vector machines. Those you have to look up on your own, I've never studied them much. I know the new Cell processors are suppose to be vector processors. (You could have a section on things to come as well. Explain new architectures that are emurging that can destroy the nasty ass x86)

There's billions of architectures out there, literally. Almost every console that comes out has a new architecture (except for Xbox, that's just X86.) The stuff that's in planes and cars and such, as you mentioned are completly different architectures. However, I don't suggest talking about any of them. It'd be fine to say something like, "Computers are all around us" and blah blah blah. But focusing on them wouldn't make sense.

Also, come to think of it. I know you're only explaining hardware, BUT, it would probably be a good idea to breifly explain VMM, or at least the idea behind it. Since it's pretty important.

I'll try to find the documents online from my courses ... you better appreciate it, because it's basically $800 worth of information [addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Feb 24th at 7:52am 2005


Nick, i stumbled across this tonight.. it looked relevant to your topic.

if not, disregard it.

[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Wild Card on Fri Feb 25th at 2:02am 2005


Got some usefull stuff, thanks Orph.

[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Feb 27th at 2:27am 2005


Crono, think you could look over the following entries to the article?

The transistor has 7 parts, 3 aluminum leads, called the source, the drain, and the gate. There is also a layer of Silicon Dioxide, to which a narrow strip of Polysilicon is found within, and connected to the gate. Bellow the silicon dioxide are two other pieces of silicon, an N-type and a P-type of silicon. Together each of these 7 parts comprise the transistor, however the real magic is accomplished with the source, drain, and N and P type silicon pieces. Everything starts when a positive charge is sent down the gate at the top of the transistor. This lead is connected to the Polysilicon strip which in turn becomes positively charged. This will attract electrons from the P-type silicon to the top, allowing a positive current to then pass from the source lead on the left, under the P-type silicon via the N-type silicon, and then to pass to the drain, turning on the transistor, and in computer language, defining a bit. If the gate is negatively charged, the the polysilicon is also charged negatively, repelling the electrons in the silicon and cutting off the flow between the source and the drain.


What this means is that the processor can work with 32 bits of data every clock cycle. Meaning 32 transistors, 32 1s and 0s.


So a processor operating at 1Mhz executes 1 million cycles per second, resulting in 32 million bits of data processed per second.


You might have heard of the Pentium 4A, P4B, P4C, and P4E and now the P4EE. The letter suffixes was used by Intel to separate the Pentium 4 model between the different cores, identifying different features. The Pentium 4A Willamette, for example, was the first version of the P4 and came out using the socket 423 which is now discontinued, as all other Pentium 4 models use the 478-pin socket. Here is the breakdown:

Pentium 4 A = Willamette
Pentium 4 B = Northwood
Pentium 4 C = Prescott
Pentium 4 E = Prescott with HTT technology
Pentium 4 EE = LGA 775 socket


DDR SDRAM was the next step in the ever so evolving state of DRAM. Double Data Rate Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory was an improvement to the older SDRAM. DDR SDRAM has two major improvements over SDRAM. The first, is it's ability to go to higher speeds, ranging from 133Mhz to 200Mhz. The effective speed however, which is used by the industry, is between 266Mhz and 400Mhz. The second feature, and most important one, the reason why it is called 'Double Data Rate' is because it sends data on both the rising and falling parts of the clock cycle. So for each wavelength, data would be sent twice, at the crest and at the trough.

Newer DDR2 SDRAM has appeared only a short time ago, but hasn't really become popular due to its high cost. DDR2 RAM uses 240-pin SIMMs and DIMMs making them once again incompatible with 184-pin DDR slots. DDR2 SDRAM clocks between a physical 200Mhz and 333Mhz, meaning an effective 400Mhz and 667Mhz, improving over the speeds of current DDR.


For example, in my laptop, I have a SoDIMM module for 128mb SDRAM. Each side contains 4 ICs, meaning there is a total of 8 integrated circuits, which provide the 128mb total memory. On the sticker on the side of the RAM stick, you can see how the memory is organized, in this case, my SoDIMM module says "16Mx64". This means that each IC chip contains 16mb of memory arranged along 64 Column Address Select pipelines, which, physically go up and down the longer part of the IC chip. From there you can figure out how many RAS pipelines there are by calculating the amount of bits in 16mb and then dividing that number by the number of CAS pipelines, in this case, 64. There are a total of 134 217 728bits in 16mb, therefore dividing 134 217 728 by 16 gives 8 388 608 which would mean that each IC chip on your RAM module contains 64 CAS pipelines and 8 388 608 RAS pipelines. This means that each chip contains 134 217 728 memory cells, to which each hold one bit of data.


We commonly say that 1000bytes is 1kilobyte, but it is not. 1kb is equivalent to 1024bytes, this due to the fact that 1byte is equal to 8bits. This can often cause confusion, and this is the reason why a 80gb hard drive only contains 74gb. Same with a 120gb HDD (Hard Drive Disk) which only really contains 111gb - Once again, 1000kb is often used to represent 1megabyte, when in fact it is 1024kb. The next step after megabytes is gigabytes, a term which has been around for under 10 years. And recently introduced to the public is the term terabyte, which signifies 1000gb, when in fact it is 1024. This would mean that a 1tb hard drive is announced as having 10 000 000 000 000bits when in reality it contains 8 796 093 022 208bits.


It is also called the PC, short for Personal Computer, a term that was used when the first home computers were introduced in the late 1970's and early 1980's.


Thanks.

Also, I have started off by talking about architecture instead of the CPU, and have revised the CPU part. I know it was a mess. The other sections should be in order though, you can read them over, such as mobo, RAM and HDD.

[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Feb 27th at 2:31am 2005


I noticed that "A,and and the" are all spelled correctly.. as for the rest I cannot help.

Nice job on those 3.

/runs

[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Gwil on Sun Feb 27th at 2:31am 2005


? quote:

And I've read parts of the Silmarillion!


LMAO. Useless post by me here, but I agree whole heartedly. You think that's bad Crono, I tried tackling "The Treasons of Isengard". GOD that was wholly boring.

The Silmarillion I got about 1/4 of the way into it and got bored out of my skull to the point of suicide. Well, an exaggeration, but you see my point [addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Crono on Sun Feb 27th at 3:11am 2005


? quote:
? quote:

And I've read parts of the Silmarillion!


LMAO. Useless post by me here, but I agree whole heartedly. You think that's bad Crono, I tried tackling "The Treasons of Isengard". GOD that was wholly boring.

The Silmarillion I got about 1/4 of the way into it and got bored out of my skull to the point of suicide. Well, an exaggeration, but you see my point


I'll never bother with any of the books his son wrote. They look like garbage. When I first read your post I was like, "What's wrong with The Two Towers". Because it was originally named "Treason of Isenguard". I forgot they then wrote a book with that title. Garbage really. The only confidence I'll put in the Silmarillion is that it was never meant to be published. It's nothing but notes and such. It's still cool that they included some of it in the first film though:)
But yes, incredibly boring. Just like the ROTK appendices.

Anyway.

WC, I see that you still didn't take my advice of not talking about speed until the very end. There's absolutely no point in explaining the circuitry. I haven't even studied that area, because I don't need to know it. Not many people do. Not to mention, the electrical and circuitry composition of a computer really stem from high level physics. The only circuit class I ever had was Physics 3.

Basically, you need to dumb that down. Like before, I suggest not mentioning brand names at all until the end along with speeds. It'll keep things easier to read and manage.

By the way, they're Greek prefixes (meaning Gigabyte wasn't introduced in the last ten years as a term). They just mean *10^X which makes it a little weird, because bytes and such aren't base ten.

There's still a lot of stuff you've got in here that isn't needed. You're using all these terms that you haven't explained before hand and you're writing this entire thing from the standpoint that the reader doesn't know anything about the subject.So, how exactly would they know what an "Silicon Dioxide" or "Polysilicon" are? All you have to say is, "A bit is the smallest piece of memory which makes up the larger portions:bytes." That's it, obviously talking about the 1024 thing is good (keep that in). Don't explain the "how" it writes through circuitry and electricity, there's no point.

Also, you haven't even mentioned signed and unsigned addresses. Or little endian/big endian (which way bytes are read, X86 is little endian.). Those are very important. For example: if you have a signed address machine, the numbers are 31 bits long, because the first bit is used to say whether the number is positive or negative. However, an unsigned machine can have much larger numbers (because it has one more usable bit), BUT no negative numbers.

Perhaps you should spend some time in a book store or library with some hardware books taking some notes.

If you want I could write down a list of terms you should look up and probably include. You could find a proper book (I know of one) to look it up in.

To be perfectly honest, your paper is just ignoring the things that really need to be explained if you want to understand, on a high level, hardware.

I mentioned endian-ness and (un)signed numbers because your paper starts talking about those areas. In fact I don't think you should talk about how ram works at all past how it's partitioned and used by the system (addressing memory for information etc). Otherwise, it's too detailed information to just have part of a paper on. [addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Feb 27th at 3:19am 2005


? quote:

WC, I see that you still didn't take my advice of not talking about speed until the very end. There's absolutely no point in explaining the circuitry. I haven't even studied that area, because I don't need to know it. Not many people do. Not to mention, the electrical and circuitry composition of a computer really stem from high level physics. The only circuit class I ever had was Physics 3.


Well I havent changed it yet. But,, wait a minute I havent uploaded the newer version of the article... because not much has changed yet.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Feb 27th at 3:25am 2005


As for all that Indian stuff.. I've never heard of that before in my life. There are a lot of things I wish to explain, which are related to the standard desktop... the X86 architecture. But I guess I should have started with just hardware in general, as you suggested, the thing is I know nothing about it. And no library around here carries anything deeper than Jon White's "How Computers Work" or large text books about Windows XP.

As for Silicon Dioxide and Polysilicon" Other than which part it is, I figure you dont need to know more about the chemical composition of it. I guess I should identify the parts in the diagram.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Crono on Sun Feb 27th at 3:47am 2005


? quote:
As for all that Indian stuff.. I've never heard of that before in my
life. There are a lot of things I wish to explain, which are
related to the standard desktop... the X86 architecture. But I
guess I should have started with just hardware in general, as you
suggested, the thing is I know nothing about it. And no library
around here carries anything deeper than Jon White's "How Computers
Work" or large text books about Windows XP.

As for Silicon Dioxide and Polysilicon" Other than which part it is, I
figure you dont need to know more about the chemical composition of
it. I guess I should identify the parts in the diagram.



Endian, not Indian. It's from Gulliver's Travels. It basically says which way the architecture reads memory. Left to right (Big Endian) or Right to left (little endian). [addsig]




Quote
Re: Care to rate my article on computer hardware?
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Feb 27th at 3:49am 2005


Alright... you've got me a little confused.... this is a theoretical thing right?
[addsig]





Post Reply