Care to rate my article on computer hardware?

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 :biggrin:

Heres the link:

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/NCC74656/Hardware_paper.pdf

Thanks

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 :smile:

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

if not, disregard it. :smile:

Got some usefull stuff, thanks Orph.

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.

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

Nice job on those 3.

/runs

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 :biggrin:

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 :biggrin:

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Wild Card</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Alright... you've got me a little confused.... this is a theoretical thing right?
</DIV></DIV>
Not really, as far as I know, Indians were real people, no theory about it.

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

No. It's the order the bytes are read in an memory address. Most signifigant to least signifigant or vice versa. Those are what big and little endian are.

Nevermind.

It doesn't surprise me that you haven't heard about it, why would you ever need to know it? :wink: (hint hint)

Yea but isnt memory read by intersecting CAS and RAS

Yea but isnt memory read by intersecting CAS and RAS

Well, yes, but it doesn't matter. That information isn't needed for a basic understanding. To be honest, that's really getting down and dirty. You don't need to explain how the ram its self functions, just how it functions WITH the rest of the system.

Let's put it this way: the idea of Endians is about page 34 in my architecture book. RAS and CAS are on page 459. It's pretty hard stuff to understand. Because, you're also assuming the person knows what a matrix is. And you said the paper was to edjucate people who don't know anything about computer hardware. If you want to go that deep, why not just tell them to read a book?

Does that make sense? It's good that you know that, but to be honest, you don't have any use for that knowledge unless you're using memory (such as programming in assembly).

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Crono</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>edjucate</DIV></DIV>

edjucate eh? :razz: The reason I talk about that, is because one of the goals is to explain how the hardware works too. So its only fair in explaining that bit on RAM. And its also to help clear things up about memory timmings and overclocking your ram.

Curious, what book are you getting this from, and do you know where I could find... perhaps a whispers slightly less-than-legal copy online?
I mean, if endian starts at page 40 and CAS and RAS are on page 400, than Im quite curious to read up on it, and about what's in between those pages.

It's "Computer Systems: A Programmers Perspective" By Randal E. Bryant and David O' Hallaron.

ISBN: 0-13-034074-X

The book assumes you know C/C++ somewhat (not VISUAL C++)

It's funny though in the "Assumption about readers background" section is says:

"If your computer runs Microsoft Windows, you have two choices." Sounds, like a threat, I found it funny.

Also, I think the book cost me about $120 ... at my school's bookstore.

There are MANY others, this is just the one I have because it was needed for a class. But it's written very well.

But, my entire point was that, you shouldn't explain the inner working of everything because it isn't needed to understand how the system works in general. Seriously, if you want to go into how ram works, do it in a different paper.

One step at a time I would think!

I agree with crono, for a paper explaining beginning topics, if you try to go into too much detail, you risk:

1) losing your audience. The average person who does not know much about computer hardware reading this wants to know the basics, they do not care about nitty gritties. Someone who wants to read about nitty gritties is not going to be reading an article about basic computer stuff because they want to get to the detail fast and not have the basic fluff.

2) having your paper being even longer and be more disjunct than it already is

Small details can fill volumes and volumes of text. If you really want to cover interesting topics that go into more depth go for it in a more specialized article.

I also agree that you should go into a few things in more detail. Going into the basics of what endian as is good. But you don't need too much detail. Maybe not in this article, but in a different one (up to you) or toward the end of the CPU section you should talk about different CPU technologies such as vector and superscalar processing.

One thing I really didn't like about your article was that alot of it was about computer companies and their history. You should talk about the hardware are technology and only give examples of implementions and when these were used.

Maybe there is one thing I didnt make clear. Yes it is designed
for noobies. But its designed to take them from zero to
hero. Meanning that yes, all those little details you dont really
care about, do matter. My audience is those who wish to learn
everything there is about computing, in the general sence, of desktops
and laptops and whatnot. And a reference for the experienced to
fall back on, and to read.

You have too many audiences and too many topics to cover.

Split it over a series or aim at it a defined audience. You can't have multiple target audiences with technical writings, it just doesn't work like that. Trust me.

And that's use of the English language, not computing. Listen to Crono, he is talking sense. If you really wanted to achieve a good, balanced article - I can't comment on the hardware details, but I can go through it with a toothcomb in regards to target audience, use of language etc etc - I studied the editing of documents for maximum "impact" in great depth, and even if I do say so myself, got rather good at it :smile:

edit: for example -

the help of calculators no bigger than the size of your stack of credit cards

If i'm blunt, phrasings like that are just poor :sad: A document which is technically correct and full of useful info, can fall over as soon as bad grammar or repetition comes into play.

If you have it outside of .pdf i'd be happy to give it an editing over in terms of the use of English.

Nick, i think what they are saying is, your audience doesn't need to know where the zinc, or gold was mined in order to comprehend PC's

you might lose your intent in the quagmire of your delivery.

think of it like this, how many people do you think read crono's entire posts when he goes off on one of his tangents?

dodges boot thrown from oregon

just making a point master crono :biggrin:

I don't go off on many tangents. Most of them are useful if you read them ... also, I don't own boots and if I did I wouldn't waste them by throwing them at you.

WC, what you're really saying is that you want to write several books.

Let's put it this way: I have a series of Intel books, they're the books they gave to incoming engineers. I have about ... 15 or so. They cover the entire X86 architecture. Top to bottom. That is just hardware and architecture. AND it only talks about their set up, it assumes you already know everything else.

There's too much information for you to do what you're saying you want to, not to mention it would take years to catalog it the way you're, apparently, thinking.
And, I've talked about pretty mundane topics here. Wait until you get to the complicated stuff ...

A SINGLE paper taking a "noob" to "not such a noob" is very easy. In fact, if I had time, I could probably write a paper that would give you the low down and blow everyone else you know out of the water in regards to general computer knowledge. (this would already be true if people listened or read my "tangents" :rolleyes: )

Now, the real question is ... how do you think this would benefit a reader? Seriously. Knowing this stuff isn't going to give you the ability to make your computer run faster. It's not going to teach you how to optimize anything, unless you're a developer. So, in that regard, why go to such detail on knowledge that person would never use?
I think it would be a better idea, just to explain basics upon basics of interconnection and give knowledge of how to put all this together when choosing computer parts and things like that. THAT would benefit many people tremendously.

I mean ... s**t ... many people don't know that when choosing a board you should really look at the chipset it has first. But most people don't really understand what the chipset is.

I guess, a valid question you should ask your self is, "What is an attainable goal with this paper?" then tell us, and we'll help you reach it. You're just trying to take way too much on at this point in time.

Gwil I fail to see whats wrong with that statement of mine :S

The attainable goal:

To give the reader just about complete knowledge on computer hardware,
mainly X86, while still taking note of other architectures out there.

Target audience:

Noobies and veterans alike, who wish to know all there is to know, such
as myself. So that I can visualise how my computer works.
How the processor does it's 'magic' and how the RAM works. Stuff
like that that is for the most part, useless, but still, I want to
know. type of deal.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Wild Card</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Gwil I fail to see whats wrong with that statement of mine :S
</DIV></DIV>

1) you are asking crono's advice, yet ignoring it somewhat. not good.

2) crono i was jesting, but in such a way as to assist your cause.

nick, slow down, smell the roses. you are getting good advice, problem is its advice you don't wanna hear. you are acting like a n00b mapper fishing for compliments, you keep asking till someone says something you like.

crono is right, pick an area you want to write on and do it well, don't spread yourself so thin you look silly.
/ 2 cents.

Gwil I fail to see whats wrong with that statement of mine :S

Isn't that the problem?

Sorry.

the help of calculators no bigger than the size of your stack of credit cards

There's many things wrong with it, I don't remember the surrounding text, but, based on this: your word ordering is weird ... it doesn't flow very well if you said this outloud. You also identify the reader, don't do that.

"... the help of calculators, which vary in size, some of which are no bigger then a stack of credit cards ..." would be a better way to put it, for example.

[EDIT]
Orph, I know.

and I thought Gwil was specifically talking about WC's grammar ... oh well, either way I suppose.

That's it - there is stacks of stuff in the intro, for instance which turns me off reading as a "newbie" instantly - use of unexplained jargon, incorrectly formatted sentences, (needless) repetition of words/phrases, waffling about things that aren't really relevant etc etc.

You have to trust on this like Orpheus says, because as it stands, while the document isn't terribly written, or technically rubbish it isn't hitting your target audiences (bad, anyway! bad bad bad! one audience! focus!) nor is it an attainable goal.

Sorry to say it Wild Card, but it really needs serious work, cut backs and some heavy editing in places.

If you want my help doing this, i'm happy to - but you have to accept changes and suggestions, otherwise asking for feedback and help is a moot point from the outset :smile:

edit: Exactly Crono - you hit the nail on the head. Awkward phrasing and "bad flow" scuppers a document from the start, regardless of how accurate the facts/information within is.

I'm speaking purely from a writing standpoint, your article baffles me technology wise - and that can't be a good thing, as I don't feel I understand any better a lot of the processes you are trying to explain.

But not - it isn't grammar i'm talking about, Wild Card - part of my studies on my English Language course was the editing of documents to make them effective and relevant to the target audience - from baking instructions to a description of an exhibition in a gallery.

I was citing that as an example, and how close it was to the start - I am saying, I have the knowledge (and dare I say it, the skill) to edit the document to make it more relevant, e

Jon, Im not looking for compliments. Im looking for answers, such
as what Crono just posted. Its one thing to say "Your text is
wrong" And its another to say "Your grammar is wrong, this is how
it should be fixed"

As for statement there, well, its my way of typing I guess. But
even now re-reading it I dont see anything wrong with it. Crono
just added "Which vary in size" And I dont see how that
identifies the reader either. ?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Wild Card</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Jon, Im not looking for compliments. Im looking for answers, </DIV></DIV>

OK then.. i am the worse person to ask when it comes to "text delivery"
i get into trouble way to often to give advice on that topic, since its obvious i never learn from my mistakes.

I was citing that as an example, and how close it was to the start - I am saying, I have the knowledge (and dare I say it, the skill) to edit the document to make it more relevant and actually worthwhile as a useful piece.

As it stands it's fairly badly written, tries to cover too much, is laden with unexplained jargon and waffle which renders it unreadable, and therefore, not very useful at all for people wanting to know "all they can about computers" :sad:

Sorry to sound so harsh, but it is the truth.

If you want my help doing this, i'm happy to - but you have to accept
changes and suggestions, otherwise asking for feedback and help is a
moot point from the outset :smile:

-Gwil

I dont mind the help, and actualy would like it. I just fail to
see how it is terribly written and repetitive.. I guess its just
my style or writing. (which got me a 97 in English last year :biggrin: )

The other thing I was looking was also mainly on the technical
side. As I havent exactly proof-read the document yet.
Which is maybe why it looks so messy? Sort of. I just
though of something and wrote it down.

Gwil, again, if you are willing to correct grammar and whatnot in a
25-page article, firstly, I must salute you, and secondly I must ask...
Are you crazy? lol.

It's not "awful" Wild Card, the English is mostly fine and accurate - BUT, at the moment it seems to be an awful lot of history of computing and not a lot of explanation - especially for someone who doesn't know about computers!

If you rehashed it as a "history of computing" article, it would work "better" in my eyes

Well my introduction was more historical than not. And every
section I started with a bit of history, from what I know. Which
could be wrong. But as I go deeper, I focus mainly on the
technical aspects.

I think what he's saying is that, people wont get that far ... I didn't.

Also, I don't think this paper will be 25 pages if you let someone help edit. It'll probably boil down to 12 VERY good pages.

Also, I don't think this paper will be 25 pages if you let
someone help edit. It'll probably boil down to 12 VERY good pages.

I dont mind that. So long as it doesnt cut out any technical
content. I mean, sure I have some stuff I could eliminate, such
as the ENIAC stuff, comparing it to modern computers, but still.
Like the whole HDD section is I think about 5 pages, but 5 pages of
important stuff.

Also, I don't think this paper will be 25 pages if you let
someone help edit. It'll probably boil down to 12 VERY good pages.

I dont mind that. So long as it doesnt cut out any technical
content. I mean, sure I have some stuff I could eliminate, such
as the ENIAC stuff, comparing it to modern computers, but still.
Like the whole HDD section is I think about 5 pages, but 5 pages of
important stuff.

We'll see ... I'll comment in a little while.

Exactly :smile:

It won't be for a few days, and expect liberal use of the red marker, but there are bits that can be chopped altogether. I'm happy to help, but be prepared to see it shrink down - and I won't cut out anything technical, just shave off the waffling :smile:

As Crono says, it could be a really clear and concise 10-15 pages with a few hours of editing :smile:

The slowest component in a computer is the CD or FDD. Not the HDD. Granted, when talking about "permanent" stuff it is the slowest. Damn those moving parts!

More then just Seagate's drives go at 15,000 RPM.

One thing I think would be good is stick to metric or imperial, don't switch back and forth.

Typical HDDs have TENS of thousands, not just thousands of tracks.

You talk about the formatting process, yet you don't mention the overstock of cylinders that's in every HDD. Since cylinders go bad, there are back ups. (Also, meaning that your drive is technically much larger then it says it is.)

I can't take anymore ... sorry.

Only so much I can handle per day.

The slowest component in a computer is the CD or FDD. Not the
HDD. Granted, when talking about "permanent" stuff it is the slowest.
Damn those moving parts!

Did I say it was the HDD? Er... oops :biggrin:

One thing I think would be good is stick to metric or imperial, don't switch back and forth.

I try not to, but its like talking about distances and hights. I
walked 2 kilometers today, and I am 5 feet 8 inches tall. I say
it like that, because here, thats the way it is. But yea,
if you can point out some really bad examples...

Typical HDDs have TENS of thousands, not just thousands of tracks.

Guess I should fix that, I didnt know the exact number.

You talk about the formatting process, yet you don't mention
the overstock of cylinders that's in every HDD. Since cylinders go bad,
there are back ups. (Also, meaning that your drive is technically much
larger then it says it is.)

Didnt know a thing about that!

The cylinder thing is what that quote I gave you was about.