# What's a computer?



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

On my iPad I've been perusing the plethora of articles about CES with references to something called a "tablet computer."

I seem to be having a problem with my understanding of the word "computer" here at the beginning of the 21st Century. Wikipedia says:


> A computer is a programmable machine that receives input, stores and manipulates data, and provides output in a useful format.
> 
> ...A computer does not need to be electric, nor even have a processor, nor RAM, nor even hard disk. The minimal definition of a computer is anything that transforms information in a purposeful way.


Yeah, well that could include a pencil....

When I started with computers (beyond the pencil, of course), they filled rooms. I never really liked the term "personal computer" or PC. I get the idea, but even "desktop computer" made more sense at the time. Now my struggle is with the current reference to "tablet computer."

I just don't see myself calling my iPad a "computer" any more than I would an iPhone. And my iPad is not a "tablet" unless by a "tablet" you mean a "magazine" which is about the same size and shape unless it's something attached to a gun.

We need a better set of terms for these devices IMHO, preferably one word terms ... like "pencil".


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

"Slate" is a better term than tablet...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The abacus is one of the earliest computers.

The earliest computer by modern terms would have to be the mechanical loom that would accept punch cards that defined the work that would be done by the loom.

While people don't always think of things as computers... a lot of things qualify by their function and design.

Today's iPad is much more of a computer by any number of ways you would define it than the earliest home computers in the 1970s. Heck, modern digital watches are in some ways more advanced computers than some of the earliest computers.

That said... I'm not sure what a "tablet" computer is... To my thinking a computer is a computer is a computer... and they come in various sizes and have varied functions and capabilities.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Interesting question. I had reason to ponder the same thing. I concluded that a computer is: programmable or adaptable, general-purpose, connected to the Internet, and meets the definition of a calculating device with input, output, memory and storage. 

Key to this is the idea that a computer is intended for use as a portal. Other things might have computer components but are not computers.


----------



## old7 (Dec 1, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Interesting question. I had reason to ponder the same thing. I concluded that a computer is: programmable or adaptable, general-purpose, *connected to the Internet*, and meets the definition of a calculating device with input, output, memory and storage.
> 
> Key to this is the idea that a computer is intended for use as a portal. Other things might have computer components but are not computers.


I have a couple computers and know of many more that will never be connected to the Internet. However, they are capable of being connected to the Internet.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

_connected to the Internet_

That makes it a communications device.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

> The minimal definition of a computer is anything that transforms information in a purposeful way.


This means that Fox News is a computer. :lol:


----------



## FHSPSU67 (Jan 12, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The earliest computer by modern terms would have to be the mechanical loom that would accept punch cards that defined the work that would be done by the loom.


This reminded me of the player piano - Another Computer!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

See, that's my point, which is that you have to let go of the earlier definition of "computer" because at this point everything from your washing machine to your pocket knife could meet that definition. 

I understand those who choose not to connect to the internet, but without at least the capacity to do so, the device is not really being used to its potential.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I understand those who choose not to connect to the internet, but without at least the capacity to do so, the device is not really being used to its potential.


Clearly an opinion there... 

Example: my buddy has 3 computers that will probably never be connected to the Internet. Those computers are used nearly 24 x 7 x 365, because he uses them to render 3D graphics. It would be hard to argue that those computers aren't being used to their potential, since hardly a processing cycle is wasted, compared to billions a day for the average Internet-connected computer.

No one is a bigger fan of the Internet than me, but computers can have useful and productive uses without being connected.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I would argue that those are being used as special-purpose machines. Also I suspect that they are capable of networking, even if they are not always connected.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

[being capable of] connecting to the Internet is in no way necessary for a device to be a computer. Many computers are "special purpose machines" It does not affect their function of processing information. The fact is, most devices today DO have rudimentary computing power, from watches, to phones, to washing machines, and now televisions.

I think extending the definition to a pencil is stretching things a bit as pencils are not programmable, but there are plenty of "embedded" computers in ordinary items, including toasters and coffeemakers. The average kitchen has more computers in it than the Space Shuttle. And a typical smart phone is more powerful than the original Cray supercomputer.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You've actually made my point for me. I think that in the 21st century, we instinctively know what a computer is. A laptop is a computer, and a washing machine isn't. And yet they both have "computers" inside. 

To some extent it's becoming a moot point because with electronics being so pervasive, the idea of a "computer" is becoming less important. We are just as happy in many cases to compute using our phones, our TVs, our game systems, whatever. 

And I'll stick to my guns in saying that a 21st century computer must be able to connect to the Internet, even if it is not always connected. The subset of tasks that an average person uses a computer for that can't be done offline is getting smaller.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> And I'll stick to my guns in saying that a 21st century computer must be able to connect to the Internet, even if it is not always connected.


And I'll stick to my guns and say that makes it a communications device whether or not it may also be used as a computer.

A true working computer might not ever be connected to the web due to the high security risks. It will handle finances, mathematical computations, statistical comparisons, database and records access. Mainframe computers were around long before the internet and were the guts of many companies. They may or may not have been connected by some link to another company location. Some may still be on closed intranets but not have access to what most of us know as 'the web'.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

My truck has a computer in it... but it can't be connected to the internet.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Your truck is not a computer. Neither is your computer a truck. 

As for whether or not a computer, one intended for personal use, doesn't need to be connected... I suggest you ask your children or grandchildren or the nearest teenager what use their computers would be if they weren't connected.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> To some extent it's becoming a moot point because with electronics being so pervasive, the idea of a "computer" is becoming less important. We are just as happy in many cases to compute using our phones, our TVs, our game systems, whatever.


I guess that's the idea going on in my head. The idea of a computer is irrelevant. I see a "tablet computer" as really a "tablet." But I don't like that word - we need a different word. I've grown to accept "PC" though I hate "personal computer."


> And I'll stick to my guns in saying that a 21st century computer must be able to connect to the Internet, even if it is not always connected. The subset of tasks that an average person uses a computer for that can't be done offline is getting smaller.


Yeah, that's also something that has become a pet peeve of mine. More and more software connecting to the internet when what I have to do is make entries using a keyboard and mouse ... oh, sorry, user interface devices. Yeah, yeah, I know....


Stuart Sweet said:


> As for whether or not a computer, one intended for personal use, doesn't need to be connected... I suggest you ask your children or grandchildren or the nearest teenager what use their computers would be if they weren't connected.


...but that leads to this...


SayWhat? said:


> That makes it a communications device.


...which is why I started this thread. Things I see as computers may take up a lot of floorspace (supercomputers), have a relatively small footprint (desktop computers), or even been portable (notebook computers). But somewhere along the way, communication devices that can run some software (apps, if you must) should no longer have the word "computer" attached.

In my pea brain "smart phone" is an ok term. "Tablet computer" is a misnomer.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

And ask your parents or grandparents if they need to be connected to the internet to perform a task that you or your children or grandchildren wouldn't dream of attempting without the web...


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Your truck is not a computer. Neither is your computer a truck.
> 
> As for whether or not a computer, one intended for personal use, doesn't need to be connected... I suggest you ask your children or grandchildren or the nearest teenager what use their computers would be if they weren't connected.


They can still write papers, make presentations, edit photo's, and play games without connecting to the internet.

Now if I asked them to research something without the internet I think their heads would explode.

Comptuer tablet has come from the computer artist tablets that have been out for years. They're about the same size and completely touch interface. So this name just transfered over. Dealing with tablets before I guess makes me ok with the terminology.

I would also argue that the truck is a computer. The truck will assimilate information and display it to you. The ECM's now days provide all of the trouble indicators and will give you information on your display for you to view. It can do all of that without transporting anything. Hybrid vehicles are even more computer than not. So soon we'll be going to buy a Pointiac Trans PC.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> So soon we'll be going to buy a Pointiac Trans PC.


Well, I hope GM makes something called a "Pointiac." I like that as it would honor the passing of their other brand:


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

My own feeling is that modern computing was around during WWII, I seem to remember that one was used to generate tables for 18" guns on Battleships for example and a code breaker I knew used to reminisce about the one used at Bletchley Park, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bletchley_Park
"The Colossus machines were electronic computing devices used by British codebreakers to help read encrypted German messages during World War II." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer"

"The Enigma machines were a family of portable cipher machines with rotor scramblers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma
Having tried out the naval version of the Enigma machine I was impressed by it.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

In the 1920's my dad worked with what he called "Hollerith machines." As explained in the linked item on Wikipedia:


> In the late 1880s Herman Hollerith invented the recording of data on a medium that could then be read by a machine. Prior uses of machine readable media had been for control (Automatons, Piano rolls, looms, ...), not data. "After some initial trials with paper tape, he settled on punched cards..." To process these punched cards, first known as "Hollerith cards" he invented the tabulator, and the keypunch machines. These three inventions were the foundation of the modern information processing industry. His machines, now called unit record machines, used mechanical relays (and solenoids) to increment mechanical counters. Hollerith's method was used in the 1890 census and the completed results were ... finished months ahead of schedule and far under budget. The company he founded, the Tabulating Machine Company (1896), was one of four companies that merged to form Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR), later renamed IBM. IBM manufactured and marketed a variety of unit record machines for creating, sorting, and tabulating punched cards, even after expanding into computers in the late 1950s. IBM developed punched card technology into a powerful tool for business data-processing and produced an extensive line of general-purpose unit record machines. By 1950, the IBM card and IBM unit record machines had become ubiquitous in industry and government. The warning often printed on cards that were to be individually handled, "Do not fold, spindle or mutilate," became a motto for the post-World War II era (even though many people had no idea what spindle meant). The largest supplier of unit record equipment was IBM and this article largely reflects IBM practice and terminology.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

And I would argue that the coming of the internet, which has been called by some the third "great invention" of humankind (the other two being the wheel and the written word), separates all computing devices into pre-internet and internet-enabled. 

You can write using a computer. How will you distribute what you write? A printer? That's archaic when a blog post can reach millions instanteously. You can create a presentation but who are you going to show it to? The people who walk up to the computer? 

Believe me I wrestled with this. Without going into detail there were meetings and discussions and ironically I think it was the very fact that we had to have these meetings over e-mail and screen-sharing software that made my point. 

Phrelin's point is well made, that the term "computer" or "personal computer" is increasingly irrelevant. But I would be willing to bet that long before I retire, terms like "phone," "television," "computer" and "home theatre" will all be irrelevant as they will describe an increasingly singular set of capabilities. One of those key capabilities will be two-way, instantaneous communication. 

I don't know what tools teenagers in 2025 are going to use but I'll grant you this, there is no doubt they will be connected.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't know what tools teenagers in 2025 are going to use but I'll grant you this, there is no doubt they will be connected.


Unless, of course, in 2025 we have a world war involving only electromagnetic pulse bombs, in which case they would find themselves mostly all alive and well but "bombed back" to the late 1800's and unable to function, totally.:sure:


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Your truck is not a computer. Neither is your computer a truck.


But take the computer out of the truck and see what happens. Nada. You might as well put it up on blocks and use it for a giant planter.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

phrelin said:


> More and more software connecting to the internet


More and more devices are connecting to the web that I wouldn't call computers. Things like TVs, refrigerators and other appliances in today's "smart homes". Then of course there are web-based security/traffic/tourist cameras all over everywhere.



phrelin said:


> In my pea brain "smart phone" is an ok term. "Tablet computer" is a misnomer.


Yet, that smart phone has more computing power than many early desktops.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> My truck has a computer in it... but it can't be connected to the internet.


Most GM vehicles(in the last few years) can connect to the internet, my daughters new Camaro sends, via sat(Onstar I assume) a monthly readout of all systems on the car, from tire pressure, next oil change, etc. to her email.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Stuart, I see your point... to a point.
The term has come to mean a specific type of a device for a specific purpose in the common everyday vocabulary.

But every bandage is not a band-aid, even though most people refer to them as such.

I think the key here is that "Personal Computer" has been shortened to "Computer" and has become generic and household.

Probably 99/100 of average Americans surveyed would choose a laptop or a desktop out of a lineup when asked to identify the "computer". They'd pay no attention to the smart phones, GPS devices, etc. on either side of it.
Furthermore, perhaps as many as 60% would point to the monitor on the desktop system as the actual "computer".

I'm not sure if dumbing down the vernacular is the wisest or most preferred approach, but it certainly appears to be the current trend.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Is the vernacular getting dumber or are people simply acknowledging the pervasiveness of silicon-based, solid-state logic equipment in everything they own and smartly choosing to keep the term "computer" to mean that device specifically intended for both traditional computing purposes and electronic communication over the internet?

Sorry that came out so wordy, I didn't know how else to say "most stuff that _has_ a computer _isn't_ a computer."


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The automobile analogy here has led me to a further thought. We don't describe the vehicle as a Ford Mustang engine or Chevy Silverado engine. I guess a Ford F-150 would be a pickup truck powered by an internal combustion engine. And I guess my iPad is a [something] powered by an electronic computer. What the something is, I don't know. I think it has about as much in common with an Etch-A-Sketch as it does a tablet.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Right you are. And the term "computer" isn't really appropriate for that. But in a world where we still "dial" telephones, "turn on" things that don't have knobs, and "roll down" windows, it's just another misnomer.

Don't worry old friend, someone younger than us will coin a new term fairly soon for their computing / communication / entertainment portal device.

To paraphrase an old movie, (_The Money Pit_) I think we should call it Meryl Streep.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Before too long < we > will connect to the web without the need of any external devices. We will have some form of implant available from birth that will be self-powered from our own body's electrical impulses..


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

phrelin said:


> I just don't see myself calling my iPad a "computer" any more than I would an iPhone.


I absolutely consider my iphone a computer.


----------



## YtseJammer1977 (Oct 29, 2010)

Wouldn't a "computer" simply be a device capable of "computing"?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Stuart... here's something conceptually in your wheelhouse.

You are an illustrator... and you use a computer to do at least some of that.

Purists would argue that you are not an artist if you use a computer program that does some of the work for you.

I, for example, stand a much better chance of painting the Mona Lisa via Photoshop than I ever would via paintbrush in hand.

Note that *I* don't see it this way... but I'm extending the concept of what "defines" a computer to other concepts.

Arguably, if an internet connection is required in your mind to make a computer a computer... I'm curious if you would extend that ever-evolving dynamic to other technologies.

Am I a writer if I use Microsoft Word instead of pen & paper?

Am I a designer if I use software instead of an artboard?

Do I know math if I use a calculator?

Is it still "reading" if I listen to an audiobook?


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

It's a device that algorithmically manipulates input variables tor producing output variables.

It doesn't necessarily need to be electrically powered to meet that definition.

--- CHAS


----------



## brant (Jul 6, 2008)

phrelin said:


> On my iPad I've been perusing the plethora of articles about CES with references to something called a "tablet computer."
> 
> I seem to be having a problem with my understanding of the word "computer" here at the beginning of the 21st Century. Wikipedia says:
> 
> Yeah, well that could include a pencil....


I don't see how a pencil can be considered a computer using that definition. For one, it has no capacity to store information.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

brant said:


> I don't see how a pencil can be considered a computer using that definition. For one, it has no capacity to store information.


Yeah. A pencil is, at best, an input device, in a class with keyboards, mice, and increasingly these days, fingers.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Stuart... here's something conceptually in your wheelhouse.
> 
> You are an illustrator... and you use a computer to do at least some of that.
> 
> ...


Interesting analogy but in my mind it breaks down. You can still be an artist if your choice of medium is Photoshop. However, you are not automatically an artist because you use Photoshop.

What you're talking about is the mental process. And the mental process is important no matter what your choice of tools. What I'm talking about is the utility of the tool. And I'm arguing that the communication portal aspect is a keystone of the utility of the computer, here in 2011 and beyond.

My argument is that a computer without connectivity is like a car with rims but no tires. It is possible to operate it but its utility is severely compromised. You could argue that it's still a car, just one without tires. And I'd come back and say true, but it's designed to have tires. Just as a computer must be designed to connect, whether or not it does; I'd further argue that a tire-less car is no good as a car, unless it's used for a special purpose like going down train tracks.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Before too long < we > will connect to the web without the need of any external devices. We will have some form of implant available from birth that will be self-powered from our own body's electrical impulses..


And I would still be a human. But the tech press will start labeling us "human computers" even though they never before called us human stomachs or livers or....:sure:

In other words something that has a computer as a part doesn't become a computer - or do computers really engulf everything they become a part of?:eek2:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Phrelin, I think the problem is that, going back to your original point, we are using obsolete and confusing term. If we used "electronic component" instead of "computer" to describe the embedded hardware, and "communication and productivity portal" instead of "computer" to describe the box you interact with, it would be a different discussion. But as you point out, the term "computer" is still with us, yet maddeningly difficult to define.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

The job title of my first job when I got out of high school (Douglas Aircraft, 1957) was "Technical Computer". I wasn't connected to the internet 

I, along with several others, processed test flight data using a mechanical desktop calculator (the data was on film strips showing the instrument panel, with frames taken every minute or so). One task I had was to punch up IBM cards for one of the runs so the engineers could see if a real computer could perform the task. The only computer they had was in the payroll department and it was used after-hours for our work. 

I only worked there for a few months before starting college, but it was interesting work.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My argument is that a computer without connectivity is like a car with rims but no tires. It is possible to operate it but its utility is severely compromised. You could argue that it's still a car, just one without tires. And I'd come back and say true, but it's designed to have tires. Just as a computer must be designed to connect, whether or not it does; I'd further argue that a tire-less car is no good as a car, unless it's used for a special purpose like going down train tracks.


I'm not sure that works...

A car without tires is missing a key component of what makes a car a car. Without proper wheels to roll on, most of the usefulness of the car is compromised.

A better example... Is it still a car without a radio? Without an air conditioner? Arguably those things make a better car and make it more enjoyable... but no doubt it is still a car without those. A car is a car even if it has no roof (convertible).. and arguably can still be used without a trunk.

In NC, you don't even have to have a windshield to pass inspection! And jeeps barely even have doors sometimes.

So I can't buy internet-connectivity as a requirement. What happens if you are in a dead zone? Does your computer cease to be a computer while you can't connect?

Is your phone still a phone if you cancel your calling plan? How about your TV if you disconnect it from cable?

I think more along the lines of molecules or atoms when I think about what a computer is... A computer is still a computer even if some parts are taken away, as long as the key components for "computing" are still present.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think more along the lines of molecules or atoms when I think about what a computer is... A computer is still a computer even if some parts are taken away, as long as the key components for "computing" are still present.


Hence my argument that the "computer" is in fact a component of whatever it is in including a smart phone or an iPad or a refrigerator.

A computer is a component that is more than a processor but less than an input or output device. The computer doesn't transform the equipment it is in a computer. Just like an internal combustion engine, with all its parts, doesn't transform a car or leaf blower into an engine.

My iPad is not a tablet computer. It's a [whatever] made up of a computer and speakers and other parts.

Maybe I'll have to accept "tablet" in the long term. Or maybe the kids will shorten it to "tab."


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My argument is that a computer without connectivity is like a car with rims but no tires. It is possible to operate it but its utility is severely compromised. You could argue that it's still a car, just one without tires. And I'd come back and say true, but it's designed to have tires. Just as a computer must be designed to connect, whether or not it does; I'd further argue that a tire-less car is no good as a car, unless it's used for a special purpose like going down train tracks.


I still think that analogy is too extreme. Perhaps a car without power options, ac, stereo, or other conveniences. The car itself could still perform it's basic function.

A computer is the same way. You could still do everything you wanted to do. What you're talking about is doing something after the product is finished. As we get into cloud computing your analgy becomes more relevant but at this point the fact is you can still do more offline than online effeciently. We're close to having that trend changed but still a few years off.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Be it unorthodox by modern automata conceptions, here's an interesting computer:

http://www.wonderhowto.com/wonderme...nctional-ancient-computer-with-legos-0122990/

--- CHAS


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> Hence my argument that the "computer" is in fact a component of whatever it is in including a smart phone or an iPad or a refrigerator."


The only issue I see with drawing that line...

My iMac is an all-in-one computer + monitor + speakers... but it would be awkward not to consider my iMac a computer. To have to describe it all the time as a computer + monitor + speakers would be cumbersome.

I think to that end, the iPad is arguably the same thing as my iMac... an all-in-one device that consists of a computer + monitor + speakers + keyboard (in the case of the iPad).

To me... then... my iPad and iMac are both computers. My Truck is a vehicle that has a computer in it for certain features. My digital watch is a timepiece that has a computer keeping the time.

Gray areas are things like "smart" phones... 10 years ago I would have been completely comfortable saying I had a cellphone + some computer functions... as the phone was the primary use for the device.

But today, arguably, I use my iPhone as much of more for non-phone things.... so it is almost more of a computer w/ phone features than it is a phone w/ computer features.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

If you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty as far as tech items, the CPU is probably the computer with everything else being support components.


----------

