Talk:Kenbak-1

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

What number?[edit]

So the text says 50 were built, the table says 40 were sold and shipped - makes 10 that he kept? What for? It kinda makes no sense to build them but not sell them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.51.42 (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oral history states 44 units sold, I updated the infobox and added reference, and removed units shipped as this seems unnecessary. ShadyCrack (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the number produced has never been certain. The Blankenbaker Oral History suggests he bought parts in quantities of 50, but he sold around 44, which probably doesn't include the prototype, and Serial 183 which didn't work until 2010, and was then sold on eBay. But he did give an unknown number of working and unworking machines to CTI when Kenbak folded. CTI placed a foil "CTI" label on some of the front Kenbak names, but did manufacture an entirely new front panel with CTI silk-screened on it (at least 4 machines which still exist.) Robert Nielsen who worked closely with CTI felt certain CTI never made their own Kenbak-1 from scratch, just from parts John gave them, and he also felt fairly certain CTI sold nothing, except to his Nielsen Institute. The total, including the CTI labeled machines, should have been under 50 including any CTI put together out of extra parts. I think less than 50, is probably the best guess anyone can make. Mintpeg (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logic trainer, not personal computer[edit]

Well, you couldn't have anything *less* functional than this and still call it a "personal computer" - but the subset of real-world problems that this thing could have solved must have been tiny. One might also mention the Honeywell kitchen computer of 1969, which was about as functional as a Kenbak 1. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least the Kitchen Computer did recipies - which pre-dates Kenbak by 2 years, though no-one ever bought one. Jim Sutherland built ECHO IV which was a "personal computer" that was also "home automation" in 1966. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Kenbak-1 was basically an affordable ($750, equivalent to $4,640 in 2018) programmable calculator (i.e. computer) whose competition included the HP 9810A ($2,475, equivalent to $15,312 in 2018). Our definition of "computer" has changed over time, but at the time, the Kenbak-1 really was a personal computer. And yes, with its limited capabilities and cumbersome operation, we would call it a logic trainer today. --Traal (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, disagree. There were lots of computers around in 1971, all of which could do things impractical to achieve on a Kenbak. No-one solved real world problems by toggling switches and writing down which lights flashed on. An HP9810 is not the same sort of product at all. Computer trainer, for sure, but bears the same resemblance to a personal computer as a Wright Flyer does to a Cessna 180. I'm still looking for articles written by people who used a Kenbak but they are not easy for me to find. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns Wtshymanski. There will always be arguments if we give any computer the name "First PC." But it would be even easier to argue why the HP9810A or "Kitchen Computer" or even the Datapoint 2200 is even less deserving. Rather than say the Kenbak-1 "is the first personal computer" we must say that many prominent computer industry professionals, people involved with the PC revolution in the 1970's, many computer historians, and many computer museums have considered it the first personal computer. That's more than we can say about the other contenders you mention. Mintpeg (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Datapoint 2200[edit]

Does the Datapoint 2200 that is currently mentioned in the article have any particular relation to the Kenbak-1? EDIT: I've found the relation. Classic example of the Deletionista removing useful information to the point of incomprehensibility. 188.192.109.47 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no relation. Kenbak-1 was a toy, suitable for introductory education on a real working computer!, whereas the Datapoint was actually used to by people to make money. If all that waffling was "useful information", I'd be astonished. Only in the Wikipedia can you find an encyclopedia that spends so much time describing its own ignorance to the reader. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How Many Remaining?[edit]

An anonymous editor wants to pin the figure to precisely 14 and say that's known. As persons who are likely to know, say that about 40 were built, then, the person who "knows" there are only 14 must know what happened to each of the other 26, i.e. that they were destroyed and no longer exist. We humans are not omniscient beings, so even if it were claimed to be a known fact, the claim should not be repeated on WP. The citation is a page which appears to be run by a Herbert Eisengruber of Annapolis Royal and bears the information that it was last updated on 2003, so unless we think Mr Eisengruber has that wonderful power of omniscience and we believe nothing has changed in the last 12 years, we can't rely on this one source to support a statement in WP. It would be helpful if the anonymous editor would register--sirlanz (talk)Sirlanz 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of 14 known isn't really a vague number. If you want the most updated and researched list, look here..... https://www.kenbak.com/extantkenbaks and while there may be a few rumored machines, the 14 in this list are very well documented, even though the location of two of them is not currently known. Mintpeg (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kenbak-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenbak-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production dates[edit]

Be cautious of interpreting photos to deduce production dates; a 1974 date code chip could have been soldered into a 1973 machine even into the 2010's. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should External Links section be trimmed?[edit]

The External Links section seems to be close to WP:LINKFARM. Are all these links truly necessary? - Dyork (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this does have a lot of unhelpful links. Maybe we should vote out a couple, or more, that don't add to the history of this historical topic.
If anyone wants to nominate some links for removal, or any other information for removal, I could probably second that. I really don't like the whole format of this page, it's been stomped on by the Datapoint fan club, and commercial interests. And I really don't like the monstrous "op-code" matrix. Programmers of the time, had a simple one-page op-code sheet, where you could select the code pretty fast and easy. If we could have a consensus amount interested parties, we could really clean up this page. Mintpeg (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenbak-1&oldid=1201786613"