Talk:Acorn Electron

Please go to

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was (for over 2 years) a small gallery of 12 screenshots depicting a selction of the hundreds of games available showing popular games and different styles of graphics available for the machine. Since the vast majority of Acorn Electrons were used to play games, this is extremely relevant to the article. I see no reason why they should be deleted without debate but that is what has happened and no matter how hard I try to get the user to explain to me why, he simply re-deletes the section and threatens with reporting etc. He did quote one policy that seems to me to entirely justify the images:

WP:NFCC#8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.

The screenshots DO add significantly to the article. A quick glance gives the reader a much better understanding of the graphical capabilities of the computer and the type of programs that were commonly used. The omission of any screenshots IS detrimental to the understanding of the Acorn Electron. There is no text that could as accurately convey the same meaning.

A variety of shots is necessary. Any more would be excessive as they would not all fit on the screen for comparison but as it is, it is a perfect, descriptive illustration of what the Acorn Electron was (and is!). Retro junkie 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A single screenshot might be useful as an illustration of the machine's general capabilities, but multiple screenshots do nothing to further that understanding - they just tell the user that "there was another game with a similar level of graphics that looked like this, and another one, and another one, and nine more".

It would be much more useful to write in detail about the different types of games and graphics supported by the Electron, than to present the reader with a handful of screenshots and leave them to try to make their own conclusions. --

McGeddon 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The gallery was used in a similar way to the Gaming history section on Commodore_64_software. Would it be better to structure it like that with a couple of lines of text in between? (btw a seperate Acorn Electron software article would be unnecessary). I see the point raised elsewhere about fitting them into the text where appropriate but I still think an at-a-glance overview of 6+years of screenshots adds a better understanding of the range of software eg the increase in detail from simple early games like Arcadians to the complex Holed Out 6 years later. Other shots showed 3D wireframe graphics, isometric 3D (from a game that probably does not merit its own article so that screenshot will be lost), monochrome, different graphic modes, the memory displayed on screen, conversions of popular multi-platform and arcade games (a quick reference for people familiar with other versions of the games) etc and were laid out chronologically.Retro junkie 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that usage on the Commodore_64_software is also a violation of our policies. That's very, very heavy overuse of fair use images. --Durin 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK to be fair, I also think that is overuse. It is also untidy. In comparison, the gallery here was neat and fitted onto one screen. I would still like to be shown the policies that deal with multiple images, galleries etc.Retro junkie 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've been shown already. You disagree with the interpretation. Since a rather large body of users have interpreted it opposite to your interpretation, I recommend you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Durin 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NFCC#8 quoted above does not apply. There is nothing there about galleries specifically. It is also purposefully subjective so I don't see how it can be quoted as if it is 'law'. I have told you how I think the gallery was appropriate, I would appreciate if you can spell out why you think it is inappropriate (and possibly replace it with text).Retro junkie 16:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not going to debate this endlessly. I'm sorry. If you want to learn more about this subject, please go to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and read. #8 specifically banned galleries some time ago. There was a discussion on removing that specific case because citing examples created a situation where if an example case was not cited, then it was ok (see [1] "example bloat"). Thus, it was removed. But, the policy *did* state it at one time (see #8 as of this revision, and still implies it. This policy does not support your position as you think it does. --Durin 16:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, thanks for clearing up where you are coming from but aside from that no longer being included in the policy, it still did not suggest that ALL such galleries should be deleted. I'll quote it here for easy reference: The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable. The word 'normally' is important there. As I have tried to put forward, the gallery in question was not merely decorative. It served a genuine purpose.Retro junkie 16:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It served a purpose, yes. But the article isn't amazingly lacking since it gallery's removal. I'm sure Durin would not object to, perhaps, adding one or two photos back in to illustrate, without adding the whole gallery back? --Deskana (apples) 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's been there two years, like you say, I'm sure glad it's gone now. --Deskana (apples) 16:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK how about a compromise? I had an Acorn Electron too, and I loved playing games on it, but perhaps 12 screenshots is a bit excessive. How about you pick 2 or 3 screen shots and use them? I suggest perhaps one game shot, showing it in full power, and one non-game shot, and maybe one other exotic shot e.g. a demo scene. It is not necessary to show the different generes of games - all home computers have these, and that is a wiki article in its own right. Also it is not necessary to show games becoming more complex over the years - again that is common to all game-playing computers. Stick to showing what is special about the Electron, its essence. RedTomato 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a good case for having shots both of one game from around 1984–5 (illustrating the quality of games available at the height of the Electron's popularity) and one from 1989–90 (illustrating what the machine was ultimately found capable of). —Blotwell 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the FDC a WD1770 or a WD1771? I moved the WD1770 page to WD1771 because it was describing the earliest WD FDC chip, which was the WD1771. The WD1770 came much later. But I have no idea which the Acorn used. --Brouhaha (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the Plus 3 used the 1770 on clearer photos of the board available through your favourite image search engine. The article mentions the 8272. I wonder if this should actually be the 1772. IIRC, that had timings more appropriate to 3.5" drives. The Advanced Plus 4 (surely more popular than some of the other expansions mentioned, notably the Plus 2) used the 1772. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.43.135 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The one I have is from Jaffa Systems Ltd. MODE7 Mk I (C) 1987; Same full width as the Acorn PLUS1, used both CRT6845 and SAA5050 was sold as a kit or ready built.

A later revision was the MODE7 Mk II (C) 1989; Smaller card, ONLY used the SAA5050 and not CRT6845.

The Mk II and the MODE7 Emulator ROM both used the Slogger's Turbo or Master 64K for speed!

For pictures of both MODE7 hardware types see:- http://www.bygonebytes.co.uk/Teletext1.jpg then http://www.bygonebytes.co.uk/Mode7.html

To double check this information, look in the Electron User, see the old adverts, then read the reviews!!

There was also another MODE7 add-on advertised in one of many magazines for the BBC / Electron Micros.

>> It's a shame that the main page, keeps deleting this historic facts! << —Preceding unsigned comment added by An Electron User 188.221.111.58 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at

This edit adds two things which either need clarifying or aren't completely correct. First of all, it mentions booting from cartridges using Shift-Break: that may be possible under certain circumstances, but it's perhaps a lot more interesting to know that Ctrl-Break (or just powering on) let users boot into language ROMs provided by cartridges; indeed, inserting such a language cartridge would override BASIC. Secondly, it mentions that the Plus 1 cartridge slot exposes user port lines that the expansion connector does not, to which I am somewhat skeptical and for which would like to see a reference. PaulBoddie (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph dealing with the memory system in the history section is mostly accurate, as far as I know, but there are no citations in there, and some of the stuff is pretty speculative: introducing more RAM using BBC Model B+ techniques was obviously a possibility (where is the citation about the B+ being designed "[a]t the same time... just metres away"?) but would have changed the cost equations. Similarly, observations like "[t]his reduced the effective CPU speed by as much as a factor of 6" need links to actual measurements. PaulBoddie (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added some clarifications and a reference for the memory access details. Nice to see that the reduction in speed went down from 6 to 4, although in many cases it is only 2, as I have now noted. The BBC B+ section has been removed since it became obvious that it has no particular relevance other than to note that things could have been done differently. PaulBoddie (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the section about the Turbo board, there is a remark about the 8K (64Kbit) static RAM chip being as expensive as the four 64Kbit dynamic RAM chips that would be needed to double the memory access bus width. The linked picture shows a 6264P-15 part whereas the DRAM chips are 4164-150 parts. The remark is probably accurate: one price list I have found indicates a price of $16.95 for the SRAM and around $4 for each DRAM chip, but this is from May 1985. Availability of 64Kbit SRAM parts was probably very limited nearer to the Electron's release, meaning that the unit pricing might have been even more prohibitive, whereas the 64Kbit DRAM part pricing had largely stabilised by then. It might also be interesting to consider Turbo board designs involving 6116 chips, their feasibility, and pricing differences. As far as I can tell, once 4164 pricing had stabilised, 6116 SRAM prices were largely similar to 4164 DRAM prices, meaning that the 8K of SRAM would indeed cost about the same as another 32K of DRAM. PaulBoddie (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there have been some "references" added that don't actually refer to any sources. For example, this one about the flashing cursor. It would be nice if actual source details were included: making something a reference does not make it a source in and of itself. Also, there is a fair amount of content that doesn't have any citations which should be cleaned up. PaulBoddie (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the failure of the Electron "ended" Acorn's home computer business, the could somebody please tell me which Acorn it was that sold me an A3000 (Archimedes equivalent to the Electron), plus released the A3010 that was SO aimed at home users that it included a UHF modulator inside?
I find this "ending Acorn's home-computer business" comment to be misleading. 2.14.152.158 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose some other word might be more appropriate. Certainly, Acorn disengaged from various retail channels and focused more heavily on dealerships from the mid-1980s, but even then there were still going to be sales to home users, and I imagine that the advertising and promotional literature for things like the Master series (particularly the Compact) would emphasise home or "home office" use. (This wasn't a strategy unique to Acorn: according to "The Amstrad Story", Amstrad also sought to change their retail emphasis from volume retailers like Dixons to more specialised venues.) As for the A3000 and A3010, the latter having a UHF modulator (and being bundled with a game, having joystick ports, and so on) is very revealing about the target audience. The A3000 was also attractive for home use, although I suspect that it was mostly intended as a cheaper and simpler product for education than the three-box models that came before it. PaulBoddie (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've now replaced the remark about the "home-computer business" (and removed the hyphenation where the term is used), adding a news reference which explicitly mentions the home computing audience intended for the Master Compact which is, of course, a later machine (and probably confused with an Electron successor by the rumour mill of the era). Personally, I think this article (and also the Acorn Computers one) has far too much narrative-peddling with the references not actually substantiating the text, so I guess there will be plenty more edits to come replacing assertions with substantiated observations. PaulBoddie (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I offer an image of my Acorn Electron with Jaff Mode 7, Slogger Rom Box, Advanced Plus one with Advanced Battery Backed RAM in front socket (had a prototype Serial Port card for fitting here when required) and an Advanced Plus 4 (AP4) interface (one of the first made) in the rear socket of the Plus 1. This AP4 has been used with a succession of flopply drives including double sided double drive 40/80 switchable.

The image is on my web page at:

Lionel Smith's Acorn Electron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.233.26 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The release date listed is actually the announcement date. The History section is vague, but it seems as though none were released before Xmas 83, which is the lore. Jerri Kohl (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is some widespread citation of various Register articles about old computers including the Electron. Although apparently thoroughly researched, the storytelling nature of these articles does not always lend itself to verification of various assertions, and this results in a bunch of claims fitting a particular narrative being copy-pasted into Wikipedia without any scrutiny. Given how much people have been leaning on the narrative of the Register piece about the Electron, there may need to be several claims addressed, and these might be discussed below. PaulBoddie (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"How much the retailer paid was never disclosed, but it amounted to less than it had cost Acorn to make them in the first place." But there is no actual contemporary evidence provided in the article. In various places, the disposal to retailers will be mentioned in the contemporary press, and it is probable that machines were acquired below cost, but it would be useful to see the details of such transactions plus evidence of the various sales promotions that occurred. PaulBoddie (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've added a reference to the "Elk" nickname to the history section. Feel free to improve this if there's a way to mention it less clumsily, but please don't remove it altogether as over-zealous wikipedia editors kept removing a listing for the electron on the 'Elk' disambiguation page. In my view the listing in the 'Elk' disambiguation page is needed because whilst I've no wish to promote the nickname, people often talk about "The Elk" and if people have never heard of the nickname they may be confused what computer it refers to and look it up on wikipedia. The page for the BBC micro does include a similar reference for its "Beeb" nickname. Thanks. 82.27.207.101 (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference added to the top of the article is strongest, although there should be plenty of contemporary references using the term even from the earliest days of the machine, maybe even from before its release. Interestingly, there is also a referenced article that has "Elk" in its title, which would probably be a form of evidence, but I seem to remember A&B Computing using the term extensively. I'm not sure that any of the other references added later in the article are particularly strong: I would have thought that Wiktionary references would not be good enough for Wikipedia; the TV Tropes article is well written in parts but accuracy issues with some articles there are worrying (check out their Archimedes page with links to completely unrelated games, amongst other things) and it is a bit odd that there are computer articles on a site about TV tropes, but maybe they are branching out; the nosher.net link takes us to an index page and not any particular advert. I also think that introducing the term early is a good idea - having it later on doesn't make as much sense - and we probably don't need to have four references to establish the basis of the term. --PaulBoddie (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this further, I don't think that using Wikipedia and Wiktionary as mutually supporting references is what either of these sites want. What Wiktionary seems to want is "three independent instances spanning at least a year" of the term, and Wikipedia is only to be used to provide quotations, not as evidence. So, I think that references from "back in the day" would be needed at the very least. I've updated the article a bit to take these concerns into consideration. Sorry to remove the other links, but as noted above, one was broken, one linked to Wiktionary, and the other one was to TV Tropes. If the Nosher one could be tracked down, it would help solidify the case for Wiktionary inclusion, so I would recommend doing that. Meanwhile, just searching Acorn Users on archive.org for "Elk" yields plenty of other sources, and I think that the A&B Computing scans will also provide good results. PaulBoddie (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY - citations not strictly needed in the lead, unless contentious), but I'm happy to let you do what you think fit. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Laterthanyouthink! I don't know what the deal is with the citer tool, not using it myself (is it any good?), but I guess the Nosher page provides some useful information and I am certain I have read through it before. Strangely, despite the extensive referencing on the Nosher page, the author doesn't link to the origins of the nickname, but I think I have managed to do this in the article. Generally, the Nosher coverage is pretty good - I trawled lots of old articles when updating this article and managed to find a lot of the citations independently, only noticing this when revisiting the Nosher coverage afterwards - but some of the narrative seems a bit incoherent, and I tried to make the chronology clearer in this article and to let the actual sources come through. Generally, with regard to the Electron, there is far too much editorialising when people try and summarise the history. For instance, it is interesting to read what Guy Kewney thought (and more interesting than other well-known commentators of the era), but his insight had limits, too, as anyone who has perused his PCW column will be all too aware. I do like the way Nosher blends its topics, although this does lead to a degree of drift away from the actual main topic (as can be seen in the linked article). Anyway, it's not really up to me to decide what is right, even though I now feel rather invested in this page after a lot of tidying up. PaulBoddie (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaulBoddie. This is the citer tool I was referring to - I find it a great timesaver, although (as evidenced by the Nosher confusion), its results are not always 100% and do need checking and tweaking sometimes. I'm afraid that I cannot comment on your no doubt astute observations, because I have not looked into this topic and must admit that old computers or not high enough on my list of most interesting topics to edit to warrant diving back into the article, so under pressure of time I will continue dabbling in what I do best and leave you to improve this article. :-) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]