Talk:Rugged computer

In Standards, need to reference EMP protection

In your section concerning appropriAte standards you have referenced a number of MIL-STDs, but you have not referenced an important standardard for ruggedised military computers and that is http://www.tscm.com/MIL-STD-464.pdf for protection against Electromagnetic Pulse. When I was working as an avionics engineer in military electronics in the 1980s, every electronics system such as military radios had it built in, and we tested for it. FlashJackFromGundagai (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted material

I've reverted a bunch of edits by Chassisplans primarily because he appears to be POV. However there are also a number of other issues that I found issue with:

• Opening statement tramples over British English - indeed "corrects" an alternative spelling to be meaningless. This does not inspire confidence straight away.
• A lot of underscored links. Admitted, this is merely technical.
• Most importantly, the balance of this article has been shifted. Most rugged computer are mobile devices, static devices generally are inherently more protected and do not need to be drop proof, submersible or whatever. In promoting his particular brand of rugged machines Chassisplans is misrepresenting the category. This is a manifestation of the problems with POV editors. While I accept the material added is not particularly promotional in and of itself it is still misleading through undue emaphsis. Indeed, I note that the earlier version precluded the possibilty that a non-rugged system could be rackmounted and a rugged system could be be mobile. POV and misleading.

CrispMuncher (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC).

Undo Reverted Material

I stand chastised regarding 'ruggedised'. I can only say that my brain immediately locked on that word as a misspelled version of 'ruggedized' and I didn't see the other version. However, I may point out that while this is a British English alternative, this spelling is only used 12 times in Wikipedia versus 5,190 for 'ruggedized'. Do we offer alternative spellings for all words that have such alternatives? Do we correct the other articles that offer only the one spelling? The British alternative was inserted on 26 Aug 2006 by NerdyNSK, for what purpose, I do not know. In theory, I would propose that this spelling be removed, but I'm not going to do that and will leave it for now and possibly correct all the other articles in the future, if nobody objects.

Regarding underscored links; that does not show in IE 7 or in Firefox so I would appreciate some guidance into what I might have done wrong with these links so as to avoid this in the future.

Regarding the NPOV, CrispMuncher, in the above text, brings his/her own bias to this discussion with the statement that "Most rugged computer are mobile devices". I, in my own opinion, would fiercely dispute that. Rackmount devices are not necessarily static. Many are mounted into transit cases. Many more are mounted into aircraft, ships, vehicles such as HumVees and trailers. As an example, I would direct you to Joint Range Extension. This is a system built with rackmount 4U rugged computers and is highly mobile. It is deployed into Iraq and other combat arenas and is subject to some of the harshest conditions you can imagine. Computers manufactured by AP Labs are highly mobile being used as UAV flight control systems but are definitely not laptop or PDA in form.

Rugged computers were available long before laptops, PDAs or any other mobile device had even been considered due to a lack of available technology. IBM released the 5531, an "industrial computer for plant environments" in 1984. Industrial Computer Source offered the 6531, a rugged rackmount 4U industrial computer, in 1985.

I would agree that the term 'rugged computer' has been extended to mobile devices but that does not invalidate any of the material I offered. The article, as originally written in 2006, only mentioned laptops. I would propose that someone with more knowledge about mobile devices than I provide balance by adding to the article, not simply injecting their own bias by removing my material.

The article, as written prior to my edits, was heavily biased toward laptops, tablet PCs and PDAs with nary a mention of rackmount. My goal was to provide some balance and information regarding that technology.

Regarding Noteworthy Providers, this is a constant struggle within Wikipedia. These lists are, at best, incomplete and certainly subject to opinion, not fact. What makes a company noteworthy? Is Advantech more noteworthy than Kontron or General Dynamics GDC4 division? This is a longstanding discussion in many articles, usually resolved by removing the list.

Thus, I have reverted the reversion and made some additional changes to address the concerns of CrispMuncher. I would invite additional material and clarification, not wholesale deletion. Chassisplans (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

I should have got back to this earlier but I wished to avoid a knee-jerk reaction and didn't realise precisely how long I had left this. You're right that I bring a particular point of view to this article, that is the case for any editor and I believe I have been neutral and impartial throughout. However, where you and I differ is that I do not blatant conflict of interest. Like it or not, your edits are in violation of the appropriate guidance. If this is not the case, explain why you have removed all reference to the more notable examples of your competitor's wares from this article. Explain also why you inserted a picture of your own product in the lead section when other more notable examples exist. It is precisely this loss of balance that the CoI guidance in intended to prevent. Wiikipedia is not a platform to promote your wares. If you persist in this behaviour you will be blocked. There are also technical measures that may be taken to prevent the insertion of any link to your products. These will be used if it is deemed necessary. In the meantime I have again reverted most of you edits. CrispMuncher (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

It's only after I fully explained my arguments above that I see the user in question has already been indefinitely blocked for CoI. CrispMuncher (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Industrial PC/Industrial computer merging

• Since Industrial PC redirected here (and Industrial Computers too), those terms should be disclosed here too. They are sounds much more internationally then "rugged", and should help us to understand "are we talk and thing about equivalent phenomena or not" while establish lingual interwiki. Is, maybe, "Industrial computer" more proper title for this article? and "rugged" should be just an subsection in?
• In any case - interwikies from Industrial PC should be re-established somewhere.
• 5cents about merging: single well-written article is much better then multiple poorly.
• Finally, for future authors: Could be a little words about non-rugged adaptation for Industry and about non-x86 products? (with WP:RS of course )

Regards, Alex V Eustrop (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rackmount PC needs own article

I think the rackmount PCs need their own article because they are quite a broad aspect pf rugged computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.156.67 (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, this is probably not the best place to start from: I suggest 19-inch rack where a similar proposal was made only recently. The problem here that that rackmount equipment is largely peripheral - it was mainly introduced by a certain now-blocked user. Most rack equipment is not rugged, it is rack mounted simply to save space. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)