Talk:Peripheral

Peripheral Disambiguation Needed

I am not great with this whole thing but I think this page should be either renamed peripheral device or at least have the periphery disambiguation link at the top. I came here looking for a desciription of peripheral in the context of something in the periphery of an area. I will try my best to add the disambiguation but may not be able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:9A00:0:107:203:144:40:153 (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Peripheral device merge

I am wondering if this article should be merged with the article "Peripheral device". They seem to mean pretty much the same thing, but the Periphery disambiguation page states that a peripheral is not to be confused with a peripheral device without giving an explanation why. The redirect page for Computer peripheral links here.

Also, Peripheral device and peripheral have a different set of other language links. I linked the Dutch version (nl:randapparaat) to this article, but I did that before I discovered the peripheral device article so I'm wondering if I should have linked to the peripheral device article instead.

Yes, the two pages should be merged. There are three ways of thinking of peripherals, the "peripheral device" article, my way (the right way of course :), and the "peripheral" article. 1) "in the old days" The veiw of the computer hardware designer, anything but the CPU. 2) Anything that does not attach directly to the main system bus. The motherboard, and all the chips on the motherboard, and anything that plugs directly into a PCI slot are _not_ peripherals, although the CPU designer thinks of them that way. Disk drives, CD drives, DVD drives, keyboards, monitors, mice, and so forth _are_ peripherals. 3) Anything that you don't get with a cheapo computer purchased at Best Buy is a peripheral, what comes in the package you buy is not.

To my mind 3 is a pretty meaningless definition, even to today's casual computer user.

In the future there will be confusion as to whether network attached devices are peripherals, things like network attached disk drives that you can share throughout your home network.

The question to answer regards peripherials is "What does it plug into?" Peripheral to what? 1) says it plugs into the CPU. It must be very close to the CPU. It gets power from the same wires the CPU does. 2) says it plugs into the motherboard (or backplane etc.) or an attached circut board. It must be pretty close to the CPU, attached to a single run of cable, perhaps with power boosters to extend the cable range. (Think USB hubs.) Power comes from different wires than that which powers the CPU. (Maybe not always, but I bet in a good design the keyboard and mouse don't share power with the CPU so that when you drop your mouse in the coffee you don't fry your whole computer.) 3) says nothing. And then there's network attached devices, another sort of peripheral. These may be anywhere on the planet or off it, and traffic to them may be routed, that is travel via multiple paths. The routing is the distinction between things like USB peripherals, bluetooth devices, or even (to my knowledge) fiber channel attached devices, and network peripherals. (There might be an intermediate catagory of storage area network devices in there somewhere, but these seem to me like a long complicated scsi bus -- without (usually) the simultainous sharing and certainly without the routing that you can have in network attached storage.) --kop 20:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

So, there's peripherals that plug into the cpu, peripherals that plug into buses and connectors other than the main CPU bus, and peripherals that plug into the network.

I don't want to lump the main system bus in with other buses, not because other buses (like USB) are external to the case, but because things that plug into the main system bus are effectivly plugged into the CPU. That's the point. They are peripherals in sense 1 -- things that plug into the CPU. (Keyboards and mice BTW, and for that matter things like IDE drives, may plug directly into the motherboard but there's mediating electronics between them and the CPU.) --kop 20:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Renaming

Peripheral (this article) should be renamed to Computer peripheral. Also, I have proposed to rename Category: Computer device to Category: Computer peripherals (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_19#Category:Computer_device_to_Category:Computer_peripherals). Mirror Vax 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I suggests not Cateogrized it or renaming it. The name you give for renaming is incorrect for IT terms. Also peripherials is one of the most commmonly confused term in PC terms, so I guess it should be Computer Device or put it like so: [[Category: Computer Device [Peripherials]]] 23:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wrote a bit too much
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I propose on deleting the "Peripherial Device," because that articles is almost exactly same as Perpherial in terms of content. The only thing that can be added is possibly the specifications of internal peripherial & external peripherial specifications and portfolio such as ATAPI.

I really doubt, NAS, SAS & Fiber Channel would ever be confused with peripherial, they are only an interface or most technically an architectural system interface for a server. Generally speaking most enterprise buisness consdier them as "Architectural options for SANs."

I don't think you should put the part that you said about "What does it plug into it," because strictly speaking all internal components of motherboard that is irreplaceable by technology uses power from their own internace (CPU, RAM, Graphic Card would almost 98% be limited to their design, no matter how powerful technology is, the only thing you can change is their Gate arrays and nanoarchitectural design for better transfering speeds and the nanotechnology, but no matter what CPU is still limited to the various amount of PLD packaginig avaliable).

While Components that is possibly replaceable by technology, uses power from PSU, such as Hard Drive, because HDD can have multiple interface options, so it wouldn't be too much hassle to reconfigure BIOS all the time, just for power.

PCI Express Graphic Card connnector is an exception and you can't argue about that, because the inital design wasn't intended for easy installation, it was intended for enthusiast.

Transfering power for external I/O are considered more of personal options that is why they are design to plug onto the motherboard in most cases, while portable / mobile external I/O uses port for easier transportation.

I know a lot of you guys might argue that Graphic Card, isn't an essential components, but actually it is consider to be added as one of essential components, since the current CPU-can't be regarded as a true-CPU, because it can't handle a lot of process inefficiently, due to architecture design flaw (see bottom paragraph for summary). One of the reason, is that current CPU design can't handle management efficiently like jsp, cfml applicatons and other object-related operations very well. This research actually lead to a serious of discovery on Microsoft window OS, because much of the Windows OS enviroments is design for Intel. A simple example, is the design flaw in RAM memory protected mode, that causes Buffer Overflow. (If you want to know more, go edit my User Page for questions) see CPU dicussion on CPU Architecture for details and you'll understand why.

CPU in brief In short CPU, the central = management, however, the design today are efficient (because, when you are doing things like abstraction you get 80% ALU, 15%NPU & 5% FPU) usgage, unbalancing management and causes unncessary overheating up to 40~50 degree Celsius is definately not "management" as describe in CPU expectation. Another flaw is CPU rescheduling, since components are already almost at full you can't rescheudle anything, because the more you add the probability of crashing increases. Thus the only true-CPU is MAJC, because the entire components can process anything, thus rescheduling wouldn't be a problem, because each transitor is only using partial usage (also their process in being evenly balanced across each transistor, thus it won't cause overheating and achieveing management).

The reason why MAJC isn't recognized as true-CPU yet, because processors are usually very dependant on chipset technologies stability, but Sun Microsystems (designer of MAJC) hasn't come up that technology. You can see that processor is very dependant on technologies, because Intel Dual Core + Chipset (has a lot of technology, such as speedstep, flex memory access..etc.) While AMD Athlon Dual Core has almost nothing.

Note: the scale / dimension of the components, mostly affect the heat being produced, usually doesn' affect speed, because small volume = larger surface area, but CPU doesn't uses surface area, since they aren't life therefore they don't require to interact any other components, other than the components that they are intended for(in this case is the DDR2, HyperTransport and FSB). --Ramu50 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article needs to be re-written or renamed, because "peripherials" can expand well beyond just consumer computers. For example from the perspective of a phone SOIC the IMU could be considered a "peripheral" 162.18.172.11 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Monitors?

I would like to draw the attention that the definition disagrees with the webopedia definition. Monitors are peripherals. Computers are able to function without the need of a monitor even though u would not be able to view the output :-) ! Maltesedog 12:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CD/DVD/etc...

Aren't CDs and such storage not peripherals, but rather the individual CD DRIVE? technically aren't the CDs and DVDs used IN/WITH the peripheral? --FranzSS 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about. no idea  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.204.4 (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 

Reverts

First I reverts a lot of the edits which are totally incorrect. First Hard Drives isn't a Peripheral, peripherals are referring to add on computer device. (I am still trying to figure out if SSD is a peripheral or not).

You guys should understand the history, before removing a lot of correctly written information.

The term itself was being used when multimedia technologies are still in development stage. On that note, Computer Peripheral generally refers to business, multimedia and later in 1990s / 2000 personal -related devices. If I remember correctly, in around 2001, they are some enthusiasts who started emulating Game Consoles, and emulating anything that is Hardware is expanding a computer capabilities therefore it is a computer peripherals. So you shouldn't remove that. Take note that Peripherals also includes any Hardware-related Virtualization.

The only Hardware-related Virtualization that isn't peripherals is probably VLANs. Put it in See Also only for now, because currently they are a lot of controversy in regards of whether Virtualization should be considered as a computing, a technology or it is just another generation that expands from mainframe system.

Take note of the following

• Software are not Peripherals, since they are purpose-based.
• I link the Iomega Zip drive, that is not an advertisement nor spamming. It is because they aren't an article for the mini-Zip Drives storage era. You guys should recognize them, since they are defined in the ARMD-HDD.

--75.154.186.241 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't invent a controversy about the subject that doesn't exist. The term peripheral is well understood in computer hardware and does include disk drives. Hard Drives are an add-on, they sit on top of the core functionality that is considered to be architecturally neccessary (Processor/Memory/Chipset triad) and the majority of computing devices (Including hand held devices, Thin Clients, Clusters etc) do not include hard drives, especially not one that serves the primary function of booting the system. SSD is a technology, not a device, there is nothing for you to "figure out".

I understand the history, the term has never changed, and non-physical devices are still not physical devices which is what this article is about. There is no controversy, and any dissent on the topic is purely populist, naive and novelty reactionism to what is considered "new" to people only just entering the market.

Software is not a peripheral no... Software is not anything related to devices, since they are not a physical device which is what a peripheral is.... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat still disagree on HDD, Flash, SSD are peripherals, since all computers need one or the either, we should clarify they are only peripherals when as a standalone add-on or external devices. We should probably consider using the term "Integrated Peripherals" since some source seem to use it.

Much of the peripherals new meaning I think generally lacks the IT attention and lack of contribution, but the terminology is being used in still used in the Hardware Virtualization fields. Look at the patents, it is not WP:OR, though the article controversy section does need some assistance.

The accessories section was just a rewrite, since it was already there on the article and we should included, since they are a lot of acessories article that pertains only to specific topics like Xbox 360, GameBoys, yet they are the same thing under the scope of Computer Peripherals. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Flash and SSD are technologies, not devices... still. No computer needs any of them. We have no right to enforce our opinion, I have always wanted to use peripheral in a sense to mean external only, with accesories being excessive, or auxillary. However, that is not the definition, and considering how few sources there are already, moving away from the facts presented by the sole reliable one (PC Guide), we cannot just make anything up. I have no problem with information being added about the sub-cateogry of Integrated Peripherals that appear within the primary housing of the system.

Again, the second term used, includes peripherals, but does not change the meaning of the original term peripherals. I also have serious issues of your reading of that patent, which does not discuss "Virtual Peripherals" but "Virtualising Peripherals", that is the virtualisation of physical devices. Notice that all devices virtualised in example, are physical, and that there is no inherent Verifiability in the text of a Patent.

Then, improve that article (Computer Accesories) and perhaps add a "Main Topic" section on this one, however, there is no need to repeat the concept. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Off Topic

(not meant to be a serious talk page content, just side-notes for referencing)

• Be Alert there might be a controversy on all media-related devices are peripherals, but not necessarily Computer Peripheral, because they are sort of a "viewing device" and generally speaking they are Computer Dependant. (e.g. upgrading, modding, a lot of them require downloading contents from the internet to removable media, then transfer the installation process to the Devices.
  • When I say media-related devices, I refer to Consoles Games, Handheld consoles....etc.

Networking Devices somewhat controversial, I think standalone networking devices are peripherals. However, if they are built collectively to build an infrastructure they probably belongs to others type of Computing. "SOHO Home Networking", "Multimedia Home Networking" or other networking infrastructures. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop inventing controversy. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for feedback on my new post for the MoGo mouse. User: Ericrh123. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericrh123 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Shoddy article

This article is very poorly written indeed. It reads as though it has been written by a non-native speaker or a semi-literate native speaker. It feels like a rough draft transposed directly from a few vague pencil jottings scribbled on the side of a matchbox over after-dinner drinks. Come on folks, this may not be a properly published encyclopaedia, but surely writers here should be endeavouring to establish and maintain some degree of competence in their compositions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.165.129 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My first boss told me that if you don't have a suggestion for improvement, then you should keep criticism to yourself. Words to live by I think. IMO, minimum is specifics for improvement. Better is you get off your duff and fix it. Least appreciated is hyperbolic criticism. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Peripherals and storage

Moved from User talk:Dsimic § Peripherals and storage

I came across the reference to storage devices as I was looking for additional sources. I wouldn't have thought of them either, but that's what the source said and it seems to make sense. Peter Flass (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! As already noted in my edit summary, I'd respectfully disagree that storage devices belong to peripherals. With the latest advancements in storage technology, which include boundary-blurring technologies such as NVDIMM, it's even more clear that treating storage devices as peripherals simply doesn't make much sense. Furthermore, such boundary-blurring technologies will probably require many textbooks to be adjusted because of the overall level of blurring between storage and main memory. Even if storage devices could be seen as peripherals back in the old days when many devices actually had no internal storage, technology advancements in the last few decades have only widened the storage–peripheral gap. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I guess. Storage devices weren't there originally, and I didn't think of them until I came across the reference I cited. I guess maybe yes and maybe no. Peter Flass (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Storage devices are peripherals. Peripherals = I/O devices. Anything you reference with read and write I/O commands is a peripheral. Doesn't matter if it's built into the main case or even on the motherboard. Jeh (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the type of I/O is the key when determining if it's a peripheral device or not. In other words, if a human user is on one side of the I/O operation, then it's about a peripheral device; otherwise, it's a "plain" I/O device. Human users obviously can't use their senses to read or write computer storage, so storage doesn't belong to peripherals; the same applies to network interface cards, storage controllers, etc. If we'd extend the definition so an I/O device equals a peripheral device, what I/O devices wouldn't classify as peripherals? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Whether a "human user" is involved is irrelevant and your distinction of "peripheral" vs "plain I/O device" is your invention (OR). "Input" and "output" does not have to involve a "user". For example, a temperature sensor is an input device but it's not accepting data from a user; a servo motor on a CNC mill is output-only but is not sending data to a user. A paper tape punch is output-only but its output is not intended for users to read (though it is human-readable with some effort). I will be correcting your recent changes to the article accordingly.

Regarding your last question - none, and that's the point. Jeh (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can only respectfully agree to disagree. If there are actually no differences between I/O devices and peripherals, why don't we then name the article "I/O device" instead of "Peripheral"? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's also have a look at this source, for example. It introduces the concept of a peripheral bus, which I would be quite happy to see incorporated into the Peripheral article. Taking that route, everything that connects to a computer through a peripheral bus (SATA, SCSI, USB, PS/2, etc.) would be a peripheral device, so a SATA SSD would be a peripheral, but a PCI Express SSD or NVDIMM wouldn't. On second thought, and if we agree on introducing the concept of a peripheral bus, we shouldn't say that all storage devices are peripherals, as some types certainly aren't. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No replies to my examples, huh?

The division of buses into "peripheral bus" vs. "I/O bus", together with your example of the SSD, shows the ludicrousness of your position. If an SSD is a peripheral (which it certainly is) then it stays a peripheral even if it's moved from a SATA interface to an internal expansion bus like a PCIe slot. I don't understand how it suddenly becomes not-a-peripheral when it's removed from the processor by only one major logic block (the PCIe root complex), instead of by a PCIe root complex plus a second block, a SATA host controller. It still performs the same operations and, aside from some details in the driver stack, is used by the operating system and the user in exactly the same way. So how is the PCIe-attached device not a peripheral?

Is an ExpressCard slot a "peripheral bus"? (Logically, and largely electrically, it's just PCIe in a different form factor.)

We can agree to disagree, but the article has to say one thing or another. Jeh (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying directly to your examples, introducing the concept of a peripheral bus seemed to me like a general solution and a response to all your examples. However, I don't think that I deserve to be called "ludicrous". By the way, you also haven't answered to my question: why don't we rename the article I/O device?

Why a PCI Express device isn't a peripheral? The answer is simple, because it isn't connected to a computer via a peripheral bus, which PCI Express in its native form isn't. There are some variations of PCI Express, including the one used by ExpressCard slots, which are peripheral buses because they are intended for connecting devices that aren't built into a computer system.

Anyway, (putting PCI Express on the side for a moment) NVDIMM is a clear example of a storage device that certainly isn't connected to a computer through a peripheral bus. Thus, saying that all storage devices are peripherals is simply wrong. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a circular argument. The bus a device is connected to is not what matters. Any device that performs I/O operations is an I/O device. And from the computer organization and programming point of view, all I/O devices are peripherals. The only difference between a "peripheral bus" and an "I/O bus" is what sorts of devices happen to be available to be bought to plug into them this year; that is more a marketing designation than anything else. Did you know that PATA hard drives used to be directly connected to ISA? By "directly connected", I mean the hard drive's onboard controller showed up as I/O ports in the CPU's I/O port space. In those days ISA was the only I/O bus we had. Later ISA slots were implemented via a bus bridge from the PCIbus. Does that somehow change the status of devices attached to ISA slots? Nonsense. Today, an SSD does not magically transform from being a peripheral device when it's connected to USB, to not-a-peripheral when it's connected via PCI-E. Jeh (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should probably have gone to the talkpage for Peripheral - my fault, sorry. Peter Flass (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've copied it here. Please continue discussion here. Jeh (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if any hardware device that can do I/O classifies as a peripheral, then an IMC (which is an integral part of a CPU, as we know) is also an example of a peripheral device because that's how it is configured. Now, that would be a nonsense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. The IMC is just an interface between the CPU and the main memory. It doesn't "do I/O". Jeh (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but an IMC has user-writable registers that are used for IMC configuration, which, in theory, may classify it as some kind of output device and, consequently, a peripheral. Surely, that's an absurd example, but I've used it only to prove my point that not all I/O devices are peripherals. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Those registers have nothing to do with sending data out of the computer, only with configuration. So that doesn't make it an I/O device. Jeh (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it seems that we can keep arguing like this forever. :) Let's wait for opinions from other editors, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Or more references. References trump editors' opinions. Jeh (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Totally, that's what Wikipedia is all about. Though, unfortunately there don't seem to be too many reliable sources on this subject. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

two definitions

I merged the two definitions and it was reverted. Of course we can edit the quoted definition as long as the quotes are removed. That is how an encyclopedia is written. I think the main problem is that the quoted definition isn't good, and the rest of the lead tries to fix it. How about we drop the quote and the reference. A mouse isn't really inputting information, it is manipulating it. Volunteer1234 (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

A mouse is absolutely sending information to the computer. Jeh (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it is an extremely poor description of what it is doing and why you are using it. Hard disks are sending information. Some peripherals are just getting power from the USB ports. Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hard drives never "send" information. The computer reads information from the drive or writes information to it. The drive never initiates the transfer. Jeh (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

We have to stick to sources. If we don't like what our RS says, we look for more sources. WP is low on sources in general; let's not make it worse.

"Peripheral" isn't as common a word now as it used to be. It came from the mainframe age, when "a computer" was made of things that occupied an entire rather large room. Peripherals were large optional extensions that made more use of your expensive investment, not standard things. A mouse or keyboard aren't typically called "peripherals", but "accessories", or even given no general name beyond simply "mouse" and "keyboard", as people consider them part of a computer, not something optional.

So, while the current def may seem a little "meh", that may well be because the concept has become a little "meh". Saying that is means "mouse" and "keyboard" isn't sourced, probably for a good reason -- few use the term that way. It may be okay to use these as a more familiar examples of what an "I/O device" may be for modern readers, but it's not the def of a peripheral. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. In the "big computer room" days, disk drives were considered peripherals. By the early 70s (at the latest) they had become good enough that very few computers were shipped without at least one, but that was not always the case. Now a hard drive or equivalent (SSD) is standard in everything generally called a "computer" so we have young-uns arguing that hard drives aren't "peripherals" and even that it's part of the "CPU" (because many people think of the big box as the "CPU". But that is a recent view. If we can find references we should note this history. Jeh (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the definition has changed over time; this probably means it's current use isn't very precise. I also agree that our current def in the article isn't great, but synthesizing a "better" def without sources isn't a solution. I'm letting the current sourced definition stand until we have more sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

My last edit only moved the second definition (from paragraph three) to the lead paragraph. It didn't merge anything. Are you saying this second definition should be deleted? Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll look for better sources, then propose a better def. I believe this is required to be an improvement, rather than just rearranging the various poor phrases. (This may take me a little while, I'm traveling in RL.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal: List of computer peripheral companies to here

List of computer peripheral companies has been in CAT:NN for over 5 years. It isn't likely to be kept if taken to AfD, but a merge here is a suitable WP:ATD, plus there is room in this article for the list. Boleyn (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

AfDed. Not really anything useful to merge, and no comments here for almost a year. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer peripheral companies. BilCat (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ideas for expansion

Before I add these the article, I thought I would run them past the brains trust:

• Attachment methods, e.g. on-board card, connectors on the case, wireless...
• Specialist peripherals, e.g.
  • medical peripherals (everything from watches that monitor the heart rate) to implanted pacemakers;
  • engineering peripherals, e.g. engine management chips;
  • farming, e.g. chips that track health and production of dairy cattle;
  • (what else?)
• Standards for connecting peripherals to the computer, e.g. PCI, PCI Express, ISA, SCSI, USB

Thoughts?--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

so... three lists: attaching, kinds/types, and standards for attaching (which seems somewhat same as first) ... Doesn't seem very valuable to me. I think example lists are low value in general. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)