In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e
Connected-component labeling
Connected-component labeling (CCL), connected-component analysis (CCA), blob extraction, region labeling, blob discovery, or region extraction is an algorithmic application of graph theory, where subsets of connected components are uniquely labeled based on a given heuristic. Connected-component labeling is not to be confused with segmentation. Connected-component labeling is used in computer vision to detect connected regions in binary digital images, although color images and data with higher dimensionality can also be processed. When integrated into an image recognition system or human-computer interaction interface, connected component labeling can operate on a variety of information. Blob extraction is generally performed on the resulting binary image from a thresholding step, but it can be applicable to gray-scale and color images as well. Blobs may be counted, filtered, and tracked. Blob extraction is related to but distinct from blob detection. == Overview == A graph, containing vertices and connecting edges, is constructed from relevant input data. The vertices contain information required by the comparison heuristic, while the edges indicate connected 'neighbors'. An algorithm traverses the graph, labeling the vertices based on the connectivity and relative values of their neighbors. Connectivity is determined by the medium; image graphs, for example, can be 4-connected neighborhood or 8-connected neighborhood. Following the labeling stage, the graph may be partitioned into subsets, after which the original information can be recovered and processed . == Definition == The usage of the term connected-component labeling (CCL) and its definition is quite consistent in the academic literature, whereas connected-component analysis (CCA) varies both in terminology and in its definition of the problem. Rosenfeld et al. define connected components labeling as the “[c]reation of a labeled image in which the positions associated with the same connected component of the binary input image have a unique label.” Shapiro et al. define CCL as an operator whose “input is a binary image and [...] output is a symbolic image in which the label assigned to each pixel is an integer uniquely identifying the connected component to which that pixel belongs.” There is no consensus on the definition of CCA in the academic literature. It is often used interchangeably with CCL. A more extensive definition is given by Shapiro et al.: “Connected component analysis consists of connected component labeling of the black pixels followed by property measurement of the component regions and decision making.” The definition for connected-component analysis presented here is more general, taking the thoughts expressed in into account. == Algorithms == The algorithms discussed can be generalised to arbitrary dimensions, albeit with increased time and space complexity. === One component at a time === This is a fast and very simple method to implement and understand. It is based on graph traversal methods in graph theory. In short, once the first pixel of a connected component is found, all the connected pixels of that connected component are labelled before going onto the next pixel in the image. This algorithm is part of Vincent and Soille's watershed segmentation algorithm, other implementations also exist. In order to do that a linked list is formed that will keep the indexes of the pixels that are connected to each other, steps (2) and (3) below. The method of defining the linked list specifies the use of a depth or a breadth first search. For this particular application, there is no difference which strategy to use. The simplest kind of a last in first out queue implemented as a singly linked list will result in a depth first search strategy. It is assumed that the input image is a binary image, with pixels being either background or foreground and that the connected components in the foreground pixels are desired. The algorithm steps can be written as: Start from the first pixel in the image. Set current label to 1. Go to (2). If this pixel is a foreground pixel and it is not already labelled, give it the current label and add it as the first element in a queue, then go to (3). If it is a background pixel or it was already labelled, then repeat (2) for the next pixel in the image. Pop out an element from the queue, and look at its neighbours (based on any type of connectivity). If a neighbour is a foreground pixel and is not already labelled, give it the current label and add it to the queue. Repeat (3) until there are no more elements in the queue. Go to (2) for the next pixel in the image and increment current label by 1. Note that the pixels are labelled before being put into the queue. The queue will only keep a pixel to check its neighbours and add them to the queue if necessary. This algorithm only needs to check the neighbours of each foreground pixel once and doesn't check the neighbours of background pixels. The pseudocode is: algorithm OneComponentAtATime(data) input : imageData[xDim][yDim] initialization : label = 0, labelArray[xDim][yDim] = 0, statusArray[xDim][yDim] = false, queue1, queue2; for i = 0 to xDim do for j = 0 to yDim do if imageData[i][j] has not been processed do if imageData[i][j] is a foreground pixel do check its four neighbors(north, south, east, west) : if neighbor is not processed do if neighbor is a foreground pixel do add it to queue1 else update its status to processed end if labelArray[i][j] = label (give label) statusArray[i][j] = true (update status) while queue1 is not empty do For each pixel in the queue do : check its four neighbors if neighbor is not processed do if neighbor is a foreground pixel do add it to queue2 else update its status to processed end if give it the current label update its status to processed remove the current element from queue1 copy queue2 into queue1 end While increase the label end if else update its status to processed end if end if end if end for end for === Two-pass === Relatively simple to implement and understand, the two-pass algorithm, (also known as the Hoshen–Kopelman algorithm) iterates through 2-dimensional binary data. The algorithm makes two passes over the image: the first pass to assign temporary labels and record equivalences, and the second pass to replace each temporary label by the smallest label of its equivalence class. The input data can be modified in situ (which carries the risk of data corruption), or labeling information can be maintained in an additional data structure. Connectivity checks are carried out by checking neighbor pixels' labels (neighbor elements whose labels are not assigned yet are ignored), or say, the north-east, the north, the north-west and the west of the current pixel (assuming 8-connectivity). 4-connectivity uses only north and west neighbors of the current pixel. The following conditions are checked to determine the value of the label to be assigned to the current pixel (4-connectivity is assumed) Conditions to check: Does the pixel to the left (west) have the same value as the current pixel? Yes – We are in the same region. Assign the same label to the current pixel No – Check next condition Do both pixels to the north and west of the current pixel have the same value as the current pixel but not the same label? Yes – We know that the north and west pixels belong to the same region and must be merged. Assign the current pixel the minimum of the north and west labels, and record their equivalence relationship No – Check next condition Does the pixel to the left (west) have a different value and the one to the north the same value as the current pixel? Yes – Assign the label of the north pixel to the current pixel No – Check next condition Do the pixel's north and west neighbors have different pixel values than current pixel? Yes – Create a new label id and assign it to the current pixel The algorithm continues this way, and creates new region labels whenever necessary. The key to a fast algorithm, however, is how this merging is done. This algorithm uses the union-find data structure which provides excellent performance for keeping track of equivalence relationships. Union-find essentially stores labels which correspond to the same blob in a disjoint-set data structure, making it easy to remember the equivalence of two labels by the use of an interface method E.g.: findSet(l). findSet(l) returns the minimum label value that is equivalent to the function argument 'l'. Once the initial labeling and equivalence recording is completed, the second pass merely replaces each pixel label with its equivalent disjoint-set representative element. A faster-scanning algorithm for connected-region extraction is presented below. On the first pass: Iterate through each element of the data by column, then by row (Raster Scanning) If the element is not the background Get the neighboring elements of the current element If there are no neighbors, uniquely
Digital media service
A digital media service (DMS) is an online service provider that sells access to digital library of content such as films, software, games, images, literature, etc. While no transfer of property is made, a nearly perfect duplicate of the data (song movie, etc.) is made on a customer's computer. Content is either primarily hosted on a dedicated server, which is owned by the service provider, or it is hosted primarily on the hard drives of its customers using a P2P protocol with, perhaps, a dedicated server to supplement. == History == One example of the older business model is the iTunes Store, which still markets and prices data as individual retail products. There are no examples of the latter business model in operation yet, but one is currently in development by Global Gaming Factory X and expected to begin operation some time after they acquire The Pirate Bay domain on August 27, 2009. A key difference between the two models is that the model which relies on its customer base for offering their bandwidth for other customers to access customer hosted data can operate at significantly lower costs than a company that seeks to limit data access to a per-download fee in order to supplement the cost of using its own hosting and bandwidth. The P2P model holds the potential for companies to offer unlimited access to the largest data library in the history of the internet to its customers for a reasonably low membership rate that is relevant to the cost of operation. While the market is virtually untouched, the P2P supplemented model will need entrepreneurs who are able to overcome a series of challenges in order to compete with the older business model as well as that which is offered for free (and often against the wishes of copyright holders) by hundreds of P2P communities on the internet. These challenges include, but are not limited to: Offering better data quality, speed, convenience and ease of use, protocol, sense of security, indexing and search organization, site up time, data library size, customer support, advertising, artist/copyright holder incentives and compensation, incentives and compensation for customers hosting data and providing bandwidth, guaranteed seeding (available access to indexed data at all times), than competitors.
Military communications
Military communications or military signals involve all aspects of communications, or conveyance of information, by armed forces. Examples from Jane's Military Communications include text, audio, facsimile, tactical ground-based communications, naval signalling, terrestrial microwave, tropospheric scatter, satellite communications systems and equipment, surveillance and signal analysis, security, direction finding and jamming. The most urgent purposes are to communicate information to commanders and orders from them. Military communications span from pre-history to the present. The earliest military communications were delivered by runners. Later, communications progressed to visual signals. For example, Naval ships would use flag signaling to communicate from ship to ship. These flags are a uniform set of easily identifiable nautical codes that would convey visual messages and codes between ships and from ship to shore. Then militaries discovered methods to use audible signaling to communicate with each other. This way of communicating was possible because of telegraphs. They are an electronic device that is used by a sender and when the sender presses on the telegraph key, they interrupt the current creating an audible pulse that is heard at the receiving station. The receiver then decodes the pulses to decode the messages. Since then, military communication has evolved and advanced much further. Today, there are many perspectives used to examine how troops around the world communicate. Anthony King states how Military sociologists have attempted to explain how military institutions develop and maintain high levels of social cohesion. == History == In past centuries communicating a message usually required someone to go to the destination, bringing the message. Thus, the term communication often implied the ability to transport people and supplies. A place under siege was one that lost communication in both senses. The association between transport and messaging declined in recent centuries. The first military communications involved the use of runners or the sending and receiving of simple signals (sometimes encoded to be unrecognizable). The first distinctive uses of military communications were called semaphore. Modern units specializing in these tactics are usually designated as signal corps. The Roman system of military communication (cursus publicus or cursus vehicularis) is an early example of this. Later, the terms signals and signaller became words referring to a highly-distinct military occupation dealing with general communications methods (similar to those in civil use) rather than with weapons. Present-day military forces of an informational society conduct intense and complicated communicating activities on a daily basis, using modern telecommunications and computing methods. Only a small portion of these activities are directly related to combat actions. Modern concepts of network-centric warfare (NCW) rely on network-oriented methods of communications and control to make existing forces more effective. == Military communications equipment == Drums, horns, flags, and riders on horseback were some of the early methods the military used to send messages over distances. The advent of distinctive signals led to the formation of the signal corps, a group specialized in the tactics of military communications. The signal corps evolved into a distinctive occupation where the signaller became a highly technical job dealing with all available communications methods including civil ones. In the middle 20th century radio equipment came to dominate the field. Many modern pieces of military communications equipment are built to both encrypt and decode transmissions and survive rough treatment in hostile climates. They use different frequencies to send signals to other radio stations to communicate. Radios have played a major role in military communication. Since they are capable of sending radio waves to transmit voice signals over long distances. This can be helpful for communication on the battlefield since it is a good way to send messages undetected over long distances. Radios are also very reliable because even in harsh weather conditions they are still able to help communicate among the soldiers. Militaries still use radios and continue to improve the technology because of their durability and reliability for military communication. Spelling alphabets such as the NATO phonetic alphabet are used to aid radio communications by reducing ambiguity between letters. Military communications – or "comms" – are activities, equipment, techniques, and tactics used by the military in some of the most hostile areas of the earth and in challenging environments such as battlefields, on land (compare radio in a box), underwater and also in air. Military comms include command, control and communications and intelligence and were known as the C3I model before computers were fully integrated. The U.S. Army expanded the model to C4I when it recognized the vital role played by automated computer equipment to send and receive large, bulky amounts of data. In the modern world, most nations attempt to minimize the risk of war caused by miscommunication or inadequate communication. As a result, military communication is intense and complicated and often motivates the development of advanced technology for remote systems such as satellites. Satellites have been improving and are being used more and more for communication. They are being made to have higher transmission capacity to help with their communication abilities. The military is upgrading satellites to be immune to interference during combat operations. This advancement will establish stable, high-quality information highways for long distance communication. Aircraft are also beneficial for communication, both crewed and uncrewed, as well as computers. Computers and their varied applications have revolutionized military comms. Although military communication is designed for warfare, it also supports intelligence-gathering and communication between adversaries, and thus sometimes prevents war. The six categories of military comms are: alert measurement systems cryptography military radio systems command and control signal corps network-centric warfare The alert measurement systems are various states of alertness or readiness for the armed forces used around the world during a state of war, act of terrorism or a military attack against a state. They are known by different acronyms, such as DEFCON, or defense readiness condition, used by the U.S. Armed Forces. Cryptography is the study of methods of converting messages to a form unreadable except to one who knows how to decrypt them. This ancient military comms art gained new importance with the rise of radio systems whose signals traveled far and were easily intercepted. Cryptographic software is also widely used in civilian commerce. == Commercial refile == In United States military communications systems, commercial refile refers to sending a military message via a commercial communications network. The message may come from a military network, such as a tape relay network, a point-to-point telegraph network, a radio-telegraph network, or the Defense Switched Network. Commercial refiling of a message will usually require a reformatting of the message, particularly the heading.
Bridgefy
Bridgefy is a Mexican software company with offices in Mexico and California, the United States, dedicated to developing mesh-networking technology for mobile apps. It was founded circa 2014 by Jorge Rios, Roberto Betancourt and Diego Garcia who conceived the idea while participating in a tech competition called StartupBus. Bridgefy's smartphone ad hoc network technology, apparently using Bluetooth Mesh, is licensed to other apps. The app gained popularity during protests in different countries since it can operate without Internet, using Bluetooth instead. Aware of the security issues of not using cryptography and the criticism surrounding it, Bridgefy announced in late October 2020 that they adopted the Signal protocol, in both their app and SDK, to keep information private, though security researchers have demonstrated that Bridgefy's usage of the Signal Protocol is insecure. == Usage == The app gained popularity as a communication tactic during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests and Citizenship Amendment Act protests in India, because it requires people who want to intercept the message to be physically close because of Bluetooth's limited range, and the ability to daisy-chain devices to send messages further than Bluetooth's range. == Security == In August 2020, researchers published a paper describing numerous attacks against the application, which allow de-anonymizing users, building social graphs of users’ interactions (both in real time and after the fact), decrypting and reading direct messages, impersonating users to anyone else on the network, completely shutting down the network, performing active man-in-the-middle attacks to read messages and even modify them. In response to the disclosures, developers acknowledged that "no part of the Bridgefy app is encrypted now" and gave a vague promise to release a new version "encrypted with top security protocols". Later developers said they plan to switch to Signal Protocol, which is widely recognized by cryptographers and used by Signal and WhatsApp. The Signal Protocol was integrated into the Bridgefy app and SDK by late October 2020, with the developers claiming to have included improvements such as the impossibility of a third person impersonating any other user, man-in-the-middle attacks done by modifying stored keys, and historical proximity tracking, among others. However, in 2022, the same security researchers, now including Kenny Paterson, published a paper describing how Bridgefy's usage of the Signal Protocol was incorrect, failing to remedy the previously discovered issues. The researchers performed a demonstration, showing that it was possible for users to intercept messages intended for others without the sender noticing. The researchers disclosed the vulnerabilities to the developers of Bridgefy in August 2021, but, according to the researchers, the developers had yet to resolve the issues as of June 2022. On July 31, 2023, the security firm 7asecurity released a blog post and pentest report of a white box penetration test and overall security review of the Bridgefy app in collaboration with the platform's developers. Their review, which began in November 2022 and concluded in May 2023, identified multiple critical vulnerabilities throughout the application. Many of the issues were fixed, or partially fixed, before the end of the audit, including user impersonation and biometric bypass. Bridgefy also published a blog post on August 8, 2023, announcing the audit results.
ImHex
ImHex is a free cross-platform hex editor available on Windows, macOS, and Linux. ImHex is used by programmers and reverse engineers to view and analyze binary data. == History == The initial release of the project in November 2020, saw significant interest on GitHub. == Features == Features include: Hex editor Custom pattern matching and analysis scripting language Visual, node based data pre-processor Disassembler Running and visualizing of YARA rules Bookmarks Binary data diffing Additional Tools MSVC, Itanium, D and Rust name demangler ASCII table Calculator Base converter File utilities IEEE 754 floating point decoder Division by invariant multiplication calculator TCP/IP client and server Support for: Data importing and exporting ASCII string, Unicode string, numeric, hexadecimal and regular expressions search Byte manipulation File hashing Plug-ins
Vintage computer
A vintage computer is an older computer system that is largely regarded as obsolete. The personal computer has been around since around 1971, and in that time technological advancement means existing models get replaced every few years. Nevertheless, these otherwise useless computers have spawned a sub-culture of vintage computer collectors who often spend large sums for the rarest examples, not only to display but functionally restore. This involves active software development and adaptation to modern uses. This often includes homebrew developers and hackers who add on, update and create hybrid composites from new and old computers for uses they were otherwise never intended. Ethernet interfaces have been designed for many vintage 8-bit machines to allow limited connectivity to the Internet, where users can access discussion groups, bulletin boards, and software databases. Most of this hobby centers on computers made after 1960, though some collectors also specialize in older computers. The Vintage Computer Festival, an event held by the Vintage Computer Federation for the exhibition and celebration of vintage computers, has been held annually since 1997 and has expanded internationally. == By platform == === MITS Inc. === Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems (MITS) produced the Altair 8800 in 1975. According to Harry Garland, the Altair 8800 was the product that catalyzed the microcomputer revolution of the 1970s. === IMSAI === The IMSAI 8080 is a clone of the Altair 8800. It was introduced in 1975, first as a kit, and later as an assembled system. The list price was $591 (equivalent to $3,584 in 2025) for a kit, and $931 (equivalent to $5,570 in 2025) assembled. === Processor Technology === Processor Technology produced the Sol-20. This was one of the first machines to have a case that included a keyboard; a design feature copied by many of later "home computers". === SWTPC === Southwest Technical Products Corporation (SWTPC) produced the 8-bit SWTPC 6800 and later the 16-bit SWTPC 6809 kits that employed the Motorola 68xx series microprocessors. === Apple Inc. === The earliest Apple Inc. personal computers, using the MOS Technology 6502 processors, are among some of the most collectible. They are relatively easy to maintain in an operational state thanks to Apple's use of readily available off-the-shelf parts. Apple I (1976): The Apple-1 was Apple's first product and has brought some of the highest prices ever paid for a microcomputer at auction. Apple II (1977): The Apple II series of computers are some of the easiest to adapt, thanks to the original expansion architecture designed for them. New peripheral cards are still being designed by an avid thriving community, thanks to the longevity of this platform, manufactured from 1977 through 1993. Numerous websites exist to support not only legacy users but new adopters who weren't even born when the Apple II was discontinued by Apple. Macintosh (1984): The original Macintosh used a 32-bit Motorola 68000 processor running at 7.8336 MHz and came with 128 KB of RAM. The list price was $2495 (equivalent to $7,732 in 2025).Perhaps because of its friendly design and first commercially successful graphical user interface as well as its enduring Finder application that persists on the most current Macs, the Macintosh is one of the most collected and used vintage computers. With dozens of websites around the world, old Macintosh hardware and software are input into daily use. The Macintosh had a strong presence in many early computer labs, creating a nostalgia factor for former students who recall their first computing experiences. === RCA === The COSMAC Elf in 1976 was an inexpensive (about $100) single-board computer that was easily built by hobbyists. Many people who could not afford an Altair could afford an ELF, which was based on the RCA 1802 chip. Because the chips are still available from other sources, modern recreations of the ELF are fairly common and there are several fan websites. === IBM === The IBM 1130 (1965) was a desk-sized small computer. It was the often the first computer used by many college students, still has a following of interested users. Most of the remaining 1130 systems in 2023 are in museums, but an emulator is available for users who don't have access to a physical 1130. The 5100 also has an avid collector and fan base. The PC series (5150 PC, 5155 Portable PC, 5160 PC/XT, 5170 PC/AT) has become very popular in recent years, with the earliest models (PC) being considered the most collectible. === Acorn BBC & Archimedes === The Acorn BBC Micro was a very popular British computer in the 1980s with home and educational users and enjoyed near-universal usage in British schools into the mid-1990s. It was possible to use 100K 5+1⁄4-inch disks, and it had many expansion ports. The Archimedes series – the de facto successor to the BBC Micro – has also enjoyed a following in recent years, thanks to its status as the first computer to be based around ARM's RISC microprocessor. === Tandy/Radio Shack === The Tandy/RadioShack Model 100 is still widely collected and used as one of the earliest examples of a truly portable computer. Other Tandy offerings, such as the TRS-80 line, are also very popular, and early systems, like the Model I, in good condition can command premium prices on the vintage computer market. === Sinclair === The Sinclair ZX81 and ZX Spectrum series were the most popular British home computers of the early 1980s, with a wide choice of emulators available for both platforms. The Spectrum in particular enjoys a cult following due to its popularity as a games platform, with new games titles still being developed even today. Original "rubber key" Spectrums fetch the highest prices on the second-hand market, with the later Amstrad-built models attracting less of a following. The earlier ZX81 is not as popular in original hardware form due to its monochrome display and limited abilities next to the Spectrum, but still unassembled ZX81 kits still appear on eBay occasionally. === MSX === Although nearly nonexistent in the United States, the MSX architecture has strong communities of fans and hobbyists worldwide, particularly in Japan (where the standard was conceived and developed), South Korea (the only country that had an MSX-based game console, Zemmix), Netherlands, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Chile, the Middle East, and others. New hardware and software are being actively developed to this day as well. One of the latest fundamental (from hardware and software perspectives) revivals of the MSX is the GR8BIT. === Robotron === The Robotron Z1013 was an East German home computer produced by VEB Robotron. It had a U880 processor, 16 KB RAM, and a membrane keyboard. The KC 85 series of computers was a modular 8-bit computer system used in East German schools. === Commodore === VIC-20 Commodore 64 Commodore PET Amiga === Xerox === The Xerox Alto, designed and manufactured by Xerox PARC and released in 1973, was the first personal computer equipped with a graphic user interface. In 1979, Steve Jobs of Apple Inc. arranged for his engineers to visit Xerox in order to see the Alto. The design concepts of the Alto soon appeared in the Apple Lisa and Macintosh systems. The Xerox Star, also known as the 8010/40, was made available in 1981. It followed on the Alto. Like the Alto, this machine was expensive and was only intended for corporate office usage. Therefore, being out of the price range of the average user, this product had little market penetration. === Silicon Graphics === The SGI Indy, built in 1993 for Silicon Graphics has a history of usage in the development of the Nintendo 64 as well as various CGI projects throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. The Indy and other machines in the SGI lineup have remained cult classics.