Talk:Overhead (computing)

Difficult to understand

I had trouble understanding this article. I can see that this is a work in progress. I honestly think that everything is explained too quickly and in a way that only really advanced people can understand. I don't want to offend anyone, because I'm sure it's a pretty good article as is. I am just wondering if it could be dumbed down a tad in some spots for the people that would be benefited most by this article--those that have no prior experience with computational overhead and similar articles. Thanks a bunch and good luck! 98.202.38.225 (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) it is written by laisenbi on 5.13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.77.130.11 (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"in a way that only really advanced people can understand" - I completely agree. Admitted, I am a biologist, but in my opinion, Wikipedia's biological articles, in which terminology is explained, usually take on more profound and comprehensible, indeed "dumbed down" forms. Aleneen (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think dumbed down is a good goal. We should strive for consumable, understandable, and engaging. Consider Neil deGrasse Tyson. He (and others) explains the most complicated aspects of Physics to the layperson. I don't think he dumbs it down. That said, many (many!) computer-related articles here are poorly written. There's room for improvement. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge into engineering

I think this article should be merged into Overhead (engineering). There's nothing all that special about overhead in computing that doesn't apply to all of engineering. Stevebroshar (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Overhead (engineering) is 49 words. This article is 677. Merging would create a lopsided article. ~Kvng (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)