Talk:List of transistorized computers

Dates and sort order

I wanted to add some additional machines and I realized that there is an inconsistency in the dates: some, e.g., IBM 7090, have the announcement year but the lede says that the list is by delivery year.

According to IBM 7090 its installation was Dec 1959 so its placement in this article is correct. Tom94022 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict between two sources, oneclaiming December 1959 and another claiming June 1960. I have a bunch of machines that I wanted to add, and I was counting on the Adams quarterly as a source for the delivery dates. Should I trust them for the other machines, or hold off? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The are both reliable sources and the disagree. IMO IBM is more reliable about IBM's dates than Adams so I would leave the 7090 where it is. It's up to you as to whether u want to footnote the Adams date or just ignore the difference. And just because there is a difference doesn't mean Adams is not a RS so I would use it for other models and if there are differences apply similar judgements. These are differences not disputes. Tom94022 (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I found an article in Datamation that agrees with the IBM source, so I'll leave the 7090 entry as is. Or should I add the month there and in the new entries? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's your choice - I would Tom94022 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, is there a preferred sort order within year? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting question - in many cases the month may not be known. There seems to be no order. IMO it probably should be alphabetical in a year but that is a major task and should require consensus before started so I suggest u just add the new material at the end of a year. If you want to alphabetize a section you add to that's OK also. Tom94022 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References

CDC 924A

What connection does it have with the CDC 924? Guy Harris (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The 924A was an enhanced version of the 924. The 1604A, 1604B and 1604C were enhanced versions of the 1604. The 160A and 160G were enhanced versions of the 160. The 160G had an extra bit but ignored it in compatibility mode.

BTW, do you have dates for the 3150 and 3400? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The Adams and Associates Computer Characteristics Quarterly for first and second quarters 1967 says, on page 14, that the 3400 was first delivered in November 1964. It doesn't list the 3150. However, the fourth quarter 1967 - first quarter 1968 version lists the 3150, on page 11, as being first delivered in 1967, no month specified. Guy Harris (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent reverted edit

@Tom94022:I just reverted an edit because it created too many redlinks and inappropriate links. E.g., in RCA 601 there is no RCA 601 article, in UNIVAC II, III the first link should be to UNIVAC, not to UNIVAC 1004 and the second link is redlined. Either [[UNIVAC 1004]] I, II, III or [[UNIVAC]] [[UNIVAC 1004|1004]] I, II, III would work.

With regard to delivery dates, some sources are:

• First and Second Quarters 1967, COMPUTER CHARACTERISTICS QUARTERLY, vol. Volume 7, Numbers 1 and 2, adams associates {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
• "News Briefs in Datamation 1st 601 is on the air at NJ Bell" (PDF), Datamation, vol. 9, Number 6, GARDNER F. LANDON, p. 52

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Chatul With all due respect if there are errors please fix them rather than revert the entire change which I believe is for the most part accurate.

• Regarding redlinks, they are appropriate for information for which there is no reliable source. Actually if there is no reliable source then the item should not be listed at all but a redlink is one way to establish the need for an RS. I suppose I could have used a dubious tag.
• Regarding the two cites above, if they are RS's for inclusion of an item in the list then please link them in the list. They don't do much good here.

I will look into the two items u mention above, but I am going to revert back to what I posted before hand. Please do not revert again but take the time to improve the article. Tom94022 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of RSs for an RCA601 but no article and no RS for a date so I left it as a redlink. Tom94022 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

As it happens there are articles for both the U II and the U III with a date for the U III so I deleted the offending and incorrect line. There is no date for the U II in the article so if you are interested in improving Wikipedia why don't you go find a date, add it to the U II article and then link to it from this article. Tom94022 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

First, I started editing your change and realized that there was so much wrong that it was easier to revert and add back the few changes that were legitimate. Second, I provides sources for all of the dates on this talk page. In particular, why didn't you look at the second ("News Briefs in Datamation 1st 601 is on the air at NJ Bell"PDF) citation before pretending that the 601 didn't exist? You didn't even need to follow the link to notice that there was a source for it. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You didn't add back anything and as near as I can tell there were few if any errors in my edit - the two you asserted were not. You did not like the way I identified those edits that did not have a RS's for dates but that is a matter of style not correctness. You do know that RS's are required for inclusion in a list don't you? In the end you added in a number of RS's which is what you should have done in the first place. Regarding the 601, may I again suggest that when you have changes to make to an article, you make them in the article rather than giving assignments to other editors. But thanks for all the recent work, the article is now much improved. Tom94022 (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You added a bunch of redlinks that I had to clean up and you piped product links to the name of the manufacturer. Both created extra work for me. I would have completed the updates in half the time had you not reverted my reversion.

You do know that most of the entries on the list don't show a RS, don't you? Are you planning to delete the rest of them instead of flagging them?

Please don't misrepresent what I didn't like. I might have preferred {{cn}} to <!--no RS for date--> but I never mentioned that. What I objected to was breaking links to manufacturers and adding redlinks.

May I suggest that what you should have done in the first place is to add {{cn}} tags, and that what you should have done when the edit summary saif see talk page was to discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

CDC 1604B date

Chatul in the 1963 section you have depicted the 1604B as "[[CDC 1604]]B"; however, I cannot find neither the model nor the date at CDC 1604 nor after a reasonable search can I find an RS for 1963. I have found several RS's as to its existence but nothing as to the appropriate date section in which it should it be listed. I believe the reader has a right to know that there may be an issue with this entry. It seems to me I can take one of three actions, in all cases stating in the edit note that the entry lacks an RS as to date:

1. Delete the entry.
2. Mark the entry with a dubious tag, stating the reason as it lacks an RS as to a date
3. Change the entry into a redlink.

An editor who finds a RS can update the article as appropriate. Personally I like #3 as an interim solution since it acknowledges the good faith of the editor that entered it and is more compact than #2. Of course, for both #2 and #3 after a period of time without an RS the entry should be removed.
You seem to have strong feelings on this issue; how would u have me mark up the article? BTW, if you have an RS please go ahead and edit the article but I am still interested in how you think such situations should be marked. Tom94022 (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is amusing. For what it's worth, this oral history of Edward S. Davidson (1939- ) says:

00:12:04 ED: Well now I had to write a program. And although I had taken programming, I wasn't particularly good at it. We had a computer in the lab which was a Control Data CDC 1604B. It was a long time before I knew that Control Data actually never manufactured the 1604B. They did a 1604 and a 1604A, and we had a engineer on staff who managed the computer installation. If I recall his name was Ernie Neff, N-E-F-F. And he took a field service training course at Control Data, he was licensed to be a field service engineer but he was employed by our lab, Coordinated Science Lab. He was an engineer's engineer, a putterer, he was our own kind of guy. So when he was bored, which he often was, because he didn't have an awful lot to do, he would look at the machine and say "Gee, I could optimize that circuit a little bit." He'd start rewiring circuits inside the machine, which you could do with wire wrap in discrete packages you could slip in and out. And he minimized, minimized and rewired and packed it in and pretty soon he got a couple of empty slots. So he ordered some new spare cards and he'd add a feature that had never been part of the original machine.

00:13:37 PE: So you had a custom computer?

00:13:38 ED: Well not only a custom computer, but a custom undocumented computer. Which was very interesting. ...

That sounds as if it was at the University of Illinois. However, this issue of Computers and Automation lists, on page 131, the University of Wisconsin as having a "CDC 1604B/160", and this student newspaper from Northwest Nazarene College in Nampa, Idaho says, on page 5, that "Professor LaVerne Rickard, Director of NNC's Computer Cen­ter, has announced that a govern­ment agency with a higher priority has preempted our claim on a CDC 1604b computer." I dunno, maybe they sent the changes back to CDC who picked them up and started making a 1604B? Guy Harris (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Oral histories can be unreliable and there is ample evidence of the existence of the 1604B but no good reference yet for a date - so what do we do? BTW, this source suggests it might be 1964 or earlier. One thing we should do is add something about the 1604B to the 1604 article but so far I don't think we have an RS for listing it in this article. So what do we do? I suppose we could list it in 1964 with an "or earlier" caveat using the found source.

Chatul FWIW I intend to mark other elements without an RS for a date with a redlink. If you have a better idea, i'd like to hear it. Tom94022 (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added {{cn|reason=Need RS for date.}} on 1604B; that flags it without creating extraneous work for other editors. I thought that http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/AdamsReport1967Q4-1968Q1.pdf might have the missing dates, but no such luck.I did find, and add, a source for the 1604 date. There are manuals for a 1604C on bitsavers, but I don't know the dates.

I initially added sources for dates as [URL], but user:Guy Harris edited them to footnotes using {{cite}}, and I think that looks cleaner. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think [URL Product Name] is the cleanest for an EL but we should use a consistent method for citations within an article and it looks like reference with citation is what we have. {{cn|reason=Need RS for date.}} works for date needed but right now there is no existence proof for the 1604B at CDC 1604 so we still have a problem with this entry. Tom94022 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

UNIVAC Solid State 80 and 90?

My understanding is that the [UNIVAC SS 80 and SS 90 mostly used magnetic logic rather than transistors, although it did use magnetic amplifier, transistors and vacuum tubes. I would classify it as solid state but not transistorized. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)