Talk:CDC 6000 series
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
The first and last sections use the past tense, but everything else is, oddly to my ear, in the present tense. I think it should all get converted into past tense and I'll try to get around to it at some point. It occurs to me that maybe a lot of this article is quoted from contemporary product literature; if so, of course, there might be some copyright issues here. PavelCurtis 23:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi PavelCurtis. Yes indeed, a lot of the article is quoted from the original computer system reference manuals listed in the reference section of the article. However, I am not sure, whether they are still copyrighted. Please let me know about the legal status if you can. Thanks. Besides, kindly feel free to edit the article to meet the linguistic standards. CeeGee 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The console type is described as "calligraphic". Although I do find a few references to that term in this context, I would think that the term "vector" would be more appropriate. The Wiki lookup link for "calligraphic" goes to a page on ink calligraphy. I almost made this change, but I decided it was potentially controversial. --Timrprobocom 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Vector" would be inaccurate, as there were no commands to draw lines. The analog circuitry actually steered the electron beam around to form the letters. There was also a "dot mode" which was used to form lines and such.--Wws 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I may need to retract the above a bit. After looking at the vector graphics page, it does have much more meaning than the page on calligraphy. And it does mention that early displays were called "calligraphic displays". (Maybe a redirect page would be a good idea?) Nonetheless, the console was pretty dumb. You could send it an X-Y coordinate to position the beam, then send it a stream of characters. And, of course, there was the "dot mode" let one do primitive graphics.
So I guess I wouldn't mind if it linked to vector graphics. But in the article I think it still should be referred to as "calligraphic" - i.e., calligraphic. I'll make the change. --Wws 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)