|WikiProject Computing / Early||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Nobody calls this thing "MIT Whirlwind". It's always just plain "Whirlwind", and the context make it obvious that it's not the aeroynmaic event. I'll do a stub disambig page from "Whirlwind", indicating the aerodynamic event, and linking here.
Noel 20:08, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What came of the Whirlwind?
Two things on this section:
- It mentions only Ken Olsen, and claim he "led" the TX-0 effort. I believe Was Clark was the lead on the TX-0 design, and at least should be mentioned.
- It mentions that TX-1 came after TX-0, was "too ambitious" and was scaled back to the TX-2. However, The Dream Machine claims that TX-1 was the original proposal for a "Whirlwind with transistors", was nixed, TX-0 done in its place, and that TX-2 was then used as name for the follow-up to TX-0. Anyone know the facts here?
In what way was the whirlwind the first that did not replace a mechanical system?
There were no anolgues mechanically used in Tnnny breaking by Colussus.
Project Whirlwind began in 1944, the letter of intent ("Project Whirlwind", p.14), with an intended electromechanical control system. Later that was replaced by the digital computer ("Project Whirlwind" chapter 3 "The Shift to Digital"). Whirlwind (computer) DID replace a mechanical (electromechanical) system, even if that system was never completed. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Rationale: Duplicate subjects
The new article Information Technology: At the dawn of the computer age is about Whirlwind, including many claimed firsts for Whirlwind and an enumeration of later projects that are said to have benefited from Whirlwind. There is no Wikipedia user benefit from a 2nd Whirlwind article; the Whirlwind details should be merged into the existing Whirlwind article (a 60th or 26th or ... anniversary is not justification for a redundant article).
btw, the many claims of "firsts" in that article should not be merged into the Whirlwind article, but instead should be placed on this talk page together with the suggestion that anyone moving those claims to the article also add explicit, non-controversial, references for each claim moved. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
NPOV?, citable facts in summary?
I'm wondering about the statement "...and indirectly to almost all business computers and minicomputers in the 1960s." I don't think you're required to cite things in the summary, but that's a pretty broad statement, and how it influenced this development is not mentioned or clarified later in the article (only how it affected SAGE). Wolverine00000 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this merge, I beleve that this specific model of computer should have it's own computer article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)