Talk:Whirlwind I

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Early computers task force.

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.

Merger proposal

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 2^6th or ... anniversary is not justification for a redundant article). 05:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)