Talk:Timeline of computing 1950–79

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


"FORTRAN (FORmula TRANslation) development started by John Backus and his team at IBM - continuing until 1957. FORTRAN was the first high-level programming language, still in use for scientific programming. Before being run, a FORTRAN program needs to be converted into a machine program by a compiler, itself a program." In another section it claims in 1945, Zuse created Plankalkül, the first high-level programming language. So, what the hell? I am using this as a reference for an essay, so flaws like this can't be ignored. (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The page is getting large, presumably a split into decades would be suitable. Egil 12:57 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

"High level language compiler invented by Grace Murray Hopper." Surely not, unless you tautologously define what she did as the first high level language? She was basically a bureaucrat and consolidator .PML.

Why is there no reference to the Micral-N, considered the first home computer ever made (France, 1973)?

Is this information correct?:

1951 EDVAC (electronic discrete variable computer) - First computer to use Magnetic Tape. EDVAC could have new programs loaded off of the tape. Proposed by John von Neumann, it was installed at the Institute for Advance Study, Princeton, USA.
As far as I know it was a different computer which was built at IAS; its design was based on the EDVAC. Tsf 13:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Two machines are listed as 1951, both purporting to have been first to use magnetic tape....only one claim can be valid, any takers?

Why no mention of the UNIVAC LARC system such as the one installed at David Taylor Naval Research?

If I remember my history right, the EDVAC was proposed, discussed in class, and one of the inventors students beat the professor to making the first computer to use magnetic tape. So, the EDVAC was the first proposed to use magnetic tape, but not the first completed. Sean.Roach 02:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pascal prior to 1984[edit]

Pascal was most certainly "widely used" prior to 1984. If nothing else, there was the UCSD P-system that was started in 1978 and wound up being used as the Apple Pascal environment. That would almost certainly qualify as "widely used" in anyone's book. Nsayer (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Computers built between 1964 and 1972 are often regarded as 'Third Generation' computers, they are based on the first integrated circuits – creating even smaller machines. Typical of such machines was the IBM System/360 series mainframe,"

System/360 3rd generation?[edit]

Except the 360 wasn't a 3rd generation machine - it used "flip chips" not integrated circuits. HughesJohn (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Serbia, home of computing.[edit]

How cute. HughesJohn (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

First transistor computer[edit]

Philco S-2000 was the first transistor computer, but was not included in the history timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing missing from 1969?[edit]

No significant "world" event that needed all the computing power of earth to make it happen? I guess conspiracy theorists would say no there wasn't such an event :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mihajlo Pupin Institute[edit]

I've nothing against the good people of (former) Yugoslavia, but none of the many listed computers from this Yugoslav institute seem to have seminal significance. In the name of rational selectivity, can't we delete them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)