Talk:Whirlwind I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Whirlwind (computer))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Early (Rated C-class, High-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Early computers task force (marked as High-importance).

Nobody calls this thing "MIT Whirlwind"[edit]

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?[edit]

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?
    • The claim that Whirlwind is the predecessor of TX-0, or for that matter that TX-0 and friends are the predecessor of the PDP-1, seems quite a stretch. Those other machines are 18 bit machines. And a 2 minute inspection of the relevant manuals reveals that (a) the Whirlwind instruction set is nothing like that of TX-0, (b) the TX-0 instruction set is nothing like that of the PDP-1. Paul Koning (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

In what way was the whirlwind the first that did not replace a mechanical system?[edit]

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. (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

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. (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?, citable facts in summary?[edit]

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 (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


The infobox says that the building is now called N42. However both and say that such building doesn't exist. I can only find 3 mentions of N42 building: this Wikipedia article, draft blueprints for the building from 1996, and an old news article from 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Origin of hexadecimal notation using ABCDEF?[edit]

The origin of the hexadecimal ABCDEF letters is typically attributed to IBM (though we are still searching for a reliable reference for this), but I found the following comment in an old archived thread of the hexadecimal talk page:

IBM certainly was not the first to use A-F. Such was in use from the late 1940's through the late 1950's at MIT's Wirlwind Project - a 16 bit binary computer - I joined the project in 1952.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kp2a (talkcontribs) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through a few Whirlwind I documents at Bitsavers but could not find this ABCDEF notation being mentioned there so far. If you stumble upon Whirlwind related documents using the ABCDEF notation, please add this info to the hexadecimal article or join the discussion at Talk:Hexadecimal#Origin_of_hexadecimal_notation_using_ABCDEF. Thanks.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)