Content deleted Content added
→Points for this article: I think some of the current phrasing is probably unfortunate, and could be improved by more directly sourced opinions. |
Tom.Reding (talk | contribs) m →top: Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Start, keep C |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=High|early-comp=yes|early-comp-importance=top}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
==Points for this article==
*As it is most often used adjectivally, is ‘stored program’ or ‘stored-program’ to be preferred? [[MOS:HYPHEN]] would seem to favour the latter.
Line 20 ⟶ 25:
: (Disclaimer: Manchester is one my Alma mata) I think some people are likely to regard labelling EDSAC as "the first practical stored-program machine to become operational" as controversial. Definitely, EDSAC was an important and innovative stored-program computer, however "practical" has a little slippery definitionally, I think. I think rewriting as an sourced opinion would work better. At the moment, it could be read as an attempt to belittle the innovation work at Manchester (though I don't think that's the intention). In my opinion both designs streams are important to future stored-program computers, with Baby leading towards distributed system-on-chip architectures whereas EDSAC leads towards CPUs [[User:RobertBurrellDonkin|RobertBurrellDonkin]] ([[User talk:RobertBurrellDonkin|talk]]) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
::The case for this claim is made by Professor Martin Campbell-Kelly in "{{Citation | first = Campbell-Kelly | last = Martin | author-link = Martin Campbell-Kelly | editor-last = Lavington | editor-first = Simon | title = Alan Turing and his Contemporaries: Building the world's first computers | place = Swindon | publisher = British Computer Society | year =2012 | chapter = Ivory Towers and Tea Rooms | isbn = 978-1-90612-490-8 }}" [[User:TedColes|TedColes]] ([[User talk:TedColes|talk]]) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
==Wrong reference==
This text's reference 13 (to the claim about Zuse's two patents) isn't correct. It points to Nature's text where Williams & Kilburn describe Manchester "baby". That text certainly doesn't talk about Zuse's patents.
== stored-program computer vs. von Neumann machine ==
Apparently some people say it is
"historically inappropriate, to refer to electronic stored-program digital computers as 'von Neumann machines'".
So what do those people say is the historically appropriate use of those two terms?
Are these people saying there is some subtle distinction (or perhaps one is a subset category of the other) between stored-program computers and von Neumann mmachines?
If so, what is that distinction?
Or are those people saying that the machines that people call "von Neumann machines" are identically the same as (synonymous with) "stored program computers",
but it is anachronistic to apply von Neumann's name to machines that were developed before von Neumann ever thought of such machines?
If so, please merge the appropriate parts of the [[von Neumann architecture]] article into this [[stored-program computer]] article.
--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
== ‘Stored Program Concept' Considered Harmful ==
A paper documenting the history of the concept:
[http://www.tomandmaria.com/tom/Writing/StoredProgramConsideredHarmfulPREPRINT.pdf ‘Stored Program Concept' Considered Harmful] [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 15:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
== Third stored-program computer? ==
The article says: "The third stored-program computer to be built, and the first one in continental Europe, was the MESM, completed in the Soviet Union in 1951." But [[EDVAC]] was completed in 1949, and it isn't listed. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 02:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
: Well, actually it had problems until 1951. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 04:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
== ARC2/ APE(X)C ==
The article says that the ARC2 came online in May 1948. But did it run a stored program? The article about the development of the APE(X)C says that it wasn't completed until June 1952.
''Early British Computers'', by S. Lavington, page 63 says that the APE(R)C - different from the APE(X)C, I believe - "was operating with limited storage in July 1952." It doesn't mention the APE(X)C. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 01:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
"The Development of Computer Programming in Britan (1945-1955)" by Martin Cambell-Kelly, in ''Annals of the History of Computing", vol 4, #2, lists APEXC as 1953. But I need to read the whole article to see what it says about APEXC. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 01:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
== So, like today's computers? ==
It sounds like pretty much every computer today would fit into this category. Shouldn't there be a mention of that in the article? '''<span style="color: #060;">flarn</span><span style="color: #090;">2006</span>''' [''[[User:flarn2006|u]] [[User talk:flarn2006|t]] [[Special:Contributions/flarn2006|c]]''] time: 20:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:Yes. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
: As far as I know, every general-purpose one built since the late 1940s. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 07:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
| |||