![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Two things on this section:
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. 69.106.238.70 ( 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. 69.106.238.70 ( talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
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 98.108.201.126 ( talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The infobox says that the building is now called N42. However both floorplans.mit.edu and whereis.mit.edu 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 176.36.231.82 ( talk) 22:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
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:
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)
A number of tests have been run without error for hours at a time in 1949 (32 registers of test storage) [1] and in 1950 (electrostatic storage). [2]
In January-March 1951 Whirlwind has been operating usefully about 30 hours a week (with satisfactory operation about 85% of the time). [3] From April it was 35 hours a week (about 90% trouble-free). [4] [5] [6]
From March/April 1952 the number of hours was Increased from 30, through 50, to about 70 hours in June. [7] From August average weekly operation time increased to 99 hours (85% useful time). [8]-- 89.25.210.104 ( talk) 22:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
References:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |archive-date=
(
help)CS1 maint: others (
link)
The "Records" box near the bottom has no sources and doesn't link to anything related to its topic. E.g. "Fastest computer in the world" ends up as a link to "Mainframe Computers" which isn't at all the same thing and which doesn't mention or involve Whirlwind at all. While it might be fun "original research" to make such a list, or to find sources for such a list, this thread of random unsourced claims across the bottom of multiple articles doesn't seem to be a good idea in its current form. Gnuish ( talk) 22:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I edited this article to replace "Bill Wolf" by "Bill Wulf", but the change was reverted. Although I have no firsthand knowledge of the reference, Bill Wulf was a noted computer scientist who was interested in computer history; I've never heard of a Bill Wolf. Rather than get into an edit war, which I have no patience for, I'm simply noting here that the change should not have been reverted. (As a senior at MIT in 1952, I actually did a bit of programming on Whirlwind.) Paul Abrahams ( talk) 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if any of this belongs in the article, but I'm one of the very few (perhaps the only) living people who actually wrote and executed a program on Whirlwind.
I graduated from MIT in 1956.My senior thesis was on linear programming, and as part of it I wrote a program for Whirlwind. (I don't remember what that program actually did). I prepared it on paper tape that I generated on a Flexowriter. Whirlwind was visually very impressive; lots of flashing lights and clacking sounds. When a program aborted, the programmers would take a picture of the machine tom capture the contents of the registers. Paul Abrahams ( talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Two things on this section:
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. 69.106.238.70 ( 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. 69.106.238.70 ( talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
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 98.108.201.126 ( talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The infobox says that the building is now called N42. However both floorplans.mit.edu and whereis.mit.edu 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 176.36.231.82 ( talk) 22:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
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:
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)
A number of tests have been run without error for hours at a time in 1949 (32 registers of test storage) [1] and in 1950 (electrostatic storage). [2]
In January-March 1951 Whirlwind has been operating usefully about 30 hours a week (with satisfactory operation about 85% of the time). [3] From April it was 35 hours a week (about 90% trouble-free). [4] [5] [6]
From March/April 1952 the number of hours was Increased from 30, through 50, to about 70 hours in June. [7] From August average weekly operation time increased to 99 hours (85% useful time). [8]-- 89.25.210.104 ( talk) 22:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
References:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |archive-date=
(
help)CS1 maint: others (
link)
The "Records" box near the bottom has no sources and doesn't link to anything related to its topic. E.g. "Fastest computer in the world" ends up as a link to "Mainframe Computers" which isn't at all the same thing and which doesn't mention or involve Whirlwind at all. While it might be fun "original research" to make such a list, or to find sources for such a list, this thread of random unsourced claims across the bottom of multiple articles doesn't seem to be a good idea in its current form. Gnuish ( talk) 22:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I edited this article to replace "Bill Wolf" by "Bill Wulf", but the change was reverted. Although I have no firsthand knowledge of the reference, Bill Wulf was a noted computer scientist who was interested in computer history; I've never heard of a Bill Wolf. Rather than get into an edit war, which I have no patience for, I'm simply noting here that the change should not have been reverted. (As a senior at MIT in 1952, I actually did a bit of programming on Whirlwind.) Paul Abrahams ( talk) 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if any of this belongs in the article, but I'm one of the very few (perhaps the only) living people who actually wrote and executed a program on Whirlwind.
I graduated from MIT in 1956.My senior thesis was on linear programming, and as part of it I wrote a program for Whirlwind. (I don't remember what that program actually did). I prepared it on paper tape that I generated on a Flexowriter. Whirlwind was visually very impressive; lots of flashing lights and clacking sounds. When a program aborted, the programmers would take a picture of the machine tom capture the contents of the registers. Paul Abrahams ( talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)