Talk:CDC 6000 series

The first and last sections use the past tense, but everything else is, oddly to my ear, in the present tense. I think it should all get converted into past tense and I'll try to get around to it at some point. It occurs to me that maybe a lot of this article is quoted from contemporary product literature; if so, of course, there might be some copyright issues here. PavelCurtis 23:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi PavelCurtis. Yes indeed, a lot of the article is quoted from the original computer system reference manuals listed in the reference section of the article. However, I am not sure, whether they are still copyrighted. Please let me know about the legal status if you can. Thanks. Besides, kindly feel free to edit the article to meet the linguistic standards. CeeGee 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Console

The console type is described as "calligraphic". Although I do find a few references to that term in this context, I would think that the term "vector" would be more appropriate. The Wiki lookup link for "calligraphic" goes to a page on ink calligraphy. I almost made this change, but I decided it was potentially controversial. --Timrprobocom 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Vector" would be inaccurate, as there were no commands to draw lines. The analog circuitry actually steered the electron beam around to form the letters. There was also a "dot mode" which was used to form lines and such.--Wws 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may need to retract the above a bit. After looking at the vector graphics page, it does have much more meaning than the page on calligraphy. And it does mention that early displays were called "calligraphic displays". (Maybe a redirect page would be a good idea?) Nonetheless, the console was pretty dumb. You could send it an X-Y coordinate to position the beam, then send it a stream of characters. And, of course, there was the "dot mode" let one do primitive graphics.

So I guess I wouldn't mind if it linked to vector graphics. But in the article I think it still should be referred to as "calligraphic" - i.e., calligraphic. I'll make the change. --Wws 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of PPUs?

The article says "...seven to ten peripheral processors ...". They had either seven or ten, right? (never eight or nine) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The unsourced "seven to ten" is not what universities taught. You'll find many statements that there were TEN PPUs. Various sites talk of TEN. A book named "Supercomputer Architecture" says TEN.

"seven to ten" ? The words are copied here just to preserve them...

... REPLACING "seven to ten peripheral processors" with "ten" Pi314m (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there were eventually 6400 versions (6415-7, -8, & -9) which had 7, 8, and 9 PPUs respectively. They were slightly cheaper versions of the basic 10-PPU 6400. However, the -8 & -9 didn't sell well. The 6415-7 was bought by very budget-conscious customers, but the -8 & -9 weren't that much cheaper than the full 6400, so customers mostly bought that instead.

There was also the 6416 machine, which was sort of 2 6400's linked together, with 20 PPus. Basically designed for faster I/O. There was also an experimental 6600 machine with 30 PPUs; only 1 was ever built, and it was never offered for sale. T bonham (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Merging CDC 6400 stub's content into CDC 6000 series @ The 6400

Note that the 6400 stub is also the target of a redirect from CDC 6700. Pi314m (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Merging CDC 6500 article content into CDC 6000 series @ The 6500

This is a followup to having merged 6400. Pi314m (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Unusual one's compliment?

Ones compliment would be highly unusual for a computer designed after 1980, but for a machine designed in the 1960s it was quite common. I'm unsure how to reword the paragraph under "CDC_6000_series#The_6600". Simply removing "unusually" kind of makes the paragraph fall apart. Meanwhile it is worthwhile noting that the 6600 used this now archaic arrangement. 74.104.188.4 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ones' complement (sic) was pretty much the standard for binary computers at UNIVAC and CDC, at least until the CDC STAR-100 and the UNIVAC 360-line computers. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Placement of footnotes

The article has three inappropriate footnotes on SCOPE, all of which relate to the hardware rather than to the software. The second and third document in CDC 6000 series#References would be appropriate there, but where should the 3 inappropriate references be moved? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Models with no CP

I recall some CDC (8xxx?) systems containing a ring of peripheral processors with no central processor. If anybody has the manuals or remembers the details, please update the article. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the CDC 6416? That was basically a unit with 10 PPUs in it, that was attached to another 6000-series machine. It increased the I/O throughput of the machine, especially useful for online time-share systems. T bonham (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The 6416 Augmented Buffer and Control might be the machine that I was thinking of, although I remeber something used for telecommunications. Maybe I was thinking of the 8092 and incorrectly recalled it as using 6600 technology. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

What is the relevance of PDF footnote?

In It consisted of the CDC 6200, CDC 6300, CDC 6400, CDC 6500, CDC 6600 and CDC 6700 computers, what is the relevance of footnote 4, which refers to software rather than to hardware? Surely a later edition of the already cited would be more appropriate. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Reference for 6200 and 6300

The article states It consisted of the CDC 6200, CDC 6300, CDC 6400, CDC 6500, CDC 6600 and CDC 6700 computers, which were all extremely rapid and efficient for their time. Neither the text nor the references say what the 6200 and 6300 are. Are those typos? If not, what were those machines? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Overview and the Purdue 6500 mention

There is a significant inaccuracy in the brief mention of the Purdue 6500: "The only currently (as of 2018) running CDC 6000 series machine, a 6500, has been restored by Living Computers: Museum + Labs[22] It was built in 1967 and used by Purdue University until 1989 when it was decommissioned and then given to the Chippewa Falls Museum of Industry and Technology before being purchased by Paul Allen for LCM+L"

It was rebuilt in 1967. It started life in 1964 as a CDC 6400 and was sold to Israel without state department approval. On learning about it some months later, the State Department threatened Control Data's export certification if they didn't get it back. They went hat in hand to the Israeli powers-that-be, and were successful. It was remanufactured as a 6500. The export documentation was destroyed by joint agreement. Except... some cooling system components had to be imported to Israel to get it operational. The LCM staffer in charge of upgrading the Freon-based chiller to R-134 is the one who discovered this, and who told me. I was the systems programmer on the project, and met John and the other teammates, including Paul Allen, in November 2016 in Seattle.

Perhaps this change doesn't need to include all I've related here. Perhaps it would be fine to just say it was a rebuilt 6400.

Thoughts?