Talk:Programmed Data Processor

message: The PDP-X did not resemble the NOVA.  See http://simh.trailing-edge.com/docs/pdpx.pdf
--Peter Lund/82.143.195.87 13:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDP-X and Data General NOVA 

message: I worked as a software specialist for DEC from Feb 1980 - Jan 1992, and the reason we were told that it was called a PDP, was that for purposes of submitting proposals and other sales documents to the US Government Procurement Office, that the US Government only thought that "computers" were made by IBM. Therefore, we did not make computers, but Programmable Data Processors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdawgaz (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 February 2009‎
:The 1960 manual for the PDP-1 says:
::The Programmed Data Processor (PDP-1) is a high speed, solid state digital computer designed to operate with several types of input-output devices, with no internal machine changes. It is a single address, single instruction, stored program computer with powerful program features. 
:so I guess DEC did make computers in 1960. Guy Harris (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for name PDP 

message: So is there a source that unequivocally demonstrates whether the first "P" stood for "programmable" or "programmed" originally?  (I might think it should have been the former, but that doesn't matter.)  —208.54.87.201 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps the "programmed" used in early documents was replaced later by "programmable", after someone realized that the latter was preferable?  (Maybe this page should be called "DEC PDP" instead of "Programmed Data Processor"?)  —208.54.87.198 (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, it was "programmed" for the PDP-1.  PDP-4: "programmed". PDP-5: "programmed". PDP-6: "programmed". PDP-7: "programmed". PDP-8: "programmed". PDP-9: "programmed", although they don't seem to ever call it the "Programmed Data Processor-9", they just call it a "programmed data processing system".  From looking at various PDP-n manuals, they appear to have eventually stopped expanding "PDP" into anything; I guess at that point, "PDP" really meant "computer from DEC". Guy Harris (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Programmable" or "Programmed"? 

message: This is about the PDP-6 section's comment saying
:: It was considered by its detractors a large minicomputer or, by DEC fans especially, Big Iron - a mainframe As a timesharing machine, it constantly outran the batch-oriented IBM System/360 and even IBM System/370-series mainframes.[citation needed] 
When faced with knocking down a tree, an elephant is more useful than an army of ants.When faced with a master file of 10 or more magnetic tapes, batch processing is far more effective than an early day timesharing system that might barely fit a TENTH of the master file online. Pi314m (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: PDP-6 positives

message: This page is about the PDP machines, and not even at a major level of detail for each PDP, hence the text below, part of which already is within the PDP-8 article, is parked here:
::(quote) It is reported that Edson de Castro, who had been a key member of the design team, left to form Data General when his design for a 16-bit successor to the PDP-8 was rejected in favor of the PDP-11; the "PDP-X" did not resemble the Data General Nova, (http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp-x/13.pdf) although that is a common myth.[citation needed] Pi314m (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: PDP-8 competition

message: I question the following unsourced statement:
"The PDP-9 established minicomputers as the leading edge of the computer industry."
I hardly consider the 9 a minicomputer and it had little impact on the computer industry as a whole. If any DEC product deserves this acolade, it would be the PDP-8, but we'd need a source.—agr (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: PDP-9 leading edge??