Talk:Comparison of early computing machines

message: Nice table, but I think we can assert that Colossus was "binary". It used decimal counters, but most of the processing occurred on binary streams 5 bits wide. An operator could wire up AND, OR and XOR functions in any combination. — Matt Crypto 09:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colossus: binary?

message: In the article on Stibitz it says he was "the father of the modern digital computer". I think that sentence should be modified anyway, but it still might be worthwhile to add the "Model K" or the "Complex Number Calculator" to the template.
Christian Storm 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Stibitz's Complex Number Calculator be added? 

message: This template has outgrown its usefulness. Neutrality-pushers are removing any pedagogic usefulness (colors) form the table as POV. At the same time it seems that every nationalist wants to include their countries contribution to the table. The table now contains 11 “early” computer instead of the original five!
There is a point-of-view, shared now by everyone involved with computing, that a useful digital computer must be electronic, binary, programmable and Turing complete. The original intent of this template was to show that none of the five early computers, in their six incarnations before 1949, where all of these. Everyone of them failed miserably on at least one point. The IBM ASCC, the direct ancestor of todays IBM line of computers failed on 3½ of 4.
At the same time, all four of the requirements were met by at least one or two of the early computers. While none of the computer can claim to be the father of modern computers, they can all state equal claim to being one of the grandfathers. In fact, the five computers were listed, not because they were the first, but because they all contributed something important to the development of modern computers. 
The last useful version of the template is from 25 October 2007 by Matt Crypto.
Computer                 	Shown working               	Place  	Binary	Electronic	Programmable   	Turing complete
Zuse Z3                  	May 1941                    	Germany	      	          	               	
Atanasoff–Berry Computer 	Summer 1941                 	USA    	      	          	               	
Colossus                 	December 1943 / January 1944	UK     	      	          	ly, by rewiring	
Harvard Mark I – IBM ASCC	1944                        	USA    	      	          	               	
ENIAC                    	1944                        	USA    	      	          	ly, by rewiring	
ENIAC                    	1948                        	USA    	      	          	               	
In the very next edit neutrality-pushers start eroding the useful POV of the template by removing colors. In the history of computing decimal is not of equal value to binary!
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That pov needs to be clarified, as there now seem to be at least a couple of glaring omissions in the table. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: In defining a pruned-down version of the table, it is difficult to define a 'natural' boundary around its contents. I chose to try to be inclusive for the decade of the 1940s in the set of machines included. Another boundary might be 'program-controlled', which would exclude the George Stibitz machines and the ABC, but there would not be a natural finishing point, and doubtless different views as to where the list of machines should end. There is another concern about defining an appropriate set of criteria for the columns, and whether or not to use colours. Perhaps we should start with agreement as to the purpose of the table.--TedColes (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to very old version – restoring POV 

message: Has this template really outgrown its usefulness? The table has evolved to give a historical context within the articles about most of the machines that it includes, as well as the 'parent' article the history of computing hardware. 
The NPOV principle is surely fundamental to Wikipedia and should apply to templates that are incorporated into articles as well as to the articles themselves. Petri Krohn argues that this table is used to illustrate a certain point of view. It is not clear what this POV is—is it that green indicates features that carry forward to today's computers and red indicates the 'dead end' features? If so, it should be more explicit, and why omit from the table the first computer(s) that score all green cells in the table (Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine, EDSAC, Manchester Mark 1 and  CSIRAC?
Petri Krohn states that 'electronic', 'binary', 'programmable' and 'Turing complete' are the four defining characteristics of a useful digital computer. I would put 'stored program (in a read-write memory)' ahead of 'Turing complete' in such a list.
We need a substantial debate before making a reversion to a version that is 20 months old.
--TedColes (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In defining a pruned-down version of the table, it is difficult to define a 'natural' boundary around its contents. I chose to try to be inclusive for the decade of the 1940s in the set of machines included. Another boundary might be 'program-controlled', which would exclude the George Stibitz machines and the ABC, but there would not be a natural finishing point, and doubtless different views as to where the list of machines should end. There is another concern about defining an appropriate set of criteria for the columns, and whether or not to use colours. Perhaps we should start with agreement as to the purpose of the table.--TedColes (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outgrown usefulness? 

message: I question whether the concept of 'Turing Completeness' is appropriate for this template and the articles into which it is transcluded. In the strictest sense, no finite machine is truly Turing complete.
Professor Benjamin Wells of the Departments of Computer Science and Mathematics, University of San Francisco, has recently published a peer-reviewed paper    which shows that a Universal Turing Machine could have been run on the set of Colossus computers. This means that Colossus satisfies the definition of 'Turing Complete' given in the Wikipedia article Turing completeness.
Wells also points out in the paper's Footnote 7 that a Universal Turing Machine is not the same as a 'general purpose programmable computer' and Colossus was clearly not that. 
What do others think?
--TedColes (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 'Turing Complete'? 

message: My understanding is that BINAC never became operational in the sense of serving the end users, rather than the developers. Is there evidence to the contrary? --TedColes (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BINAC operational? 

message: I suggest  this new version, which was reverted due to too extensive changes. (A column about Von Neumann architecture was added. More first generation computers (1940s and early 1950s) were added, especially the first von Neumann architecutre machines, and also the first with magnetic core memory and drum memory, and the most famous Scandinavian and Russian machines. I have embedded the template in those computer model articles, but since they were removed from the article, now the template inclusion looks kind of strange.) Mange01 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestons 

message: This template is being considered for deletion - see [Wikipedia:Templates for discussion] I disagree but think that it might benefit from being slimmed down. I would urge those with views on this to comment at the entry on the Templates for deletion page. I suggest that the slimming down might include reducing the entries for Colossus and ENIAC to single rows and removing the column for 'Turing Complete' - an obstruse matter for most readers and not the same as 'General Purpose'.--TedColes (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal