Talk:Manchester Mark 1

message: April 1954 or 1949?  
The article said "The first version of the machine was running in April 1954".  The book "Early Britis Computers", page 37 says that it was used to investigate Mersenne primes in April 1949.  It ran overnight in June 1949, and that it was completed in October 1949.--Bubba73 16:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Is it by pure coincidence that this machine shares a similar name to Harvard Mark I? --Abdull 10:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unrelated. However, the Baby Mark 1, Ferranti Mark 1 and intermediary version of the Manchester Mark 1 where all known as the "Mark 1" despite being different evolutions of the same machines. This link has something to say on the matter. --BlueNovember 00:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark I coincidence 

message: I'm confused by this text:
:The Mark I included two tubes, each storing 64 rows ("double density") of 40 points, for a total of 128 words. 64 words was considered to be a single "page", so the system stored 4 pages. Freddie Williams deliberately sized the drum to store two "pages" of Williams tube data – that is, 2x32x40 = 2,560 bits – per track, and 32 tracks in total.
The word size is 40 bits.  Each tube stores 64 words.  There are two tubes.  64×2 = 128.  This makes sense.  Then it says there were four pages.  How exactly does 64×4 = 128?  Did I miss something?  Apparently two pages of data is 2×32 words... so presumably the article should say '32 words was considered to be a single "page"'? --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of a page 

message: Can the article name be corrected from "Mark I" to "Mark 1"? TedColes (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd certainly be in favour of that. There's a redirect from Manchester Mark 1 to here though, so I'm not sure whether that means the move's got to be done by an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of changing it as it's not consistent with the text but it will need to be done by an admin as the name's already in use. Richerman (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-name the article?

message: http://www.computer50.org/mark1/gac1.html states that it was the Ferranti mark one that was used by the met office, not the manchester mark one,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steroberts89 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed  Richerman (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Met Office thing 

message: I've removed the claim that Tim Berners-Lee's Dad, Conway Berners-Lee, worked on the Manchester Mark 1. He actually worked on the Ferranti Mark 1. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berners-Lee/Mark 1 confusion 

message: These might be useful sometime: --Philcha (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful resources, thanks. I've been trying to discover the exact number of vacuum tubes in the Mark 1 for ages. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It also reminds me that there's an overarching article to be written on the Manchester computers. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen this article - it talks of Drum memory being used pre 1940 - Drum_memory --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This article repeatedly refers to the Manchester Mark 1 as "one of the earliest stored-program computers" and links the stored-program to Von Neumann architecture. These terms are not synonymous. 
A Von Neumann architecture has a dedicated memory for storing instructions which is separate from the memory used to store the program data. Von Neumann architectures are frequently contrasted with Harvard architectures, which use the same memory to store both programs and instructions. However, *both* Von Neumann and Harvard architectures store the program somewhere. 
It would be more accurate to contrast a stored program computer (be it a Harvard or Von Neuman design) with a single purpose computer with a hardwired program (ala, the Atanasoff–Berry Computer), or perhaps with a reprogrammable computer that uses a physical medium (like punch tape) for program storage rather than electronic. 
I've turned Stored-program computer (which was previously a bad redirect to  Von Neumann architecture) into a legit article. I'm going to link the terms from here to there. Raul654 (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: According to Nature, Vol 164, Oct 22,1949, p684. Dr. T. KILBURN
http://www.digital60.org/birth/manchestercomputers/mark1/documents/natureart.html
"A single storage tube has a capacity of 2,560 digits, arranged in two rasters of television type, where each raster has 32 lines, and each line of a raster holds 40 digits."
- that is, each Williams tube held two pages, not one.
86.141.196.130 (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many pages per Williams tube? 

message: It seems to me that:
"The capacity was increased to 4 Williams tube and 128 magnetic drum pages in the Final Specification version."
is incorrect, since that phrasing indicates that only four pages of main store were implemented when in fact four tubes were used to provide eight pages.
Thus, a formulation such as:
"The capacity was increased in the Final Specification version to eight pages of main store on four Williams tubes and 128 magnetic drum pages of backing store."
seems to be called for: correctly describing the amount of store provided in a fairly concise and very clear manner.
86.141.196.130 (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I don't agree, as now we've established that the Mk I used double-density Williams tubes anyone can easily work out for themselves how many pages of main store that represents. But I'm fed up arguing the toss with you.  Eric Corbett 00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact description of Final Spec store size 

message: I feel it is helpful to describe the size of the working stores not only in terms that describe the machine architecture - that is, in terms of pages - but also in terms of words.  My reasoning is that it's easier for the reader to comprehend both the machine architecture and the size of store provided if store size is described both as number of pages and number of words.
It is also (obviously to my mind) helpful to explain what is meant by "backing store", since the concept is not obvious.
Finally, the term "double density" when applied to Williams tubes is not helpful to the reader for the following reasons:
1: "Single density" is not defined.
2: For the term to carry meaning, the reader must understand that the "density" described is an areal density, and that area has been conserved from "single" to "double" density storage devices.
For those reasons, it makes sense to remove the reference to "double density" since it does nothing to aid reader comprehension.
I suggest that my edits be left to stand unless there are clear reasons to contradict any of my reasoning.
86.141.217.115 (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main and backing store description. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manchester Mark 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121112547/http://www.digital60.org/birth/manchestercomputers/mark1/manchester.html to http://www.digital60.org/birth/manchestercomputers/mark1/manchester.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Manchester Mark 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105031620/http://www.computer50.org/mark1/contemporary.html to http://www.computer50.org/mark1/contemporary.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511182631/http://www.computer50.org/mark1/newman.html to http://www.computer50.org/mark1/newman.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107050438/http://www.digital60.org/birth/manchestercomputers/mark1/documents/natureart.html to http://www.digital60.org/birth/manchestercomputers/mark1/documents/natureart.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229132333/http://www.computer50.org/mark1/MM1.html to http://www.computer50.org/mark1/MM1.html
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.cs.man.ac.uk/pub/CCS-Archive/misc/ICLJNL1.DOC
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209155638/http://www.computer50.org/mark1/MM1.html to http://www.computer50.org/mark1/MM1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229132333/http://www.computer50.org/mark1/MM1.html to http://www.computer50.org/mark1/MM1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manchester Mark 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526192456/http://www.computer50.org/kgill/mark1/progman.html to http://www.computer50.org/kgill/mark1/progman.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified