Talk:CDC 6000 series

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Console 

message: Note that the 6400 stub is also the target of a redirect from CDC 6700.  Pi314m (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging CDC 6400 stub's content into CDC 6000 series @ The 6400

message: This is a followup to having merged 6400.  Pi314m (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging CDC 6500 article content into CDC 6000 series  @ The 6500

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unusual one's compliment? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Placement of footnotes  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Models with no CP 

message: In  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)
thread_title:  What is the relevance of PDF footnote? 

message: The article states  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)
thread_title:  Reference for 6200 and 6300