Talk:Interdata 7/32 and 8/32

Use in Australian Department of Defence
I have no references at this time, so am noting this here for posterity. I will see if I can find references.

The Australian Department of Defence used 7/32, 8/32 and 3200 series systems, for Logistic and Manpower computing systems from the 1970's to late 1980's, although some survived into the 1990's in niche areas. The department, while using the OS/32 O/S for central development, has written its own Real-Time Operating System for production use, called Minex. Systems were distributed throughout Australia, RAAF Butterworth Malaysia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

what-when-how.com
I think I jumped to the wrong conclusion regarding the what-when-how.com reference: it appears not to be a plagiarism. However, I asked over at WP:RSN and the consensus there seems to be that this website is not a reliable source because it lacks any kind of authorship info. We could cite the original Encyclopedia of Space Science and Technology if someone can verify that the text came from there (surely the abstract did, but I don't have access to the full article). Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 07:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Model Numbers
This article uses model numbers (7/32 and 8/32) which were introduced after Perkins-Elmer purchased Interdata. For example, I worked on an earlier model named "Interdata Model 70" which is not listed here but is mentioned on the parent article. Neilrieck (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Merging Articles
I think a good case could be made for merging this article with Interdata to eliminate unnecessary duplication. Neilrieck (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interdata 7/32 and 8/32. 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/20110318042824/http://ccur.com/company_history.aspx to http://www.ccur.com/company_history.aspx

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) 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

First 32-bit minicomputer
...or not, as the "dubious" tag states, with reference to the Norsk Nord-5; it also says to discuss it, but there seems to be no discussion here, nor on the Norsk Data talk page, nor the Nord-5 talk page (unless I just failed to see it, which is always possible). So here is a discussion, or at least a request for one. Personally I have no idea at all nor any vested interest either way, but I'd be interested to find out. I'm presuming the likes of the IBM S/3X0 of the time were all considered mainframes, even the little ones, and I seem to be too lacking in imagination today to think of any other contenders. --Vometia (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the chronology, but it was commented on at the time as being the first, e.g. by this guy and this article. Their ads, and this 1973 article, on the other hand, claimed "first 32-bit minicomputer under $10,000", which is probably what they're remembered for. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

3200 series no longer produced?
The article states "... was sold to Concurrent Computer Corporation, who yet produce a vastly enhanced 3200-series of machines." I suspect this is no longer true. Concurrent Computer Corporation has changed hands a few times, and it now seems to be https://concurrent-rt.com/products/. The new Concurrent Real-Time doesn't seem to offer anything like the 3200 series - but does anyone know for sure? Riordanmr (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks.. This looks like a good catch. I'm 99.9...% certain that you are right.  The supporting link for that claim (itself puffery with its "vastly enhanced" wording) is dead. If it really is still true (which I strongly doubt!) then a live, reliable source is needed.  Meanwhile I have reworded it to the past tense. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)