Talk:List of early third generation computers/Archive 1

=Inappropriate article for Wikipedia= The title of this proposed article inappropriately uses the term "integrated circuit" to describe devices that are not such using its current meaning, that is "monolithic integrated circuit". It is true that in the past the IC has had a number of meanings, for example from the Drummer 1963 reference:

In today's terminology only item (c) is an integrated circuit. Only a few of the computers listed in this proposed article are integrated circuit computers.

This list then is an inapposite list of dissimilar things, apples, roses and broccoli. Specifically it aglomorates:
 * Computers using monolithic integrated circuits on pcbs (third generation computers), e.g. RCA Spectra
 * Computers using monolithic integrated circuits in hybrid packages (third generation computers), e.g. MARTAC 420
 * Computers using discrete transistors in hybrid packages (second generation computers), e.g. IBM computers using SLT
 * Computers using discrete transistors with other components in hybrid packages (second generation computers), e.g. DEC computers using Flip Chip

Perhaps the article could be a description of the evolution of the packaging of the logic in a computer but then it should be so titled and more descriptive with only a few examples, perhaps along the lines of the Drummer reference.

Including computers built with discrete transistors on a list with this title is just inconsistent with the many RS's that define the generations of computing. Tom94022 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that title needs to be changed (for ex. to "List of hybrid circuit computers").
 * I created this list to fill the gap between transistorized (discrete) general-purpose computers and microprocessors (period 1960-197x - hence IC; hybrid packages will be included; there are lists for mechanical/electro-mech*, vacuum tube and transistorized computers but I couldn't find a list for IC computers in that period).--89.25.210.104 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Since this is a list article there should be a main article, "Hybrid computers" - there is no such article because no such category exists in any RS on the history of computers. There is a generally accepted interger list of four generations of computers based up logic circuits with many RSs.  Since these are is an interger categories those computers have characteristics of both are put in one list or the other depending upon the predominant type of logic.  For example, some computers are characterized as generation 2, transistor computers even though some of their higher power logic circuits use tubes.  In the case of computers build with hybrid devices they can be in any one of the three later categories depending upon the predominance of the devices used in the hybrid devices of the computer, discrete transistors (gen 2), monolithic ICs, not microprocessors (gen 3) or microprocessors (gen 4).  This article and its main article are OR about a gap that does not exist in the integer categorization of computers and therefore not permissible in Wikipedia.  Tom94022 (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * In other words, there will be no point in submitting this list to review?--89.25.210.104 (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting list and IMO potentially an interesting article but I would suggest several changes starting with the title and moving the article away from just a list to include more things about why some computers were built with hybrid devices and the types of hybrid devices used therein. Hybrid devices can contain any combination of passive devices, discrete semiconductors (diodes or transistors), monolithic ICs - not micorprocessors, microprocessors, RAM, Flash, etc. so the article should distinguish the type of hybrid used in the computer.  You would have to be very careful if you get into categorizing them according to the "standard" four (or five) generations of computing.  For example some of the early DEC Flip Chip modules contain a hybrid device which is just a diode array - do DEC computers built with those hybrid devices get listed herein and if so are the second generation?  IBM SLT uses a different type hybrid device (discrete transistors and diodes).  The Fairchild micrologic hybrids use monolithic ICs.  So rather than organizing the article into two chronologies I would suggest a discussion of types of hybrids and examples of computers using them would be a article that would be suitable for Wikipedia.
 * Note there is already a Hybrid computer article but it is about analog-digital hybrid computation. So a "Hybrid circuit digital computer" article is a useful addition.  Just my 2 cents :-)  Tom94022 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarification (shift of focus) on list contents: computers using early integrated circuits in custom CPU (and later monolithic, before or near the first commercial CPU 4004) - unless they can't be mixed? Title will be probably changed to List of early IC computers (or List of early IC computers before CPUs).

Evident hybrids (like PDP-8 and other present on transistorized list) will be removed before submitting to a review, other hybrids (with ?) will remain to be judged by others. --MarMi wiki (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Are u user 89.25.210.104? He has already agreed that, "I agree that title needs to be changed (for ex. to "List of hybrid circuit computers")." If not I suggest it is inappropriate for you to change the focus of this article.  Regardless, an article on the subject covering early, middle and late ICs not microprocessors would more accurately and commonly be called "List of third generation computers" and would be a very long list - most every mainframe, mini and server computer from the mid-60 into the 80s or 90s.  Computers using hybrid circuits built from discrete transistors are already listed in Transistor computer and also listed herein so those would have to be removed if u undertake this monumental task go ahead. I'm not sure such a long list is appropriate for Wikipedia. Tom94022 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's me (my internet provider changed and now I have a dynamic IP). I agreed that title needs to be changed to something more appropriate to the list contents. Now I see that "List of third generation computers" seems more appropriate to what I wanted to do. Also I'm interested mostly in small [by weight; "personal"] computers (the newer the less weight), so maybe the title should be: "List of small third generation computers".
 * I don't think that my list will be very long, it should be at most comparable to List_of_AMD_microprocessors (but I may be wrong) - with taking into account that I'm not going to put ALL computers.
 * Current plan (till first submit to review): small ("personal") IC (IC, mono IC and third generation) computers (I may entirely omit larger computers) from 1961 to about 1971. --MarMi wiki (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome back :-) As I recall the dialog, this article was going to list computers with logic primarily constructed from hybrid integrated circuits.  Depending upon the components in the hybrid circuits such computers could be second, third or even fourth generation computers.  If the article is now to be a list of "small" third generation computers you immediately have a problem with the definition of small; for example, some of BUNCH's 'small' computers were pretty big; e.g. IBM AS/400.  In the end IMO such an article to be qualified for Wikipedia would have to list all such small computers from BUNCH, most minicomputers, many servers and all sorts of special purpose computers - a large list.  I suppose u can start with a stub and hope enough other editors will help it get filled out.  But if that is the case, why limit it to "small"?
 * My suggestions:
 * Retitle the draft to what you want it to be.
 * Rewrite the lede to better describe what should be listed
 * Edit the existing list to eliminate all second generation computers, i.e. those using HICs containing discrete devices not monolithic ICs.
 * When the above is complete, link the list from the third generation computers section
 * I do think such a complete list could be in Wikipedia, but I think it is a big job and absent such an effort IMO any incomplete list is probably not worthy of Wikipedia. Tom94022 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * After some thinking, how about:
 * 1. List of lightweight third generation computers
 * 2. With IC/mono IC/3rd gen logic and weighing less than the heaviest computer in previous year (some exceptions may take place). Main section: commercial mono/3rd gen, with smaller entry subsections: hybrid/early IC or early military hybrid/IC/3rd gen. Till 1971 (4004) or till first computer with CPU.
 * 3. To be sure, does an IC logic (not documented as monolithic) count as 3rd gen or hybrid (from your comments I gather that it's the latter)?
 * If it's impossible, how about the same list but with following restrictions: all first commercial computers from 1965 (or laters with known weight), later computers lightest from the heaviest one from previous year and so on. With earlier computers in "early/hybrid" section.
 * If it's impossible to limit a list by weight, then how about a List of third generation computers (1960s-1970s) - but then I'll be adding only (mostly) lightweight ones (like right now). Or turning list to timeline or something else.
 * If all from above is not an option: "List of early (hybrid) IC (third generation) computers" (from first IC till first commercial mono IC computers). But I'm afraid that list will be (already is) a short one. --MarMi wiki (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * BTW there is an interesting generational question - how to categorize a computer using in microprocessor constructed from SSI or MSI as opposed to one contructed with monolithic microprocessors? Most if not all of IBM's mainframes beginning with the S/360 were microprogrammed using a microprocessor constructed first with HICs but then with monoIC (either SSI, MSI or even LSI).  Most published material cut off third generation computers circa 1974 which suggests such SSI/MSI microprogrammed computers were considered fourth generation.  Tom94022 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From the point of view of this list it's simple - they doesn't count, because S/360 series weight too much :)
 * I guess that it's the same situation as with IC [hybrid] and mono IC, so they will be hybrid/early 4th gen. --MarMi wiki (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO a List of lightweight third generation computers as you propose it is original research not permitted in Wikipedia. You would have to find a reliable source to define "lightweight third generation computers" in order to qualify for Wikipedia after which you could prepare one or two articles. Of course that is just my opinion, before you put too much effort into such a project you might try to get other opinions, perhaps the village pump? Tom94022 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW as an indicator of the magnitute of this task for another project I did an inventory of the early minicomputers at the Computer History Museum. By my count they have 32 unique models (80 units in all, manty duplicates) from 17 vendors spanning the period from 1962 to 1970 - many of which would fall into the third generation computer list. This incomplete inventory is only a small fraction of what would be included in any complete list which clearly would be WP:OR absent any WP:RS. Tom94022 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So that leaves "List of early third generation computers" option only?
 * Where: 3rd gen ⇔ mono IC, IC ⇔ ?hybrid IC --MarMi wiki (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There are a number of "List of early ..." articles in Wikipeida; however, the few I've looked at seem to have a justifiable date for segmentation. For example, List_of_early_color_feature_films segments in 1936 with the advent of technicolor.  Given the third generation of computers is already a bounded segment of computers and it had very short time span further segmentation seems inapporpriate to truncate the list in this case.  What would be the rational for splitting the third generation apart?  Tom94022 (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of a list(s) similar to List_of_early_microcomputers (I don't know how complete it is; maybe with some short descriptions [I don't want to write those]). It contain few IC computers, kits, diy and complete early ucomputers.
 * Then maybe List of early integrated circuit computers ending around 3rd gen (mono IC)? --MarMi wiki (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note the List_of_early_microcomputers explains its cut off date.
 * If by "3rd gen (mono IC)" you mean the first three generations as listed in the integrated circuit generation table then that is a reasonable cut off but it goes into the 1980s so it is a long list and large undertaking. It is also probably WP:OR since I as best I recall most manufacturers did not disclose whether the logic of their computers was predominantly SSI, MSI or LSI and therefore there are no WP:RSs for inclusion.
 * If by "3rd gen (mono IC)" you mean something else then u need a WP:RS for the cut off.
 * I rewrote the lede to reflect my understanding of what you were intending - things apparently have changed (or I misunderstood). May I suggest you spend some time on the lede of this draft to explain exactly what it intends to list including a cut off date with justification and then include a few examples from each end of the proposed time period. Maybe then we can get other folks interested in discussing whether this is worthy of Wikipedia.  Tom94022 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Note the List_of_early_microcomputers explains its cut off date.

But it doesn't have WP:RS to back it up.

Determining if its mono IC is already quite confusing, so no division by SSI, MSI or LSI.

Definitions that need clarifiaction/explanation (? ⇒ I'm not sure):
 * IC ⇒ monolithic integrated circuit
 * mono IC ⇒ monolithic IC
 * hybrid IC ⇒ IC without discrete elements (no SLT) and not entirely mono
 * planar IC ⇒ mono IC?
 * third generation ⇒ computers with IC and hybrid IC, or only with mono IC?
 * 3rd gen ⇒ third generation
 * commercial ⇒ not only for military use

It seems that first computer in 1961 on the list is already a mono IC.

I wrote the lede on the creation of the draft and didn't pay too much attention to it later, sorry :)

"This is a list of early digital, general purpose computers using hybrid (HIC) and monolithic integrated circuits (IC) as their primary logic elements - with Small-scale integration CPUs (SSI) and Large-scale integration CPUs (LSI), not to be confused with Microprocessor CPUs. IC and HIC computers first came available from about 1961 for military use, until reliable LSI ICs became economically available in the mid to late 1960s and commercial monolithic IC computers started to appear. The list is organized (..)."

Date range: 1961-1965/6 or to 1967/8 (one of the early use of 3rd gen phrase in manual) --MarMi wiki (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Terms can have different meanings in different context. The term IC is ambiguous without context. As I understand it in the context of computer generations:
 * If Hybric ICs (HIC) used in a computer as its primary logic contains the following semiconductor components:
 * Discrete transitors with no monolithic ICs (MICs) then such computers are second generation (Transistor).
 * SSI, MSI and/or LSI MICs but with no microprocesssors then such computers are third generation (IC)
 * Microprocessor MICs then such computers are fourth generation (Microprocessor)
 * The now proposed list remains an inapposite list of dissimilar things, apples, roses and broccoli, specifically as I now understand the list will contain only second generation computers using HICs and only third generation computers using SSI (which could be in HICs). I continue to think that absent a WP:RS for this agomleration such a list is inappropriate under Wikipedia rules.
 * Actually I think List_of_early_microcomputers does have reliable sources to back up its cut off date. The article is about "early" microcomputers, that is those in kit form and points to the dates when assembled ones became readily available.  I don't see any clear cut in and out in this proposed article.  Tom94022 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From the start it was supposed to be a list no 2 (I created this list to fill the gap between transistorized (discrete) general-purpose computers and microprocessors (period 1960-197x - hence IC; hybrid packages will be included; - by "hybrid packages" I meant non-monolithic IC, but not SLT) - third generation, computers after transistors and before microprocessors. I think the problematic part was the existence of hybrid ICs.
 * What sources in List_of_early_microcomputers you have in mind? There's no citations (or bibliography) to indicate a source for end date (general knowledge?). "generally marks the end" doesn't sound too reliable to me.
 * Clear cut from List_of_early_microcomputers in this list: List of early third generation computers with cut off at the firsts generally commercial* computers. (* by generally commercial I mean computers not available only/mostly for military/government).
 * "First computers available not only for the military or government generally marks the":
 * "end of early third generation computers ..."
 * "start of generally commercial* third generation computers ..."
 * In what way it differs from List_of_early_microcomputers (except popularity/generality, target audience, kits and that they were generally commercial* from the start)?
 * kits ≈ military; cut off by commercial target --MarMi wiki (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Three sources in List_of_early_microcomputers are: "and the 1977 introduction of the "Trinity" of Commodore PET, TRS-80 and Apple II"
 * The proposed cut off date in this article draft for "early", is the "start of generally commercial* third generation computers" which according to the current draft is 1965 (SDS 92, Myriad (Micronor I) , μ-LINC)  This suggests the article should be entitled "Early Military Third Generation Computers (prior to 1965)." with no commericial third generation computers at all.


 * On the other hand the article now has commerical third generation computer cut off date of 1970 with no justification.
 * Whatever the qualifying prefix(es) the article should be entitled "List of qualifying prefix(es) Third Generation Computers" since that "third generation" the most common description of such computers.
 * What ever the qualifiers chosen are they need to be referenced, generally accepted and then consistently applied to the systems listed. The current draft fails this test.  Tom94022 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But there's no direct (inside the list) citations around 1977 (but maybe they are in those three articles, didn't check any of them) why those 3 computers are considered as a milestone.
 * If you clicked on the Wiki links you would find they are all introduced or shipped in 1977. The author of the article explained why he chose the date (kits to fully assembled) and all editors to date have accepted his definition.  If you don't like the date you are free to flag the article but just because you don't understand or agree with the choice of the cutoff is no justification for you not justifying the cut off date you choose for this draft article. Tom94022 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Early": I just checked that third generation computer era started in mid 60s (1964-1965) according to some sources (1964:, , ; 1965: , , , , ; snippets: , , , ), probably because they started to appear as "generally commercial*". Think of military computers as a kits in List_of_early_microcomputers.
 * Of course that 1970 computer can't be counted as early and will be removed.
 * So then it could be List of early third generation computers, with citations for cut off date in description of the list? MarMi wiki (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What ever the qualifier(s) that are chosen for the cutoff date to make a third generation computer "early" they should be referenced, generally accepted and then consistently applied to the systems listed. The current draft fails this test.  There is no stated cutoff date - Gordon Bell for one has the entire era ending in 1985, so 1970 may be "early."   Also the references above establish a start date of 1964 or 1965 but the list starts in 1961 so maybe early means before 1964.  Before you spend too much time adding and deleting systems I really suggest you work on the definition of the article, specifically the justification for any time period that is a subset of the time period generally allocated to "third generation computers."  Tom94022 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I'm officially out of ideas.
 * By "early" I meant computers before the 3rd gen era start and max 2 years after (3rd gen: 1965-1970, about 5 year duration). --MarMi wiki (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

So then, what to do with this draft? Mark for deletion? --MarMi wiki (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I know of no reliable source for a definition of "early third generation computers." There are several definitions out there which are probably unreliable since they tend to cut off the third generation with the shipment of the fourth generation, which is simply not true since many third generation computers were first shipped well into the fourth generation.  Personally I like the Bell definition as the RS, that is ending about 1985 or so, but I bet even after then many high end computers were VLSI based without microprocessors for logic.  Absent a RS for "early third generation computers." you will have to come up with a definition of "early" which is not OR and which is acceptable to other editors.  Personally I can think of three dates that might be acceptable to other editors, that is:
 * shipment of the first commercial third generation computers - according to your data that would be 1965 and earlier and all military except for the SDS 92, Myriad, uLinc and any others that turn up
 * shipment of DECs first commercial third generation computer on the basis that DEC dominated the minicomputer market - that would be 1968 and earlier
 * first shipment of IBMs S/370 on the basis that IBM dominated the computer market - that would be 1971 and earlier
 * There are plenty of RS for DEC's and IBM's dominance. Personally I would accept any of the definitions as long as the lede stated the definion and gave RS's for the facts behind the proposed cutoff.  Note mine is only one of what will ultimately be multiple editors opinions as to whether the article should be included.  Tom94022 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for suggestions, I'll probably try the third option first. --MarMi wiki (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The changes made make the article IMO suitable for Wikipedia. Tom94022 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

= Edit the Main article? =

You might consider adding some of the individual computers listed here into the main aricle. That article could certainly be improved with some of the examples you've found and listed here. Tom94022 (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is I don't know which computers would be "worthy" (except of course the first ones from 1961 and 1965). --MarMi wiki (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If I add some of them, where to put them? In article text or as a table? --MarMi wiki (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead put a few of the obvious ones ("firsts") into text using cites from this article. DEC and a few technological leaders might be added to the main article but this article is the place for lists. Tom94022 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"early" third generation in title, date range redefined
1. I edited the introduction to the list, changing the date range to 1961-1972 (until first commercial microprocessor computer from List_of_early_microcomputers, with room for later 3rd gen computers if it doesn't make the list too big).

2. I may have unnecessarily changed the title to "early third generation" (I forgot that microprocessors are in the 4th generation), so "early" doesn't really applies. --MarMi wiki (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the start of the 4th generation is perfectly appropriate - the challenge is now filling in through to 1972 in both military and commercial. I'm afraid its a big list :-(  Tom94022 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

= What to add 1=

This is really a big task and may be original research.

Here is a list of computers shipping in the time frame that are not already in the list but that may be candidates.

From "Minicomputers", EDP Series, No. 4, AUERBACH Info, Inc., (c)1971.

From Data Processing Technology and Economics, Second Ed., Table II 2.11.1, M Phister, (c)1979

The dates are referencable to the sources identified but establishing the fact that they are in fact third generation will require research to find a RS. I have the above in a spreadsheet so I can format it in lots of ways if you want to go forward. Tom94022 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of them already in my sandbox, but I didn't check if they are all really 3rd gen. I'll add them when I check that.
 * I added links to SEL 810A/B manuals in list above. --MarMi wiki (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW there are about 20 computers or data processors listed at List_of_military_electronics_of_the_United_States only a few of which are currently in this article Tom94022 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspect of the remaining above computers should make the article. At this point I think I have done enough editing in this draft so perhaps now is the time for MarMi wiki] to work on this list and when resolved the article should be suitable for submission. [[User:Tom94022|Tom94022 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There are now 28 commercial computers listed in the article and another 28 above. However, Dead Medium: Dead computational platforms, dead mainframes, and their dates list by my count about 196 dead computers introduced between the SDS92 and 1972. So what is sufficient to make this article worthy of Wikipedia? When do we stop? Tom94022 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actual number will be lower, because not all computers have their technology documented.
 * I checked some of them (years 1965-1966) and found one hit (SDS_Sigma_series; searching for "x y z" computer monolithic on books.google.com). --MarMi wiki (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither Google Scholor nor "monolithic" is particular good for searching this issue, u would be better using "integrated circuit" (with quotes) in the more broader Google space. My guess is most of the non-mainframe space will turn out to have used ICs after 1966 which is a large number.  Tom94022 (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Statistics

 * 211 unique models in total
 * 69 are not 3rd generation
 * 21 are of an unknown generation
 * 87 are 3rd generation, of which 34 are listed in article
 * Statistics updated Tom94022 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of what to add
At 10 minutes per unknown model there is about 22 hours of additional work required to categorize them. Is it worth it? Are u willing to put in the effort? Even if so, when done is this WP:OR? Tom94022 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, but it will take some (more) time.
 * I don't think that this list will be more WP:OR than for ex. list of transistorized computers --MarMi wiki (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add the aerospace/military to this list and after the unknowns have been resolved make it the main body of the articleTom94022 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Military computers are very low on my to do list, sorry :) --MarMi wiki (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No big deal - I can do it if we agree.
 * the more I work on this talk list, the more I am convinced the a gen 3 extract is what should be in the main article. FWIW I like the idea of Month/Year more than just Year although there are some minor differences between RS's. BTW I have a list of about 34 additional entries to add to the above, all of which are likely gen 3. Tom94022 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed the ping (probably because of the space - maybe try using underscore next time [but re and user seems to work]. Or because I visited the page directly in one of my later edits).
 * If by "gen 3 extract" you mean adding to the article some of the more known computers from the list, then I don't mind.
 * Even Year is sometimes unreliable, and for Month it's worse. But I think that for the first years (1961 and 1965) Months could be added (if you find them all that is).
 * (34 entries) You can add them, and by the way, thanks for making a table with computers and years, it's very helpful :) --MarMi wiki (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

=All models or just first by a manufacturer=

BTW one issue is multiple models from one manufacturer, e.g., DEC. The article currently lists just the DEC 8/i as DEC's first IC computer; there were several after the 8/i and before 1972 - do we list all or just the first for a manufacturer? Tom94022 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's no need to list all models (ex. PDP-8/i/l/e/m/...). Note about later models in a given family of computers should be enough. --MarMi wiki (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We are already a bit inconistant in that we list IBM twice, S/360 M85 and S/370 M155 & M165, but only list DEC once leaving out the historic PDP11 family amongst others.  Maybe just families in the date range would work, but that maybe quite subjective.  On the other hand, we do have a list of all models above and when we are thru with it, why not just move it into the article.  It would be a bit of work to fix all the references but I'm willing to work on it if u agree that's the way to go. Alternatively, we should probably list the PDP 11 and DECSYSTEM 10 as two separate families.  Tom94022 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a lazy person, so at the beginning I would prefer something simple:
 * merge families into one starting year
 * list only first(s) IC model(s) from given family (with link to page similar to PDP)(unless the first IC model doesn't mark the abandoning of later transistorized versions of PDP) with note that there were later (more known) models
 * Later the list could be expanded/divided - depending on number of computers on the list or in given family
 * I don't mind if you start expanding/dividing the list already. --MarMi wiki (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

= Request page notice? =

I suggest you add a page notice such as Template:Editnotices/Page/List_of_computer_hardware_manufacturers to this article. I think you have to request an Administrator do so at submit an edit request to an admin. The page notice linked above would work but I don't know if they can be shared. Tom94022 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

= How long were 3rd Gen Computers Built? =

Talk:History_of_computing_hardware_(1960s–present)

= When are refererences necessary and if so, how many =

This recent edit added a number of references which are likely unnecessary. I suggest the rule should be: Multiple redundant references clutter the article. FWIW, in some case I have been editing the linked Wikipedia article to add links to date and/or IC usage in the Wikipedia article so that only a link is required in this article. I'm not proposing removing any existing references but suggest energy is better directed towards resolving the status of the computers in Section 3 above. Tom94022 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the linked Wikipedia article establish both the date and the use of ICs no references are necessary
 * If not then up to one reference for date and the use of ICs is sufficient.
 * About added refs in this diff:
 * SDS 92 - in its article there's no mention that it's the first commercial IC computer, and since it's "generally known" to be first, then two refs feel appropriate (and I found second ref by accident),
 * Spectra - again no information in its article that it has derivatives/copies,
 * and I didn't wanted to edit their articles (more work required). --MarMi wiki (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

How to finish
The article should be ready for submission when all the redlinked manufacturer/models in the article are resolved. The old table of commercial computers accessible thru history may have most of the references. FWIW, when there is a relevent Wiki article I have for the most part added the references to the Wiki article and then Wiki linked from this article. Some of the dates may be inaccurate but all the relevent sources are identified so any corrections necessary can be left until the article is approved. agree? Tom94022 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any red links in the article, does that mean it's ready for the submission?
 * I'm a little confused about to what I agree for (to submit?).
 * There are a few without ref or link. We should resolve the comments such as "likely" and "?x" and move any 2 gen out at which point I think the article is ready for submission.  I used likely when it seemed clear from things like date and size that a model had to be of a gen but I don't think that is acceptable to Wikipedia.  The one exception would be date and size with prior models already 3 gen.  Early on it seems vendors featured ICs in there advertisement but by the late 60s it wasn't significant so we don't have explicit proof beyond a few where there are schematics available.  Tom94022 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * (This time ping worked) --MarMi wiki (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * After checking article history: "Myriad I is 2nd gen" - what source says so? --MarMi wiki (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As best I can recall none of the original references or any of my searches made it clear what gen Myriad I is but I did find a pretty explicit ref that Myriad II used ICs suggesting It was an advancement over Myriad I. I'm travelling right now and won't be able to research this until late Sunday. If u have any refs add it back and I will look at them. Tom94022 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "The various sections of the device (Micronor I), having been produced on separate pieces of silcon, were connected together in a single package." In other words, hybrid IC - making Myriad I 2nd gen. We probably should update the Marconi Myriad article at some point.Tom94022 (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that easy: monolithic micronor, monolithic FROM micronor 2 or microlin/micronor (pp. 94, 146). It was also claimed as the first third generation/integrated circuit computer. --MarMi wiki (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The three references are ambiguous as to internal construction; nothin in any of them rebuts the statement that Micronor 1 was hybrid IC and Micronor 2 was monolithic IC. Tom94022 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up this talk in preparation for submitting article. The only thing I think we need to do is decide what to do with the models still in the article that we do not have an RS as to generation. I suggest we move them into Talk section 1 above and then submit the article. Tom94022 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Everything moved and no errors - time to submit!Tom94022 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving, submitting. --MarMi wiki (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Time to remove the Citation Style tag?
The Citation Style tag has been on this article since July 2019 with no activity. While the tag is valid the two different styles, list format vs table format are a direct consequence of the two different types of RSs for the Aerospace section (list) versus the Commercial section (table) of the article. I started on converting Aerospace into a table format and gave up after several hours and little progress; it is not clear that it is worth the effort and in the process some references are likely to be eliminated. There are two conditions upon which the tag can be removed: Is anyone willing to take on the task of converting either section into a consistent style? Depending upon the responses to this talk we may either fix the issue, or conclude for one of the above reasons, consensus or silent consensus, to remove the tag. Tom94022 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue.
 * ... the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus").