Talk:UNIVAC 1100/2200 series

Someone want to categorize the machines with their introduction dates in "Category:19XX introductions" format? I've done the first two. If no one jumps I'll do it in the next few days. Joshua McGee (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge of stubs

Would it not make sense to merge the stubs on the various machines into this article, so that the reader can see and compare the machines without a lot of extra jumping around? The stubs are very short and get even shorter if you factor out the redundant context information that they wouldn't have to include as part of this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the really short stubs; where an article had more than a couple of paragraphs, I've left it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "Vacuum tube machines not mutually compatible" section belong here?

The article starts out saying "The UNIVAC 1100/2200 series is a series of compatible 36-bit computer systems, beginning with the UNIVAC 1107 in 1962, initially made by Sperry Rand."; that would seem to indicate that machines with model numbers matching "110x", but not compatible with the 1107, don't belong here. Most of them have pages of their own; the only exception is the 1104, and, if that was "was a 30-bit version of the 1103", the information about it could be added to the UNIVAC 1103 page. Guy Harris (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I've put a couple of band-aids in to explain why they started numbering the solid-state computers at 1107. The tube computers section could be shrunk down to a paragraph, if it's still too much of an aside for this article, but I think the overview is still useful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sentence about the earlier vacuum-tube computers to say "the 1107 model number was in the same sequence as {list of earlier machines}, but wasn't compatible"; I think that states the "the 1107 was a brand-new ISA, even though its model number was in the 110x series" a bit more strongly. (Perhaps it should also note that not all the pre-1107 110x machines were compatible with each other, i.e. to emphasize that it was a model number series but not a compatible line of computers.)

It also lists the earlier 110x models, with links; is that an adequate replacement for the vacuum-tube computers section? The links let the reader read about the earlier machines, if they're interested, and anything that's in the vacuum-tube computers section that's not in the pages or sections to which the links go should be put there. Guy Harris (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too much weight on the tube machines - I'll have another crack at this. We don't need section headings for each of the tube models and they have their own articles (mostly). --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Model numbers based on binary system?

OK, I'll bite. Take out the 1110, and which other model number is a valid binary number? My recollection is that the original 1101 (not in this series) was given that number because the project headwquarters was in room 13 somewhere, but I don't have the details. Can somebody help? In the meantime, it seems better to remove the reference. Groogle (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these machines still supported?

The article says: "The series continues to be supported today by Unisys Corporation as the ClearPath Dorado Series." But I wonder why. Why should they? Important software with forgotten source code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.118.174 (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it security-related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.118.174 (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest insert new heading ‘Applications’

Insert a new head ‘Applications’, as eg as under Wikipedia ‘ Elliott 803’. As it stands the Univac record has little/ none presentation of uses these machines were applied to. I suggest that the Elliott 803 record has a useful set of headings. Not suggesting a one size fits all, but some semblance of a standard style format would seem to helpful in subjects like these. The univac entries are numerous so will need careful subbing to retain its usefulness and keep manageable- may require splitting out? For now, maybe make a single Applications head covering all models? 2A02:C7E:34C2:B00:B11E:563E:F523:DD85 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]