Talk:Seymour Cray/Archives/2014

Cray 3 & bleeding-edge technology --incorrect?

I wonder if this statement here is correct: In the past Cray had always avoided using anything even near the state of the art. Note that in the design of his first computer, the 6600, he moved from them-current germanium-based transistors to silicon, a new & unproven technology at the time. That turned out to be a good decision -- by the time the machine was built reliable silicon transistors were available. But silicon was pretty close to state-of-the-art when Cray decided on it around 1960.

The difference with the Cray 3 was that gallium arsenide transistors turned out to have a difficult birth compared to silicon. (In fact, you could assert that they were never successful as transistors, only becoming so when integrated circuits were developed.) A large part of this 'failure' was that the component manufacturers were unable to produce reliable GA components in volume by the time they had promised them to Cray.

So I suggest that this the Cray 3 part of the article should be rewritten.T-bonham (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute

The article is protected for 24 hours. Please take this opportunity to reach consensus on the article contents, backed up with verifiable, reliable citations. —EncMstr 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no dispute, there's just a persistent vandal (LAS1180 and his sockpuppets, see the sockpuppets page) whose M.O. is hacking the biographic data of various pages. The current text is backed by citations. Paul Koning (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I have been spending some time reverting and deleting the persistent copyright violations from this user. Longer term semi-protection may be useful due to the sockpuppetry. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeep designed on a Cray? Citation needed.

The end of the page says "Crays' Jeep Cherokee vehicle was designed using a Cray supercomputer.[7]", and points to http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Cray.Pepper.html but I see nothing on that page, or any of the Jeep Cherokee pages here on Wikipedia, that suggest this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.62 (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that this happened. We sold Cray systems to MOST of the major auto manufacturers for design work at that time.

http://www.devbistro.com/resumes/blobmogg

( Not to mention that BOEING designed with a Cray as well..)

Aeb1barfo (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Death

I have fixed some censorship in the section on his Personal Life (death, actually), restoring the name of Daniel Rarick, the careless driver who caused Cray's death. This had been removed for some unknown reason by JiMidnite. That driver was cited by police for causing this fatal accident; there is no question that he was responsible, so no reason excise his name from Wikipedia. T-bonham (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that it is censorship seems a bit rash. It doesn't really matter who the careless driver was, especially since it was someone Cray didn't know. I agree with the point of view that it is well sourced and a fact closely tied to Cray so deserves to be included, but I can also see that having the guy mentioned is purposelessly hurtful, especially to family and friends of Rarick. —EncMstr (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly as 'hurtful' as the death of Seymour was to his family & friends!

People who recklessly & carelessly cause the death of others ought to suffer some hurt. T-bonham (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are double standards in modern day society. Murder someone and you are lucky not to end on death row. Kill by being reckless, negligent or inebriated, than you are the victim… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.100.116 (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

CDC Computers (CDC 3600)

The assertion that the CDC 6600 was the replacement for the 1604 is false to fact. I learned computing on one of the first CDC 3600s, at Michigan State in the sixties. This was the successor machine to the 1604 and was succeeded in turn by the 6xxx line (as I recall, 6400,6500 & 6600)

At present this is "original research". I just happen to know because I was "there". But this should be documented somewhere and a cite shouldn't be hard to track down. -Steve

98.209.38.117 (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite correct.

The CDC 3000 series was the replacement for the 1604's. Actually, largely a remake of the 1604 design with newer technology. The 6000 series came quite a bit later. In fact, the 3000 series sold well enough that it supported the company while Cray was designing the 6000 series.T-bonham (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)