Talk:Cray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] SX-6 picture irrelevant/"un-historic"?

Why is there a picture of SX-6. It's a NEC system marketed by Cray in the US. It definitively is not an original Cray product and does not reflect historic achievements of Cray. You should at least put a picture of X-1. --Anonymous #1

[edit] Sarbanes-Oxley

I'm not sure the section "Cray Inc. and Sarbanes Oxley Compliance: Common Example of the Hard-Hitting SOX" belongs in the Cray article. I think it belongs in an article about Sarbanes Oxley Compliance. --Anonymous #2

I think this is exactly where it belongs! I quit Cray just shortly after the hulabaloo over the SBO non-compliance. They are in terrible shape and this is just points out their managment problems. --Anonymous #3

[edit] Intro text unclear re S. Cray's startups

The first paragraph is confusing. Cray start the first company in 1972? Did he leave it in 1976? I mean, it sounds like he started both companies but only one is explicited mentioned as a company he started and well - its just confusing. By reading it I have no idea what really happened. --Anonymous #4

  • I've tried to make the first paragraph a bit clearer now. Letdorf 11:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] split suggestion for Computers section

A list of Cray computers needs to be on a seperate article, as they were created by multiple companies (Cray Research, Cray Computer Corp., and Cray Inc.), so to have them listed on the article for Cray Inc. (this article) is innacurate IMO.

Slark 08:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, this article currently covers both CRI and Cray Inc, and the Cray-3 originated at CRI, leaving the Cray-4 as the only model not strictly related to CRI or Cray Inc. Letdorf 13:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not intending to be a part of this discussion, but just a note on capitalization: You've blanked Cray Computers, which used to be a redirect to Cray Inc.. If you intend to split the page, make sure it is to Cray Computers, or if not, then ask an admin to speedy the page. Thanks =) Kareeser|Talk! 05:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
sorry about blanking the Cray Computers redirect, me bad :( I changed the template suggestion to Cray supercomputers - is this more appropriate? Slark 03:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want to split that section, I'd recommend list of Cray supercomputers as the article title. —Mulad (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I changed the suggested section split title to list of Cray supercomputers. Slark 08:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The list isn't all that long, and this IS an an all-encompassing Cray article. Maybe if someone dug up the details for each supercomputer (or series, I guess), it would warrant a split. --CCFreak2K 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the split suggestion, as the consensus is to keep the section here Slark 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do I update the external link on the page

Sorry if it's a newby quesion but how do I edit the External link on the Cray Inc. page from Fred Gannet's Cray Supercomputer FAQ to Fred Gannett's Cray Supercomputer FAQ , gotta have tthatt exttra t ? Gannett 10:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, fixed it for you now. Letdorf 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cray I faster or slower than ILLIAC IV?

This article on Cray states that "The Cray-1 was a major success when it was released, faster than all computers at the time except for the ILLIAC IV." But the linked article on ILLIAC IV states that "(ILLIAC IV) was finally ready for operation in 1976, after a decade of development that was now massively late, massively over budget, and outperformed by existing commercial machines like the Cray-1." These two articles seem to contradict each other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.50.113.68 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the ILLIAC article contradicts itself. It says at the top of the page that the Cray-1 was faster, but says at the bottom of the page that the Illiac began operation in 1976, the same year the Cray-1 was released with roughly the same performance. --Blainster 08:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Having written the majority of both articles, let me explain. The ILLIAC actually started running in 1974, although at the time it was really just the processor and was very unreliable. NASA spent a considerable amount of time trying to get it to the point where people could use it for real-world programs, which was complete by 1976, when it started running commercial loads.
In theory, the ILLIAC could boast about 250 MFLOPS, about the same as the absolute best performance of the Cray. However, the Cray made it much easier to actually reach that level of performance -- remember, the Cray was the fastest scalar computer too, it wasn't just good at vectors. Overall, a program running on both was much more likely to run faster on the Cray, but that said, for the kind of stuff NASA was running on the ILLIAC, it would likely outperform the Cray.
I admit its somewhat complex, which is why I left most of the discussion out of the articles. Maury 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/a/Talk%7ECray_a7a0.html"