You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It looks like the photo in the "SSEM Computer" section of the README is the Manchester Mark-I, not the Manchester Baby.
That photo shows only about half of the Mark-I too.
If you look for any images of the replica of the Baby at the Science and Industry museum, including the one in the Wikipedia article linked to in the README, you'll see that Baby has only 7 racks.
It's not surprising that Baby and parts of Mark-I look remarkably similar since the initial Intermediate Version of the latter was apparently constructed using parts or most of the former to build upon.
See also this Wired articlehttps://www.wired.com/2008/06/dead-media-be-5-2/, and in particular the last paragraph (as well as of course the photo the article is about).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thank you for pointing this out, they really do look similar! It's a bit embarrassing to have the wrong photo, so I'm really grateful for the tip. :-) 👍
It looks like the photo in the "SSEM Computer" section of the README is the Manchester Mark-I, not the Manchester Baby.
That photo shows only about half of the Mark-I too.
If you look for any images of the replica of the Baby at the Science and Industry museum, including the one in the Wikipedia article linked to in the README, you'll see that Baby has only 7 racks.
It's not surprising that Baby and parts of Mark-I look remarkably similar since the initial Intermediate Version of the latter was apparently constructed using parts or most of the former to build upon.
See also this Wired article
https://www.wired.com/2008/06/dead-media-be-5-2/
, and in particular the last paragraph (as well as of course the photo the article is about).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: