User talk:Ufmuhamm1

It seems that the attempt to include decades in the section headers is confusing and misleading. Most of the sections titled after a particular decade include several developments from other decades.

The ENIAC was from the 1940s, not the 1960s. The text of this page says it was developed in 1949, but it was really 1946 (as your source says).

The sentence about the IBM Roadrunner has several typos.

The "Mid-1970s Cray Era" actually extends through the 1990s. Give the section a more appropriate title. The Cray MTA-2 is spoken of as though it is actually a current system. In fact, none have been sold in the past 10 years.

Ditto for the "1980s Supercomputer History in Japan." The history extends far beyond the 1980s. The Fujitsu VP-2000 is also spoken of in the present tense. But it has not been available since 1995. Ditto for the VPP-550, but it is now in the Computer History Museum.

Info on Hitachi and NEC also ends in the 1990s. What has happened to the Japanese since then in the supercomputer arena?

The list of top supercomputer vendors should be updated.

An important element of the top supercomputer list is where they are located and who owns them.

The section on "Early Systems with a few processors" is badly formatted and lacking in complete sentences. It needs to be fixed.

The graphs on architecture have captions that are too small to be read. The graphs in the old version of the paper were much more useful, even if not up to date.

It is good that you have added a section on massively distributed parallel architecture.

A lot of the sections you removed at the end were irrelevant and deserved to be be gotten rid of.

There are extra spaces between several paragraphs. These are distracting and should be removed.