This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of IBM products article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Several keyboard/display units in the 3270 family could run in several keyboard configurations. In some cases the description mentions 2 screen configurations, in some cases one and in some cases none. Some examples:
The operating system sections has several invented names, e.g., OS/MFT, OS/MVS, multiple listings for the same systems and lack of structure. to clarify
Some computer systems have lists of components that are missing critical pieces, e.g., 7909 for 7094, even though those pieces are listed elsewhere. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Page 19 of History and Evolution of IBM Mainframes 2010-08-30 does list TSS and CP/67 as separate. And you are right, OS/2 did run on more than the PS/2; I ran it on my PC that I put together using separate components. I do not understand what you are saying about PCP, MFT and MVT but MFT and MVT were very different. As for OS/MVS, can you provide something authoritive? That is unlikely, especially since it is likely that IBM did use the acronym OS/MVS at some point of time. What is MVS (Multiple Virtual Storage)? - Definition from WhatIs.com includes the the name OS/MVS. Sam Tomato ( talk) 19:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Some computers are listed directly under Computers based on discrete transistors (1960s) and others are listed under subheadings. In particular, the 1130 and 7080 are listed under the main heading. I believe that they should be listed under subheadings and that the 1130 and 1800 should be listed together. Similarly, I believe that Stretch (7030) and Harvest should be listed under a common subheading. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I question whether a peripheral device such as an IBM 3838 array processor [1] qualifies as a Coprocessor; it has no data path either to the CPU or to the processor's memory, only to the I/O channel.
Similarly, the IBM 3092 Processor controller does not seem to qualify; its purpose is to regulate the CPU [2] rather than to augment its instruction set.
Notes
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
How can we mention Deep Blue, but not Watson, neither of them are sold equipment, but both are made of IBM equipment. I think a reference to Watson, and the accomplishments of the engineers that designed "him" should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.54 ( talk) 21:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Some display systems, e.g., 5080 Graphics System, are listed under printers/plotters. Either they should be moved or the heading changed. I'm not sure which is prefferable. If they are moved, I suggest that the graphics and non-graphics display systems be listed under a common heading. Thoughts? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 22:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
..I would suggest the printers have their own section as I don't understand why printers and displays should be grouped together. Luckydog429 ( talk) 04:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The section is certainly big enough to split. Peter Flass ( talk) 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
When an application or operating system is offered in multiple versions and releases, with periodic changes in the name, is it best to list them independently or to list them as items under a common family heading, e.g., should VM/SE, VM/SP, VM/SP HPO, VM/XA MA, VM/XA SF, VM/XA SP, VM/ESA and z/VM be treated as separate products, or should they and thae original Virtual Machine Facility/370 be listd under VM? My gut feel is that grouping them makes their relationship clearer. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 23:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Obviously the software category is minimal right now. Maybe it needs so more subtopics? Is there any unwritten rule regarding what should be included and what omitted? Peter Flass ( talk) 12:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Were these IBM products? Maybe type 3? Does anyone remember? Peter Flass ( talk) 00:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
DEBE Version for MVS to z/OS at http://www.cbttape.org/cbtdowns.htm File 011 and 081 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maschwab ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I know about DEBE and DITTO:
The Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter ( IBM MT/ST) would seem to belong in this article, but I'm not sure what the best section is for it. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Argggh - I thought to straighten this out, but IBM sites use both spellings for the same object. I give up. Peter Flass ( talk) 23:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
While not common, the IBM 2361 LCS could be attached to a 360 Model 67; Lauer, Hugh (1967). "Bulk core in a 360/67 time-sharing system". 1967 Fall Joint Computer Conference. AFIPS Conference Proceedings. Vol. Volume 31. Academic Press. pp. 601–609. {{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |laysummary=
, |trans_title=
, |month=
, |trans_chapter=
, |chapterurl=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: postscript (
link) describes use of the IBM 2361 on a simplex System/360 model 67.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
12:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
IBM produced a promotional movie for the 701 in which they referred to it as the Defense Research Calculator; I don't know whether that was a leakage of a name that was supposed to only be for development or whether it was authorized external nomenclature. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
List of IBM products#Computers based on vacuum tubes, the ASCC and the SSEC (1940s, 1950s) lists the ASCC, but that was a relay computer. Should it be moved to a separate section or should the heading be changed? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
While the US government was certainly the sponsor of the IBM 7030, IBM also sold it commercially, e.g., to CEIR. Shouldn't it stay under 7000 series?
Either way, IBM 7950 Harvest was strictly government. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 17:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of IBM products. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gfierheller.ca/Do_Not_Fold/Do_Not_Fold_Web.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/spaceWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been years since I've looked at this. Over that time the title has been outgrown and should be revised to:
Partial List of IBM Products, Services, and Subsidiaries
... and anything else you might think of. Entries for both services and subsidiaries should include from and to dates (unlike the machines that, while silenced, live forever). 67.160.196.6 ( talk) 01:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
IBM has been really involved in developing surveillance systems, including developing identification of skin tones by police cameras. I'm not sure which IBM article it belongs in, but it seems relevant. Here is a source about it https://theintercept.com/2018/09/06/nypd-surveillance-camera-skin-tone-search/ I would love help finding a home for this info on an IBM page. Tecuixin ( talk) 15:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I have created a draft article about IBM Copiers: /info/en/?search=Draft:IBM_Copiers I think it's complete enough to be published but it could still use more detail. I know there were significant quality issues with the Copier III, I am trying to find some sources. The copier market changed in the 80s with Japanese entrants, which put a lot of pressure on Xerox and I think helped drive IBM from the market. Would be good to add some more detail around that too. AVandewerdt ( talk) 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
IBM manufactured and sold Copier equipment and supplies from 1970 till it withdrew from the market in 1988.
Thanks Guy, I have made all the changes except the title itself since I don't know if I can do this. AVandewerdt ( talk) 02:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The page is now live. /info/en/?search=IBM_Copiers AVandewerdt ( talk) 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I added the Microfiche family to the list: /info/en/?search=List_of_IBM_products#Microfilm_Products I think a whole article on this is merited as it is another example of IBM exploring storage mediums and hitting a dead end. However there is very little information out there apart from the two sites I cited. I only learnt about these products though a FaceBook post from IBM Retirees. If I can find more info I will start a draft. AVandewerdt ( talk) 23:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to move all the Laser Printers to a separate section. Any suggestions or objections to doing this? I plan to create a new page to give more details on all of their laser printers. Most of the printers are not that notable (the 3800 and 6670 probably the most notable and they already have their own pages) but the family as a whole is certainly notable.
AVandewerdt ( talk) 02:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Some components, e.g., IBM 3036, are listed separately, while others, e.g., IBM 3082, are listed under the processor they support. Also, the processors are not listed in numerical order, e.g., IBM 3138, IBM 3148 and IBM 3158 follow IBM 3165. Shouldn't the article list computers in numeric order and consistently list components under the computers they support? Also, should the 2086, 2087 and 2088 be listed under the processors that use external channels? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 00:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe there should be some semblance of order and it appears that entries are generally sorted alphabetically. There are some examples of entries not sorted either alphabetically or chronologically. The most common problem is alphabetical entries placed ahead of numerical entries with no dates involved to override the order.
Keep this in mind while I get to the reason I started this talk. I recently added the IBM MC/ST entry:
I now want to add some additional Mag Card products and I suggest removing the year from the entry I previously created and adding the two additional products as sub bullets (total of three sub bullets):
Note that although I think entries should normally be arranged alphabetically, I believe the Mag Card family should be arranged chronologically to show product progression. Additionally, since the Mag Card products consist of the magnetic card unit and a special Selectric typewriter, I believe I should duplicate the entry in the Typewriters and dictating equipment section. The MT/ST precursor to the MC/ST was touted as an early form of word processing, which is why both products were added to the Document processing section so I would also duplicate it. (Yes, I saw the previous Talk entry for MT/ST placement.)
A case where I don’t believe the product progression makes sense is the IBM Office System/6 family, which is currently arranged by product number:
If you change this to product progression it would look like this:
I suppose it’s not that bad, but it doesn’t match the primary bullet level where most entries appear to be sequenced by product name/number (ignoring the aforementioned out-of-order letter entries).
So I have three questions:
1. What is the correct sequence for the entries at the primary bullet level? 2. Do you agree with my suggested presentation for the IBM Mag Card family? If not, what is your suggested presentation? 3. Do you agree I should duplicate the MC/ST and MT/ST in the Typewriters and dictating equipment section? If not, why not?
Thanx for your consideration. WarrenFW ( talk) 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The 731, 732, 733 and 734 were all for vacuum tube machines. Why is the 733 listed under List of IBM products#Solid-state computer peripherals? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 02:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Should the article cover only chargeable products, or also software available free of charge, e.g., OS/360? Should the article cover software that is bundled, e.g., the compilers in OS/360, the REXX interpreters for OS/2, TSO/E and VM/SP? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 11:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
We should have a section with plant numbers, bit like what they started here:
https://comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware.narkive.com/QSC14rB9/ibm-factory-codes
This list is not perfect...
1 Endicott, NY, USA 2 Poughkeepsie, NY, USA 2 Belgium 8 Netherlands 10 Rochester, NY, USA 11 Lexington, KY, USA 16 Sweden 17 Switzerland 23 ? 24 ?, ?, Japan? 26 Austin, TX, USA 27 ?, ?, Japan? 31 United Kingdom 35 France 40 Germany 43 Italy 44 Santa Palomba, Italy 51 Montpellier 53 ?, ?. USA? 55 Greenock, Scotland 58 Amsterdam, Netherlands 65 Dublin, Ireland 93b 71 Germany 72 Germany? 75 Hungary 78 Guadalajara, Mexico 83 Dublin, Ireland 99b 90 Wangaratta, Australia 91 Canada 92 Canada 93 Canada 97 Japan 98 ?, ?, Japan?
A list like this would be helpful for people trying to work out where something was made based on the serial number. Old IBMers can literally rattle off serial numbers of machines they worked on like '3624 97 02001' or '3890 01 17101'. (I worked on both of those).
There may be some ancient IBM Document that can help.... so please start looking. AVandewerdt ( talk) 03:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Have added a huge list of new machine types from here: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/systemSummary/GA22-7001-6_370_System_Summary_Dec76.pdf The scanning of the PDF is not good, so text searches don't work well. Either way, this not only has good descriptions of machines, but for a huge range of them it has pictures. AVandewerdt ( talk) 05:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I’d like to suggest breaking out communication controllers from the section “Input/output control units”. This list is huge, and anything that can be done to organize it better would be helpful. Peter Flass ( talk) 13:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Chatul: I’m of two minds. Looking at the old 3270, there is the 3271 local controller and the 3272 remote controller. Do they belong together or separated? I consider my changes to be a first cut at reorganizing a very long list, and expect it will be reworked quite a bit. Peter Flass ( talk) 13:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
(
Talk page watcher)
To:
Peter Flass and
Chatul.
Dear colleagues,
First of all: well done, Peter, on your recent efforts at consolidating those devices as you did. For what it's worth, I too think it's a good idea to split the remote/local devices into separate lists. You might also consider adding the 7171 DACU to the 'local controllers' list, since it was a channel-attached protocol converter; like a local version of the 3708/3710, in a way. Although the 7171 had been designed and manufactured at the Endicott plant (if memory serves me right), in the field (IBM Branch Office), its customer deployment was supported by Systems Engineers who focused on networking products.
In any case, thank you for your good work here.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(become
old-fashioned!)
16:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Some DASD control units were available in multiple model numbers, e.g., 2835-1, 2835-2, 3830-1, 3830-2, 3880-1, 3880-2, 3880-3, 3880-4, 3880-11, 3880-13, 3880-21, 3880-23. Should those be included, or only the product number? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of IBM products article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Several keyboard/display units in the 3270 family could run in several keyboard configurations. In some cases the description mentions 2 screen configurations, in some cases one and in some cases none. Some examples:
The operating system sections has several invented names, e.g., OS/MFT, OS/MVS, multiple listings for the same systems and lack of structure. to clarify
Some computer systems have lists of components that are missing critical pieces, e.g., 7909 for 7094, even though those pieces are listed elsewhere. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Page 19 of History and Evolution of IBM Mainframes 2010-08-30 does list TSS and CP/67 as separate. And you are right, OS/2 did run on more than the PS/2; I ran it on my PC that I put together using separate components. I do not understand what you are saying about PCP, MFT and MVT but MFT and MVT were very different. As for OS/MVS, can you provide something authoritive? That is unlikely, especially since it is likely that IBM did use the acronym OS/MVS at some point of time. What is MVS (Multiple Virtual Storage)? - Definition from WhatIs.com includes the the name OS/MVS. Sam Tomato ( talk) 19:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Some computers are listed directly under Computers based on discrete transistors (1960s) and others are listed under subheadings. In particular, the 1130 and 7080 are listed under the main heading. I believe that they should be listed under subheadings and that the 1130 and 1800 should be listed together. Similarly, I believe that Stretch (7030) and Harvest should be listed under a common subheading. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I question whether a peripheral device such as an IBM 3838 array processor [1] qualifies as a Coprocessor; it has no data path either to the CPU or to the processor's memory, only to the I/O channel.
Similarly, the IBM 3092 Processor controller does not seem to qualify; its purpose is to regulate the CPU [2] rather than to augment its instruction set.
Notes
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
How can we mention Deep Blue, but not Watson, neither of them are sold equipment, but both are made of IBM equipment. I think a reference to Watson, and the accomplishments of the engineers that designed "him" should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.54 ( talk) 21:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Some display systems, e.g., 5080 Graphics System, are listed under printers/plotters. Either they should be moved or the heading changed. I'm not sure which is prefferable. If they are moved, I suggest that the graphics and non-graphics display systems be listed under a common heading. Thoughts? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 22:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
..I would suggest the printers have their own section as I don't understand why printers and displays should be grouped together. Luckydog429 ( talk) 04:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The section is certainly big enough to split. Peter Flass ( talk) 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
When an application or operating system is offered in multiple versions and releases, with periodic changes in the name, is it best to list them independently or to list them as items under a common family heading, e.g., should VM/SE, VM/SP, VM/SP HPO, VM/XA MA, VM/XA SF, VM/XA SP, VM/ESA and z/VM be treated as separate products, or should they and thae original Virtual Machine Facility/370 be listd under VM? My gut feel is that grouping them makes their relationship clearer. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 23:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Obviously the software category is minimal right now. Maybe it needs so more subtopics? Is there any unwritten rule regarding what should be included and what omitted? Peter Flass ( talk) 12:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Were these IBM products? Maybe type 3? Does anyone remember? Peter Flass ( talk) 00:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
DEBE Version for MVS to z/OS at http://www.cbttape.org/cbtdowns.htm File 011 and 081 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maschwab ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I know about DEBE and DITTO:
The Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter ( IBM MT/ST) would seem to belong in this article, but I'm not sure what the best section is for it. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Argggh - I thought to straighten this out, but IBM sites use both spellings for the same object. I give up. Peter Flass ( talk) 23:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
While not common, the IBM 2361 LCS could be attached to a 360 Model 67; Lauer, Hugh (1967). "Bulk core in a 360/67 time-sharing system". 1967 Fall Joint Computer Conference. AFIPS Conference Proceedings. Vol. Volume 31. Academic Press. pp. 601–609. {{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |laysummary=
, |trans_title=
, |month=
, |trans_chapter=
, |chapterurl=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: postscript (
link) describes use of the IBM 2361 on a simplex System/360 model 67.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
12:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
IBM produced a promotional movie for the 701 in which they referred to it as the Defense Research Calculator; I don't know whether that was a leakage of a name that was supposed to only be for development or whether it was authorized external nomenclature. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
List of IBM products#Computers based on vacuum tubes, the ASCC and the SSEC (1940s, 1950s) lists the ASCC, but that was a relay computer. Should it be moved to a separate section or should the heading be changed? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
While the US government was certainly the sponsor of the IBM 7030, IBM also sold it commercially, e.g., to CEIR. Shouldn't it stay under 7000 series?
Either way, IBM 7950 Harvest was strictly government. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 17:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of IBM products. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gfierheller.ca/Do_Not_Fold/Do_Not_Fold_Web.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/spaceWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been years since I've looked at this. Over that time the title has been outgrown and should be revised to:
Partial List of IBM Products, Services, and Subsidiaries
... and anything else you might think of. Entries for both services and subsidiaries should include from and to dates (unlike the machines that, while silenced, live forever). 67.160.196.6 ( talk) 01:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
IBM has been really involved in developing surveillance systems, including developing identification of skin tones by police cameras. I'm not sure which IBM article it belongs in, but it seems relevant. Here is a source about it https://theintercept.com/2018/09/06/nypd-surveillance-camera-skin-tone-search/ I would love help finding a home for this info on an IBM page. Tecuixin ( talk) 15:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I have created a draft article about IBM Copiers: /info/en/?search=Draft:IBM_Copiers I think it's complete enough to be published but it could still use more detail. I know there were significant quality issues with the Copier III, I am trying to find some sources. The copier market changed in the 80s with Japanese entrants, which put a lot of pressure on Xerox and I think helped drive IBM from the market. Would be good to add some more detail around that too. AVandewerdt ( talk) 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
IBM manufactured and sold Copier equipment and supplies from 1970 till it withdrew from the market in 1988.
Thanks Guy, I have made all the changes except the title itself since I don't know if I can do this. AVandewerdt ( talk) 02:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The page is now live. /info/en/?search=IBM_Copiers AVandewerdt ( talk) 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I added the Microfiche family to the list: /info/en/?search=List_of_IBM_products#Microfilm_Products I think a whole article on this is merited as it is another example of IBM exploring storage mediums and hitting a dead end. However there is very little information out there apart from the two sites I cited. I only learnt about these products though a FaceBook post from IBM Retirees. If I can find more info I will start a draft. AVandewerdt ( talk) 23:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to move all the Laser Printers to a separate section. Any suggestions or objections to doing this? I plan to create a new page to give more details on all of their laser printers. Most of the printers are not that notable (the 3800 and 6670 probably the most notable and they already have their own pages) but the family as a whole is certainly notable.
AVandewerdt ( talk) 02:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Some components, e.g., IBM 3036, are listed separately, while others, e.g., IBM 3082, are listed under the processor they support. Also, the processors are not listed in numerical order, e.g., IBM 3138, IBM 3148 and IBM 3158 follow IBM 3165. Shouldn't the article list computers in numeric order and consistently list components under the computers they support? Also, should the 2086, 2087 and 2088 be listed under the processors that use external channels? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 00:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe there should be some semblance of order and it appears that entries are generally sorted alphabetically. There are some examples of entries not sorted either alphabetically or chronologically. The most common problem is alphabetical entries placed ahead of numerical entries with no dates involved to override the order.
Keep this in mind while I get to the reason I started this talk. I recently added the IBM MC/ST entry:
I now want to add some additional Mag Card products and I suggest removing the year from the entry I previously created and adding the two additional products as sub bullets (total of three sub bullets):
Note that although I think entries should normally be arranged alphabetically, I believe the Mag Card family should be arranged chronologically to show product progression. Additionally, since the Mag Card products consist of the magnetic card unit and a special Selectric typewriter, I believe I should duplicate the entry in the Typewriters and dictating equipment section. The MT/ST precursor to the MC/ST was touted as an early form of word processing, which is why both products were added to the Document processing section so I would also duplicate it. (Yes, I saw the previous Talk entry for MT/ST placement.)
A case where I don’t believe the product progression makes sense is the IBM Office System/6 family, which is currently arranged by product number:
If you change this to product progression it would look like this:
I suppose it’s not that bad, but it doesn’t match the primary bullet level where most entries appear to be sequenced by product name/number (ignoring the aforementioned out-of-order letter entries).
So I have three questions:
1. What is the correct sequence for the entries at the primary bullet level? 2. Do you agree with my suggested presentation for the IBM Mag Card family? If not, what is your suggested presentation? 3. Do you agree I should duplicate the MC/ST and MT/ST in the Typewriters and dictating equipment section? If not, why not?
Thanx for your consideration. WarrenFW ( talk) 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The 731, 732, 733 and 734 were all for vacuum tube machines. Why is the 733 listed under List of IBM products#Solid-state computer peripherals? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 02:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Should the article cover only chargeable products, or also software available free of charge, e.g., OS/360? Should the article cover software that is bundled, e.g., the compilers in OS/360, the REXX interpreters for OS/2, TSO/E and VM/SP? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 11:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
We should have a section with plant numbers, bit like what they started here:
https://comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware.narkive.com/QSC14rB9/ibm-factory-codes
This list is not perfect...
1 Endicott, NY, USA 2 Poughkeepsie, NY, USA 2 Belgium 8 Netherlands 10 Rochester, NY, USA 11 Lexington, KY, USA 16 Sweden 17 Switzerland 23 ? 24 ?, ?, Japan? 26 Austin, TX, USA 27 ?, ?, Japan? 31 United Kingdom 35 France 40 Germany 43 Italy 44 Santa Palomba, Italy 51 Montpellier 53 ?, ?. USA? 55 Greenock, Scotland 58 Amsterdam, Netherlands 65 Dublin, Ireland 93b 71 Germany 72 Germany? 75 Hungary 78 Guadalajara, Mexico 83 Dublin, Ireland 99b 90 Wangaratta, Australia 91 Canada 92 Canada 93 Canada 97 Japan 98 ?, ?, Japan?
A list like this would be helpful for people trying to work out where something was made based on the serial number. Old IBMers can literally rattle off serial numbers of machines they worked on like '3624 97 02001' or '3890 01 17101'. (I worked on both of those).
There may be some ancient IBM Document that can help.... so please start looking. AVandewerdt ( talk) 03:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Have added a huge list of new machine types from here: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/systemSummary/GA22-7001-6_370_System_Summary_Dec76.pdf The scanning of the PDF is not good, so text searches don't work well. Either way, this not only has good descriptions of machines, but for a huge range of them it has pictures. AVandewerdt ( talk) 05:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I’d like to suggest breaking out communication controllers from the section “Input/output control units”. This list is huge, and anything that can be done to organize it better would be helpful. Peter Flass ( talk) 13:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Chatul: I’m of two minds. Looking at the old 3270, there is the 3271 local controller and the 3272 remote controller. Do they belong together or separated? I consider my changes to be a first cut at reorganizing a very long list, and expect it will be reworked quite a bit. Peter Flass ( talk) 13:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
(
Talk page watcher)
To:
Peter Flass and
Chatul.
Dear colleagues,
First of all: well done, Peter, on your recent efforts at consolidating those devices as you did. For what it's worth, I too think it's a good idea to split the remote/local devices into separate lists. You might also consider adding the 7171 DACU to the 'local controllers' list, since it was a channel-attached protocol converter; like a local version of the 3708/3710, in a way. Although the 7171 had been designed and manufactured at the Endicott plant (if memory serves me right), in the field (IBM Branch Office), its customer deployment was supported by Systems Engineers who focused on networking products.
In any case, thank you for your good work here.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(become
old-fashioned!)
16:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Some DASD control units were available in multiple model numbers, e.g., 2835-1, 2835-2, 3830-1, 3830-2, 3880-1, 3880-2, 3880-3, 3880-4, 3880-11, 3880-13, 3880-21, 3880-23. Should those be included, or only the product number? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)