Talk:Amdahl Corporation

message: Just for the record: I removed two paragraphs of text which went on about IBMs later mainframe offerings and plans; if someone wants to use that material for covering IBM, please grab the stuff from the previous version of this article (via the history tab). --Wernher 21:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the original logo to the "Company origins" section. Terry Carroll 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of mostly IBM-relevant paragraphs

message: The original design, announce as the 470, was dropped and as far as I know it was never shipped. It was replaced by the 470V line, with the first model being the 470V/6. I have seen no Amdahl manuals referring to it as 470V6, 470/V6, 470 V6 or the like. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: At the time that the 470V/6 was current, Amdahl was quite proud of it's use of a Data General Nova 1200 as a console processor, although the large motherboard had reliability problems because it sagged. Was that console processor notable enough to justify including in the article? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the console notable? 

message: For the last several years, this article documented that the architectures supported by the XA and later Amdahl systems used 31-bit addressing.  Last weekend, in a series of edits by an anonymous editor (, , ). This was "corrected" to 32-bit.  I think this was a good-faith edit, but the editor was unfamiliar with the architecture and 31-bit addressing, and assumed it was an error for the more familiar 32-bit scheme.  I undid those changes, restored it back to the correct 31-bit ().  My undo, was itself undone with the comment Data are still 32 bits ().  I'm just documenting this here to avoid an edit war as I restore it to the status quo.  This was 31-bit, not 32-bit.  For an example of a discussion of this, see, e.g., the IBM pub at .  If there is still any belief that this should be called 32-bit, please discuss here and reach a consensus before changing it from the longstanding article content. TJRC (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an incorrect description of my edit; I did not change 32-bit addressing to 32-bit addressing. What I changed were 31-bit mainframes and 31-bit support, neither of which refer to addressing. Current IBM mainframes in the IBM System/360 line have 64-bit registers as opposed to 32-bit, and *that* is what Amdahl is not supporting. Please don't confuse a select edit with a reversion and don't confuse me with the poster at [212.152.181.180 ]. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  31-bit addressing 

message: Amdahl Corporation claimsAmdahl launched its first product in 1975, the Amdahl 470/6, which competed directly against high-end models in IBM's then-current System/370 family. When IBM announced the introduction of Dynamic Address Translation (DAT), Amdahl announced the 470V/6 and dropped the 470/6.
However, DAT was announced in 1972. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronism