Talk:IBM 650

message: The 650 was not IBM's first business computer as was previously stated in this entry; that was the 702 (not the 701 that I mentioned in the edit summary of the main page.  --Brouhaha 02:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  702 

message: I definitely remember the name as BLIS - BLISS would have stuck in my memory.  I have written the guy at Murdoch whose web site shows BLISS to try to find out where s/he got the name from.  I guess we have to leave it as BLISS until I get an answer, but I used it briefly, and I am 99% it was BLIS! Ah! I see from his references - but I still think they are wrong! 
This is supported by [],
[] Jpaulm 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLIS not BLISS 

message: Runcible was interesting as a Fortran forerunner, it had just 3 types of variables: In, Jn & Xn where was a number from 1 to 50 (as there were 50 words per drum "track"),
There was also a Statistical Bell Interpreter, which instructions for statistical handling.x
Event: mexico is celebrating 50 years of computing as an IBM-650 was installed at the University of Mexico (UNAM) in 1958, I did program it, for seismic research.
MEXICO -- AGS -- --Dagofloreswi (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other IBM-650 programming tools 

message: In the article on the IBM 650 the first photo doesn't appear for me, although it does for Mike who put it up there.  All I get is a box containing the following text: "IBM 650 front panel, showing bi-quinary indicators", and 2 overlapping squares.  If I click on the squares, I just get text, including what I guess to be Esperanto.  Is anyone else having this problem, or am I the only one?! BTW I get it in both Netscape and IE.  Thanks. Jpaulm 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM 650 picture of front panel 

message: This text "One of the 650's most significant features was that, if processing was interrupted by a "random processing error" (hardware glitch), the machine could automatically resume from the last checkpoint instead of requiring the operators to restart the job manually from the beginning." has been reverted.
The 650 could be set, "Error Sense", to execute the instruction set in the console switches when an error was detected.  That's it; anything else that happened was determined by the application's programmer - there were no 650 provided checkpoints (as the quoted text implies) and no automatic resumption.  "Error Sense" was NOT "One of the 650's most significant features". 69.106.243.72 (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert edit re "Error Sense" 

message: Is it appropriate to mention the common term "one and a half address computer"? "Sloptimization" (assigning the next instruct to an address 5 word times away instead of looking up instruction timings)?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know a reliable source that uses the term "sloptimization"? If so, please add that source as a reference to the article "optimum programming". Thank you. --DavidCary (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: The article claims that the 650 was the first mass produced computer in the world. It has a reference to back it up but it's rather weak (vendor claim, mentioned in passing with no further support). The IBM 701 article also claims that it was the first mass produced computer, although with no supporting reference. Which one is right?  Stepho  talk  21:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Pugh, the 701 shipped before th 650; the distinction might be "mass produced" - there were only 18 701's shipped.  Tom94022 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: True, 19x 701 vs 2000x 650 according to each article. I'd hardly count 19 as "mass produced" . Our articles should at least be consistent among themselves.  Stepho  talk  23:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't u then correct the 701 to eliminate "mass produced." You  might footnote this article noting 2000 as "mass produced." Tom94022 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can. I just preferred to gather some facts/opinions first, in case I had missed something.  Stepho  talk  22:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the 701 was listed as "mass produced" because it wasn't a one-of-a-kind machine (it wasn't the first mass produced computer, but IBM 701 doesn't say it was, it just says it' was IBM's first mass produced mainframe computer).   Perhaps there's another term for that - I'd suggest "series produced", but series production redirects to mass production.... Guy Harris (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Nobody objected, so I changed the IBM 701 page to say 'series production'.  Stepho  talk  21:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What about UNIVAC? Why doesn't that count as the first mass produced computer.  Because IBM said so?--Zebbie (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First mass produced computer in the world 

message: The side panel is not missing; instead, it has been slid left (to the back) to open the box and offer an inside view. Zechenhund (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked carefully at the full-size image and I agree. I have replaced "an exterior side panel is missing" with "an exterior side panel is open".  Stepho  talk  09:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of EMMA - side panel 

message: : You reverted my edit saying the 650 was marketed as a less expensive but slower machine compared to the 701 and 702. saying: "Need supporting references. I find it hard to believe that IBM would put the word "slower" in any marketing material."
The first way IBM communicated the slower speed was in the machine's name  "IBM 650 Magnetic Drum Data-Processing Machine." People in the field understood that magnetic drum was much slower than Williams tube or core memory used in the 700 series.  But the text of IBM's announcement makes it clear that the 650 was in a different class:
"The following is the text of an IBM press release distributed on July 14, 1953.
International Business Machines Corp. announced today the introduction of a new commercial electronic decimal calculator designed to meet the vast accounting and computing requirements in areas between those now served by its "giant brains" and the widely-used smaller machines such as the 604 Electronic Calculating Punch and the Card-programmed Calculator. ... All of the calculator's arithmetic operations are controlled through a program which may be entered either automatically from punched cards or manually from the operator's console and stored in the form of magnetized spots on the surface of a drum only 4" in diameter and 12" long, spinning at 12,500 revolutions a minute. The calculator's arithmetic unit operates at electronic speeds. It can: accumulate 10 digit numbers to form a 20 digit total at the rate of 200 a second; multiply 10 digit numbers by 10 digit numbers to develop a 20 digit product at the rate of 60 a second,"
By contrast the announcement of the 704 (the 701 had a short marketing life) shows the much higher speed.
"The Type 704 multiplies or divides in 240 microseconds, or approximately 4,000 operations per second. The doubling of speed in arithmetic, plus the use of index commands, makes the Type 704 a very versatile and capable data processing machine.
The price difference was also large $4000 per month for a basic 650, $32,000 per month for a basic 704. The current text suggests the the 650 was in the same class as the 701 and 702, just "general purpose." That just isn't true. --agr (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Arnold that "slower and less expensive" are appropriate in this context.  Whether IBM used the terms is irrelevant; they are factual and supported by IBM's use of "big" 701 to relatively describe the 650 in the original 650 announcement. Tom94022 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the 650 was slower than the 701 line - probably as a speed/cost trade-off. But you can see in the ad copy that you presented above that IBM shows the speed of each processor but does not compare them to each other. It is bad advertising practice to ever say that you have a slower processor for sale. You do not have a fast processor and a slow processor. But you can have a fast processor and an even faster processor. So my complaint about the edit was that you said that IBM marketed one as slower - which was never true. IBM marketed a fast one and a faster one but did not compare them to each and definitely never used the word "slow". I'm am happy if you reword to say that the 650 was slower and/or more affordable but we have to be careful to not say that IBM marketed it as slower. Marketed as more affordable certainly, but not marketed as slower.  Stepho  talk  00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how about IBM "offered it" as a slower and less expensive ... ?Tom94022 (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - I'm quite happy with that rewording.  Stepho  talk  06:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me. I've made the edit as I understand it.--agr (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Slower?