Talk:List of IBM products

message: 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:
*3180 and 3192 could run as any of
*#24x80 
*#24x80 primary, 32x80 secondary
*#24x80 primary, 43x80 secondary
*#24x80 primary, 27x132 secondary
*#Custom
*3290 could run from 1 to 4 screens, each of which could be split by software into multiple explicit partitons. Without using explicit partions it could run as
*#24x80
*#24x80 primary, 31x160 secondary
*#24x80 primary, 62x80 secondary
*#24x80 primary, 62x160 secondary
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
*CP/67 had nothing to do with TSS/360
*OS/2 ran on more than the PS/2
*OS/360 had three options: PCP, MFT and MVT. In release 15/15 the list changed to PCP, MFT II and MFT. Eventually the PCP option was dropped. None of these options was a separate system.
*OS/VS2 release 1 was SVS and OS/VS2 release 2 through 3.8 was MVS. There was no OS/MVS.
*MVS/370 is a collective term referring to OS/VS2 (MVS), MVS/SE and MVS/SP Version 1.
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)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous errors, inconsistencies and omissions. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Structure of ''Computers based on discrete transistors (1960s)'' 

message: I question whether a peripheral device such as an IBM 3838 array processorAs opposed to, e.g., the sum of products (SUMP) box for the 360/40 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 CPUE.g, serve as a console interface rather than to augment its instruction set. 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a coprocessor? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deep Blue, but no Watson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Classification of display systems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grouping of releases and versions under a common heading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Software 

message: 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)
replies: text: Document processing?  That's where other word processing products got placed. Guy Harris (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of MT/ST? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Multiplexor vs. Multiplexer 

message: While not common, the IBM 2361 LCS could be attached to a 360 Model 67;  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)
thread_title:  IBM 2361 LCS on 360/67 

message: 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)
replies: text: That is mentioned here and in the article IBM 701. What would you add?--agr (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states that the term Defense Calculator was used during development; it neither contains the word research nor mentions the use of the term in a promotional movie, after development. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

text: See Pugh "Building IBM" p.170 for the reasoning leading to that name.99.65.176.161 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature for IBM 701 

message: 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)
replies: text: It depends on whether you parse that heading as "computers based on vacuum tubes, including the ASCC and the SSEC" or as a list of "computers based on vacuum tubes", "the ASCC", and "the SSEC".  The former is wrong for the Mark I (but not the Mark III and the Mark IV); the latter is just a list and doesn't imply that the ASCC or the SSEC used vacuum tubes (although the SSEC did). Guy Harris (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a separate heading, "IBM's early, one-off computer systems," for ASCC, SSEC and NORC would be appropriate. "Computers based on vacuum tubes" would then be reserved for machines that were produced in some quantity. --agr (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I've added new sections, Government and Research/Advertising, that gather together most the one-off machines.99.65.176.161 (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of relay computers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Classification of 7030 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.gfierheller.ca/Do_Not_Fold/Do_Not_Fold_Web.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829025255/http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/140x/A24-1495-4_1401_and_1460_Bibliography_Oct67.pdf to http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/140x/A24-1495-4_1401_and_1460_Bibliography_Oct67.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314091228/http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/140x/A24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf to http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/140x/A24-1401-1_1401_System_Summary_Sep64.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The first three just moved, the fourth had a space in the URL where it should have had a slash.  All fixed. Guy Harris (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Name needs updating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Surveillance and facial recognition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sort order in Computers based on SLT or discrete IC CPUs (1964–1989) 

message: 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:
* IBM MC/ST: Magnetic Card/Selectric Typewriter (Mag Card); 1969
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):
* IBM MC/ST: Magnetic Card/Selectric Typewriter (Mag Card)
** IBM Mag Card; 1969
** IBM Communicating Mag Card; 1971
** IBM Mag Card II; 1973
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:
*IBM Office System/6
**IBM 6/420: stand-alone information processing unit; part of the Office System/6; 1978
**IBM 6/430: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1977
**IBM 6/440: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1977
**IBM 6/442: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1978
**IBM 6/450: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1977
**IBM 6/452: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1978
If you change this to product progression it would look like this:
*IBM Office System/6
**IBM 6/430: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1977
**IBM 6/440: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1977
**IBM 6/450: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1977
**IBM 6/420: stand-alone information processing unit; part of the Office System/6; 1978
**IBM 6/442: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1978
**IBM 6/452: information processor; part of the Office System/6; 1978
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)
thread_title:  MC/ST (Mag Card) Family 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Guy Harris (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that the 350 and 355 are also listed there. Fixed. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of old drums 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is a product? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I assume #10 is Rochester, MN. Peter Flass (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM Plant numbers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Truly awesome reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Model numbers?