Talk:Transaction Processing Facility

message: The reference to "core" as a synonym for "main memory" is very (thirty years?) out-of-date. Should not all references to "core" or "core memory" be changed to "main memory" (or perhaps some other more modern term)?
Charlesm20 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core? 

message: This page could probably do with a little minor NPOV editing.
Seconded, reads like an IBM press release  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.163.11 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: go ahead and edit to improve the article.  that's what wikipedia is about.  --stmrlbs|talk 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: you should consider adding VFA locking in this section. Paul Austin 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Locking

message: "However, C language programming is much easier to obtain skilled people in, so most if not all new development is done in C"
I'm not sure this is really true.  Many shops are Assembler only or Assembler-principally.
: At present. But how long do the people working there have to go until retirement? 
: I'm not being facetious. I'm currently on a week's course in mainframe fundamentals because I'm 25 and IBM is concerned at the possibility of, to be blunt, everyone who knows about mainframes dying off. I'm finding it fascinating, but I'm not reasonably about to start hacking away in zSeries assembler. With C and some practice and guidance, I might be able to start poking around the edges of things.
: Of course, I'm not going to, since "agile" and Java is really where I want to go :-) But I never turn down the opportunity to learn about something outside my experience. 62.56.52.163 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That I certainly agree with. 62.56.52.163 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  C 

message: After a big edit of MVS I concluded that the whole set of articles about IBM mainframe operating systems from System/360 onwards needed to be re-structured to  minimise overlap and to make clearer the evolutionary relationships between these operating systems (notably in memory management, which is historically a major distinguishing feature). There is already some support for this proposal. Please add comments at Talk: MVS. Philcha 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure of articles about IBM mainframe operating systems

message: As part of the proposed restructure of articles on IBM mainframe operating systems (above), I've rewritten Job Control Language to: cover IBM's DOS/360 and its descendants as well as OS/360 and its descendants; focus more on the facilities and flavour of the 2 JCLs rather than on details of  some statement types and some of their options. Please comment in Talk: Job Control Language. I'd be particulary grateful for more info on DOS/360 and its descendants, especially after 1980 - I only used DOS JCL a handful of times, and only in the late 1970s. Anything about the pre-DOS System/360 operating systems would also be appreciated. 
The rewrite does not currently take account of Truthanado's point in Talk: Job Control Language about use of "JCL" by computer suppliers other than IBM, which may entail further restructuring of articles about JCLs. Philcha 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of [[Job Control Language]] in progress