Talk:IBM ESA/390

message: What is about Linux S/390 support? (e.g. for slackware).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.238.52.169 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the operating systems list. Guy Harris 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux on S/390 

message: The description of ESA/390 expanded storage has a link to a page describing
the expanded storage (EMS) used on x86 machines.  There is no discussion
of ESA/390 on that page, and it isn't obvious that it is really applicable.
Gah4 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So why don't you just WP:SOFIXIT... If that article is called "expanded memory" it should either be platform-neutral, or be renamed "expanded memory (x86)". --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed it. As it happens I'd just edited the correct "expanded storage" page. Martin Packer (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded storage 

message: Needs more work, I think. I started taking out some of the more glaring oversimplifications. Anyone else feel free to chip in. Martin Packer (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture and Memory 

message: While the 9672 was the successor to the ES/9000, it is no longer the latest and greatest; in fact, it is not even in production anymore. IBM ESA/390 should list IBM zEnterprise System, possibly giving the older names. I'm not certain how much of the 9672 information should remain; certainly not most of it. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The 9672s were the last ESA/390 machines, the 63-bit machines are listed and linked to in the "successor" article, z/Architecture.  Rwessel (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to read "...the largest and most notable ESA/390 machines" to qualify what the 9672's were.  64-bit machines belong on z/Architecture. Guy Harris (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  9672 no longer latest and greatest 

message: What was the difference, if any, between them?  I.e., are they sufficiently different that they should have different pages, or should this page cover them both?
If it should cover them both, should it be renamed "IBM ESA/370" (with "IBM ESA/390" as a redirect), with changes to the article to reflect that, or should it be named "IBM ESA/370 and ESA/390", or should it remain "IBM ESA/390"? Guy Harris (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ESA/390 was more a marketing point.  The first ESA/390 machines were little different in terms of ISA than the last ESA/370s, but continued evolution of the ISA did add considerable stuff by the time of the 9672-G6s.  IBM System/370, where ESA/370 redirects now, make much the same point.  I'd say this article could live under either name (ESA/370 or /390), with the other as a redirect.  But the current division is a bit weird.  The S/370 article covers S/370, 370-XA, and ESA/370.  XA was a *major* departure from 370 mode, but ESA/370 was a moderate addition to XA mode (and ESA/390 a minor addition to that).  If this gets re-split, S/370 in one article, and 370/XA, ESA/370 and ESA/390 in another would probably make the most sense (that would put all the 31-bit machines in one place), although I'd have no real objection to splitting out 370/XA to its own article (the two ESA versions should be in the same article no matter what).  Either that or merge this back into the 370 article.  Rwessel (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESA/370 vs. ESA/390 

message: IBM named the System/390 by that name, and then said that ES/9000 is the new product, albeit a family member of the 390.
S/390 became the later name.  HAL, IBM / VMS, WNT (Dave Cutler/DEC) / 390 + 9000 = 9390, a la 9370 : perhaps a Google Glasses sub-option.   IBM System/390 ES/9000 Enterprise Systems Architecture ESA family  Pi314m (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Making Sept. 5, 1990 a single day in the calendar