Talk:List of IBM products

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous errors, inconsistencies and omissions.[edit]

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
    1. 24x80
    2. 24x80 primary, 32x80 secondary
    3. 24x80 primary, 43x80 secondary
    4. 24x80 primary, 27x132 secondary
    5. 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
    1. 24x80
    2. 24x80 primary, 31x160 secondary
    3. 24x80 primary, 62x80 secondary
    4. 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)[reply]

Page 19 of History and Evolution of IBM Mainframes 2010-08-30 does list TSS and CP/67 as separate. And you are right, OS/2 did run on more than the PS/2; I ran it on my PC that I put together using separate components. I do not understand what you are saying about PCP, MFT and MVT but MFT and MVT were very different. As for OS/MVS, can you provide something authoritive? That is unlikely, especially since it is likely that IBM did use the acronym OS/MVS at some point of time. What is MVS (Multiple Virtual Storage)? - Definition from WhatIs.com includes the the name OS/MVS. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Computers based on discrete transistors (1960s)[edit]

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)[reply]

What is a coprocessor?[edit]

I question whether a peripheral device such as an IBM 3838 array processor[1] 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 CPU[2] rather than to augment its instruction set.

Notes

  1. ^ As opposed to, e.g., the sum of products (SUMP) box for the 360/40
  2. ^ E.g, serve as a console interface

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Blue, but no Watson[edit]

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)[reply]

Classification of display systems[edit]

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)[reply]

..I would suggest the printers have their own section as I don't understand why printers and displays should be grouped together. Luckydog429 (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section is certainly big enough to split. Peter Flass (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping of releases and versions under a common heading[edit]

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)[reply]

Software[edit]

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)[reply]

DITTO and DEBE[edit]

Were these IBM products? Maybe type 3? Does anyone remember? Peter Flass (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DEBE and DITTO were around in the 1960's; I don't recall whether they were developed by IBM or by customers. The original DEBE was stand-alone, but the misnamed MVTDEBE[NB 1] ran under OS/360. The current version of DITTO is chargable.
Have you checked the SPLA catalog of programs from bitsavers? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DEBE Version for MVS to z/OS at http://www.cbttape.org/cbtdowns.htm File 011 and 081 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maschwab (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ MVTDEBE ran under OS/360 PCP and MFT, but not under MVT.

Here's what I know about DEBE and DITTO:

After I gave credit for DEBE to Ron Greene I was made aware of Lowell DeFrance, who has a very compelling story. I added Lowell so both stories are here; it was the fairest thing I could do. I’m certainly not qualified to do anything else. This is potentially unfair to one of these two gentlemen, but I don’t know which.
DEBE (Does Everything But Eat) was developed by Ron Greene at the IBM Glendale Laboratory, Endicott, NY. Since it was a stand-alone deck I believe it was a BPS program. It was already in use at the System/360 Computer Center by the time I started in 9/66.
DEBE (Does Everything But Eat) was developed in 1965 by Lowell DeFrance, an SE at the IBM Data Center, Chicago, IL. Lowell successfully submitted DEBE, which was loaded from tape, to PID and got it released as a Type III program. Lowell was not involved with the DOS and MVS DEBEs.
I don't know much about DITTO other than it ran on DOS and did everything DEBE did. I spent several years on call 24/7/365 as IBM Level 2 support (VSE/VSAM, DL/I, VMTAPE, VMBACKUP, MVS/RACF) and Change Team (MICR/OCR). I believe every DOS customer I ever encountered had DITTO (tough to fix a broken VSAM Catalog without a hex print). VSE/DITTO was included in SSX/VSE and later VSE/SP, as a conglomeration of products designed to simplify purchase and installation. DOS/360 and successors WarrenFW (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed DL/I reference.WarrenFW (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of MT/ST?[edit]

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)[reply]

Document processing? That's where other word processing products got placed. Guy Harris (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplexor vs. Multiplexer[edit]

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)[reply]

IBM 2361 LCS on 360/67[edit]

While not common, the IBM 2361 LCS could be attached to a 360 Model 67; Lauer, Hugh (1967). "Bulk core in a 360/67 time-sharing system". 1967 Fall Joint Computer Conference. AFIPS Conference Proceedings. Vol. Volume 31. Academic Press. pp. 601–609. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, |trans_title=, |month=, |trans_chapter=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) 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)[reply]

Nomenclature for IBM 701[edit]

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)[reply]

That is mentioned here and in the article IBM 701. What would you add?--agr (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
See Pugh "Building IBM" p.170 for the reasoning leading to that name.99.65.176.161 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of relay computers[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Classification of 7030[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article Name needs updating[edit]

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)[reply]

Surveillance and facial recognition[edit]

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)[reply]

IBM Copiers[edit]

I have created a draft article about IBM Copiers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IBM_Copiers I think it's complete enough to be published but it could still use more detail. I know there were significant quality issues with the Copier III, I am trying to find some sources. The copier market changed in the 80s with Japanese entrants, which put a lot of pressure on Xerox and I think helped drive IBM from the market. Would be good to add some more detail around that too. AVandewerdt (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Copiers" shouldn't be capitalized in

IBM manufactured and sold Copier equipment and supplies from 1970 till it withdrew from the market in 1988.

as it's referring to copiers in general. The title should probably either be "IBM copiers" or "IBM Copier family", for the same reason, and the "TNF based Photoconductor" section should have some capitalization ("Photoconductor", "Organic", "Electrophotography") removed.
You might want to link photoconductor, in addition to copier. Guy Harris (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy, I have made all the changes except the title itself since I don't know if I can do this. AVandewerdt (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now live. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Copiers AVandewerdt (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM MicroFiche[edit]

I added the Microfiche family to the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products#Microfilm_Products I think a whole article on this is merited as it is another example of IBM exploring storage mediums and hitting a dead end. However there is very little information out there apart from the two sites I cited. I only learnt about these products though a FaceBook post from IBM Retirees. If I can find more info I will start a draft. AVandewerdt (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the draft, it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IBM_Microfilm_Products
If there are any reviewers here, feel free to review! AVandewerdt (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Laser Printers[edit]

I would like to move all the Laser Printers to a separate section. Any suggestions or objections to doing this? I plan to create a new page to give more details on all of their laser printers. Most of the printers are not that notable (the 3800 and 6670 probably the most notable and they already have their own pages) but the family as a whole is certainly notable.

AVandewerdt (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I.e., putting them into a subsection of "Printer/plotter equipment and terminals"? Guy Harris (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The category: "Printer/plotter equipment and terminals" is very wide and right now contain a large variety of technologies.
It makes sense when IBM intended the products to be part of a family, but right now the section is very eclectic.
Creating a subsection just for Laser Printers under it would make more sense. AVandewerdt (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sort order in Computers based on SLT or discrete IC CPUs (1964–1989)[edit]

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)[reply]

MC/ST (Mag Card) Family[edit]

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)[reply]

Placement of old drums[edit]

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)[reply]

Fixed. Guy Harris (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

What is a product?[edit]

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)[reply]

IBM Plant numbers[edit]

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)[reply]

I assume #10 is Rochester, MN. Peter Flass (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Truly awesome reference[edit]

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)[reply]

Suggested change[edit]

I’d like to suggest breaking out communication controllers from the section “Input/output control units”. This list is huge, and anything that can be done to organize it better would be helpful.Peter Flass (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter ;
I have been thinking along the same lines for quite a while, and would therefore support creating a new section to cover all "Networking Hardware Products", with separate subsections for "Data Communications Systems" products (all controllers, control units, and peripherals), and "Telephony Systems" (IBM 2750, IBM 3750, IBM 8750, etc.).
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 19:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Flass: Do locally attached controllers and terminals, e.g., 2260, 2848, 3210, 3215, really belong under data communications? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chatul: I’m of two minds. Looking at the old 3270, there is the 3271 local controller and the 3272 remote controller. Do they belong together or separated? I consider my changes to be a first cut at reorganizing a very long list, and expect it will be reworked quite a bit. Peter Flass (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit complicated. The 3271 is remote and the 3272 is local, but the 3174 and 3274 come in multiple flavors, including local, local SNA, remote BSC and remote SNA. There are also standalone remote 3270s like the 3275. There is a similar issue with, e.g., 3790.
My suggestion would be to have both a data communications section and a local terminal section, with the latter including 1052-7, 3210, 3215, local 2260, etc. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page watcher)
To: Peter Flass and Chatul.
Dear colleagues,
First of all: well done, Peter, on your recent efforts at consolidating those devices as you did. For what it's worth, I too think it's a good idea to split the remote/local devices into separate lists. You might also consider adding the 7171 DACU to the 'local controllers' list, since it was a channel-attached protocol converter; like a local version of the 3708/3710, in a way. Although the 7171 had been designed and manufactured at the Endicott plant (if memory serves me right), in the field (IBM Branch Office), its customer deployment was supported by Systems Engineers who focused on networking products.
In any case, thank you for your good work here.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IBM 3172, 7170 and 7171 are all programmable devices, and thus how they appear to the other end of the channel depends on what software is loaded and how it is configured. The 3172 in particular can appear to be either a cluster controller or a channel-to-channel adapter similar to a 3088; it's also used to support TCP/IP. I don't know what software is available for the 7170, nor do I know whether there is software for the 3171 beyond ASCII protocol conversion to 3270. I would suggested listing each in all of the roles for which supporting software exists. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Model numbers?[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_IBM_products&oldid=1220643582"