Talk:ES EVM

ESER
"ESER" is just a German translation of "ES EVM". There is no need to have a separate article for ESER. — Monedula 07:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. All parties in the cooperation did different things. The piece is poorly written, but the subject is separate. `'mikka (t) 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no evidence, that "Russian computer engineers were forced by the KGB to implement the stolen IBM system". The ES machines were modeled after the mainframes, because the Soviet programmers wanted to be able to work with IBM software, but the hardware design was quite indigenous and original (or reverse-engineered). Nor did the development of the ES machines "destroy the morale of Soviet engineers", because they did not find anything wrong in making their own hardware IBM-compatible. Laplandian 02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch. KGB nonsense removed. But you are not exactly right either. But let's not go into an idle chat here. Better someone updates this extremely poor stub from sources, not from memory. `'mikka 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

ES-1010 is not IBM/360 compatible
The Hungarian ES-1010 was in fact a clone of the French CII Mitra 15, and thus an "outlier" of sorts. The article suggests otherwise.

A very good contemporary (1978) ACM paper that summarizes the ES architecture can be found here. I think the history is much more nuanced than it might appear from this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vttoth (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "clone". The reference says that "The Hungarian ES-1010 is something of a "ringer. It is the French CII (Compagnie Internationale pour l'Informatique) Mitra15 built under license.". So cloning means "black box reverse engineering", which is different from both copying and licensed production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.0.117.218 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"Unified"?
Any references about the choice of "unified" in the English translation of the full name: degree of adoption, official or semi-official use?&mdash;172.56.19.113 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=356725.356728 is a trustworthy reference IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.0.117.218 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)