Talk:IBM 3790

Notes on article from a former 3790 programmer
--Kcrossle (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The language may have been incomprehensible to some but I found it rather cool. Dealing with a macro language gives you the opportunity to have macros that generate macros that generate code.  Really cool.
 * "Incomprehensible" is opinion.
 * IMO PVS actually was rubbish and the article is accurate. It was easier to include a bunch of no-ops in your code, download it, test and then use the CE 's access code to do machine-level code changes on the actual box.  This is probably not an ITIL-approved method.
 * "Back then, mainframe time was expensive and hard to schedule" - not really. As a programmer we didn't care about expense and around midnight scheduling is no problem
 * "The manual for the Macro Assembler was about 4 inches thick, and it was almost impossible..." sounds like sour grapes :-)
 * The code was downloaded to a target system (test or prod) using "S-Cubed" - SSS (System Something Services)

OS?
Did the 3790 run DPCX, just like the 8100 could? What about DPPX? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClickRick (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No the 3790 had its own operating system, DPCX was merely an emulator that was written to facilitate easy migration to the 8100 platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzsimonb (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing information
I added some info from the product announcement, but there's a lot still missing. Hopefully someone will have this information. Peter Flass (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * memory size - the 3790 was not marketed as a computer; the memory size of the control units is not specified.
 * discontinued date - no information found.
 * 3793 - no information, photo would be nice.
 * Printer - band printer?

POV
Someone really, really didn't like the 3790. I don't have the knowledge to revise this article, but maybe some "former 3790 programmer" or other could remove some of the negativity. Peter Flass (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

henti
He Henrique alves da silva (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

fwitwc
E bom Henrique alves da silva (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)