Talk:List of IBM products/Archive 1

Hardware to be confirmed
Note to self -- investigate following IBM punched card machines for inclusion on list. --Anonymoues 13:30 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

Unclassified

 * IBM 550 - Automatic Interpreter (marketed 1930-???; read in cards containing numerical data, printed that data on top of card)
 * IBM 1013 - Card Transmission Terminal (1961-1977; read in punched cards and transmitted them [to what?]; received transmissions [from what?] and punched cards from them)
 * IBM 1050 - (???-1978) incorporated 1051-1056; what was it? (some computer system?)
 * It was a line of Selectric-based terminals. Guy Harris 02:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the "1050 system" introduced as the first Teleprocessing system, in the early 1960s? Edetic (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IBM 1403 - Printer (1959-1971; for use with IBM 1401?)
 * The 1403 was a common sight on S/370s in the 1970s, usually connected via a 2821 controller. I think I had one on an 1130, but that might have been an 1132 instead. RossPatterson 15:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it was originally for the 1401, but continued to be used with S/360, S/370, and the 1130 (it was the high-end printer; the 1132 was the low-end printer). Guy Harris 02:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * IBM 1440 - Data Processing System (1962-1971; "cheap" computer for "small" businesses)
 * IBM Series/1 - some sort of early personal computer / minicomputer system??? 1976-1987.
 * Minicomputer. Guy Harris 02:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Disks

 * IBM 1301 - Disk Storage Unit (1961-1970)
 * IBM 1405 - Disk Storage Unit (1960-1970; for use with 1401?)

Punches and verifiers

 * IBM 10
 * IBM 16
 * IBM 26
 * IBM 31
 * IBM 46
 * IBM 47
 * IBM 52
 * IBM 56
 * IBM 63 - Card Controlled Tape Punch (marketed 1948-1972; read in 80-column cards, printed out telegraphic paper tape.)
 * IBM 65
 * IBM 66
 * IBM 513
 * IBM 514
 * IBM 519
 * IBM 523
 * IBM 514
 * IBM 519
 * IBM 523
 * IBM 524
 * IBM 526
 * IBM 549
 * IBM 824
 * IBM 826
 * IBM 1402 - Card Read-Punch (1959-1971; for use with IBM 1401)

Punched card sorters

 * IBM 75
 * IBM 80 changed to IBM 80 series Card Sorters to include other sorters, such as 82, 83, and 84

Punched card accounting machines

 * IBM 402
 * IBM 403
 * IBM 407
 * IBM 408
 * IBM 416
 * IBM 419
 * IBM 534
 * IBM 536
 * IBM 858
 * IBM 863
 * IBM 961

Calculating punches

 * IBM 412
 * IBM 418
 * IBM 602
 * IBM 604
 * IBM 605
 * IBM 607
 * IBM 650 -- appears to be an actual computer, not just a mere calculating punch, , , , , , ,
 * IBM 941

Auxilliary machines

 * IBM 77
 * IBM 89
 * IBM 101
 * IBM 552
 * IBM 557
 * IBM 884
 * IBM 938
 * IBM 939
 * IBM 954

Comments on the HW
Yes, the 650 was an actual computer. It was IBM's first computer that they sold commercially. RTC 07:46 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Here is a good link listing IBM products: http://www.ibm.com/br/services/suphar/cat3.phtml RTC 18:28 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Another listing, but in english: http://www.5-10.com/as400/searchhw.php RTC 01:09 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)

Eyegore application?
I've removed "Eyegore". I Can't find any reference to such an application in any IBM site or in google. Mikiher 22:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Might it be some kind of in-joke amongst veteran IBM mainframers, denoting a properly named application that for some reason would be prone to being called derogatory or funny names? Just a wild guess... --Wernher 02:51, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks more like an unnoticed small bit of vandalism to me. Looking at the page history, you see that "Eyegore" was introduced by an anonymous user (143.93.43.41), and that was his only contribution ever. Anyway, if someone is going to introduce it back, please add some explanation &mdash; Mikiher 06:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Category split suggestion
I would like to see the subsection Computers based on integrated circuits (1964 to present) to be split into Computers based on integrated circuits (1964 to ) and Computers based on microprocessors ( to present). I could start doing it right now, hadn't it been for the fact that I have serious holes in my knowledge of IBMs 'transition years' between discrete ICs and µPs...

Regarding the previous transition period, I do know, however, that putting the 360 in the integrated circuits dept. is stretching the truth a little bit, since the 360 used their special "monolithic logic modules", which was some sort of discrete transistor collections encased in small metal boxes IIRC. I think we should sort out all this, to make sure it's all correct. --Wernher 06:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking the same thing... hmm... My guess the date for should be the date of the IBM PC. I think that was their first microprocessor machine. That would be in the early 1980s if I recall right.


 * The SLT (Solid Logic Technology) modules used in the 360 were hybrid integrated circuits, not monolithic integrated circuits. But still "integrated circuits". The 370 used monolithic integrated circuits mounted inside SLT modules (using the same hybrid "flip chip" construction as the earlier discrete transistor & diode versions of the 360) -- RTC 06:45, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I made a first cut at the split. There were several other machines that were built using the original hybrid integrated circuit SLT modules besides the 360. Not sure exactly which at this time. Also SLT continued to be used long after IBM switched to putting monolithic integrated circuuits inside the SLT metal cans. -- RTC 07:24, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cooperation and the comments! I find this stuff quite interesting in a techno-industrial-historic way, in that like it or not IBM have trundled along with their systems made for ruggedness and reliability perhaps as much as for bleeding-edge performance (a very sound decision in my view, BTW) and have in fact influenced much of the 'outside' world (who incidentally often finds it amusing to poke fun at 'Big Blue') more than they care to admit. :)


 * I also took the liberty of moving the AS/400, launched in '88, across the microprocessor divide -- correct me if I'm wrong. I wonder if the 390 as well should be moved there? --Wernher 07:35, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Moving the AS/400 seems reasonable, but the 8100 was introduced in 1978. Are you sure it was microprocessor based? I don't know about the 390. Also I left both sections saying "to present" for now as I expect there was lots of overlap, and IBM may still make some non-microprocessor based computers... but using lots of very specialized custom integraated circuits. -- RTC 07:42, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * At least the later S/390 systems, and the zArchitecture systems, had/have single-chip central processors; the 'systems' have other chips in them, including those implementing the channels, but a modern personal computer has a number of support chips as well. See articles in the IBM Journal of Research and Development such as IBM S/390 Parallel Enterprise Servers G3 and G4 and The microarchitecture of the IBM eServer z900 processor. I'm not sure the original AS/400's were microprocessor-based; the PowerAS ones were, but some of the earlier IMPI ones might not have been. Guy Harris 08:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * May I IMHO the monolithic vs hybrid split? It seems kind of revisionist: according to the Pugh book on the System/360, monolithic ICs were made by companies that didn't have the manufacturing ability to make hybrid ones; they have consideratly worse characteristics (except for the all-important sex appeal, of course)  User:Rsclient 21 May 2004


 * The System/88 is said to be an OEM'ed Stratus machine; as I remember, Stratus used Motorola 68K's as processors - if so, thse should be reclassified as "Computers based on microprocessor CPUs". Guy Harris 01:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it objectionable that the only mention to IBM's outstanding family of RISC processors, the RS/6000, is the line that reads:
 * "IBM System p — First RS/6000, then pSeries, then p5 and now System p5; 1990"
 * The treatment of that family should be expanded thoroughly. Also, no mention is made of the AS/400 latter models being based on RISC processors, too. --AVM (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "26" and "29" be "026" and "029?"
I'm no expert, but my recollection is that these keypunches had a leading zero and were always referred to as "oh-twenty-six" and "oh-twenty-nine." Dpbsmith 01:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/keypunch.html and http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/codes.html call 'em 026 and 029. Dpbsmith 01:13, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

What the heck, I'm putting in leading zeroes for all punches referred to at http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/keypunch.html and adding a couple mentioned on that page. I imagine the others, e.g. the 51 and 52 should have leading zeroes, too, but I'm not going to put them on in the basis of guess work. Dpbsmith 01:18, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Add the zeros. That is the way they are listed on the site I listed under ==Comments on the HW==. BTW, according to that site, this also affects two digit unit record equipment (e.g., sorters). -- RTC 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I have some of the original 24, 26, etc manuals -- they do not have leading zeros. It seems like it wasn't until IBM was "mostly" three digits that they retroactively named them the 024 and 026 etc.


 * No, sorry but that's plain wrong. I was working in IBM UK before the 024 and 026 were introduced in the 1960s.  3-digit machine numbers had existed for many years before that.  The manuals were pretty rare - nobody needed them, they were only really produced for marketing.  People who built, maintained and used them called them 0xx.  The 029 was introduced long after the first 4-digit machines (1401) were announced, but it was generally called "oh-two-nine", not 29 or 0029.  But I will tell you this:  in the 1950s and early 1960s, most machines were leased, so they were owned by IBM and recorded in the "DP Asset Register".  This was a card file, originally using 3-digit machine numbers.  When the 1401 came out a lot of work was needed to accommodate 4 digits. Edetic (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Electrical/electronic/magnetic storage units
After having a look at the section, I felt that a more (chrono)logical layout would be to start with the electromech/stat stuff and work downwards to the more magnetic stuff, thus to some degree following the evolution of the computers themselves. Also, dropping the '====' subsubsubsectioning in favor of some other marker (i.e., underlining ) makes the next subsubsection easier to identify, as well as avoiding TOC overload. --Wernher 23:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Important HW products need to be added
The following:
 * eServer BladeCenter HS20 (Intel processor-based blade server) and JS20 (POWER processor-based blade server). Reference: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/bladecenter/js20/more_info.html


 * eServer OpenPower (POWER processor-based and Optimized for Linux). Reference: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/openpower/


 * Also, the world's 4th most powerful supercomputer, MareNostrum, in Barcelona, SP, built mostly of JS20 Blade servers and running Linux (This was built by IBM from mostly IBM components). Reference: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/power/marenostrum/

--Anonymous

IBM Simon
Could someone please add this product to the list? I don't know where it fits; not very good with high-tech computer mubo-jumbo like this list. Thanks. Harro5 22:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done! (see "Telecommunications terminals"). --Wernher 05:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

T220/T221
I'd like to add the IBM T220/T221 to the product list, but where should it go? Ehn 16:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * IBM PC components and peripherals? Guy Harris 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But that display wouldn't work with the original IBM PC. I'm not sure if this category is intended for peripherals for the original IBM PC or any IBM-compatible (modern) PC. It seems like most of the listed items are very old. Ehn 15:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the category was initially (and is still, for that matter) thought to be directed at the original IBM PC, since IBM's "old" PC peripherals are more notable, historically speaking, than their current ones in today's enormous PC clone market.


 * As for the T220/T221, we might create a new category, called, say, "(High-end) niche products". Or those displays might be put in "Medical/science/lab equipment", as I think that's what they're made for (high-res X-ray screens). --Wernher 09:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PS/2 Note
What about the PS/2 Note. Should it get a category of it´s own or be added to the PS/2 entry?
 * As part of a line that was a complete failure, I'd just add it to the rest.  AVM (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eclectic list

 * This list is eclectic; it includes, for example, SAGE, which was not a product in the sense of offered for sale, but was a product in the sense of manufactured - produced by the labor of IBM. The list does not include any of IBM's WWII military production.  The software listings are generally sofware families, not products (Fortran was not a product;  Fortran H was a product). Indeed, the software listings at this time are few, compared to what IBM produced.  Also missing are oem products (semiconductors, for example), supplies (punched cards, for example), ...

I added the above to the article so that Wikipedia readers would know what to expect in the list. It is not a criticism of the work done thus far. Indeed, the list of numbered data processing items is most impressive.

Listing all of IBM's software products, RPQs, ... is unworkable, if not in fact impossible. My recommendation would be to reduce this list to numbered products, such as "IBM 001", and address other products in other, narrowly defined, lists ("1401 software", for example). 38.99.84.13 17:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

IBM logo
Is that with IBM's permission? Implies IBM is constructing the page? 69.106.232.37 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In answer to your first question - it's disputed whether it's used with IBM's permission or not. See the page for the image for more on that issue.


 * In answer to your second question - it's not intended to imply that IBM is constructing the page, as not everybody who's contributed to the page is doing so in an official capacity as an employee or other agent of IBM (I don't know whether anybody who contributed to the page did so in such an official capacity; never having worked as an employee or other agent of IBM, I know I didn't do so in such an official capacity). Somebody might choose to infer that IBM's constructing the page, but they'd be wrong to do so. Guy Harris 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

IBM Future Products
How about adding a table showing what is known about IBM future products? This would be something that we could all edit. If the article page is inappropriate for this table, then perhaps here on the discussion page. Then, as products approach launch date, they could be moved to the main article page. Feel free to edit this table as you see fit:

Westwind273 16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Added Hardware, Software, categories to See Also
I know, redundant but... The categories at bottom of article categorize the page. I added to See Also so that readers new to Wikipedia would see the categories as a source to be used by them. If this is a bad idea then delete. tooold 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What products are current?
I think the list should make it clear what products are still sold. What products are? Andries (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) End of Service?
 * 2) End of life (end of manufacturing)
 * 3) End of marketing
 * 4) Still being sold? (Can we tag them?)

Another IBM Card Reader
What about the IBM 2501 card reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

IBM 3101 display terminal
Does anyone involved with this article have a way to find out when the IBM 3101 display terminal was "current"? I would like to know if possible.

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

IBM 3161/3163
IBM 3161/3163, announced in 1985, were the follow-on products of IBM 3101, announced in 1979. They were all "immediately available" when they were announced, as I recall. So, I would assume IBM 3101 was withdrawn some time (a year or two) after 1985. Any one has a photo of 3101? Yoshi Canopus (talk) 2008.12.24. —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC).

Why are computers organized by component instead of system (for unique components)
Is there really any use for a list of computer power supplies? Consoles? Wouldn't it be easier to use/maintain if components used by only one system were kept together?


 * IBM 650
 * ... power supply
 * ... card reader

and so on. Only components used on multiple systems need be organized by component, the 1403 for example. 69.106.246.31 (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)