Talk:OS/VS2 (SVS)

Assessment
Nice work getting this articles entered. I know it is a lot of hard work and you are on the right track toward following the overall Wikipedia style. There are some general formatting and layout improvements you can make. Check out WP:LAYOUT and also periodically review Writing better articles for reminders of what makes a good article.

The formatting in the first section is very unusual and inconsistent with the other sections. Consider revising it to look consistent throughout.

Keep up the good work. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you refering to the leadin or to Diferences from MVT? Is the issue the double spacing?


 * Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Differences section. Compare that section to any other article on Wikipedia. It appears to be at least the line spacing and possibly you just have a lot of very short paragraphs. See what you can do to combine sentences into fewer paragraphs. My concern is that because it looks so disruptive, it will be difficult for people to read and follow it. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the double spacing and consolidated some paragraphs. Does it look any better? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

S0C4?
The article says: If no page has been assigned, SVS causes an Abnormal End (ABEND) with the same ABEND code (0C4) that MVT would have used for a protection violation. This would avoid the SPIE handling of this case with code 4, which is what I think should happen. Only without an appropriate SPIE routine should it generate S0C4. Gah4 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

TOD clock
I believe that OS/360 uses the TOD clock if sysgenned for S/370 hardware. I suspect that it is correct, that the interval timer is used for other timing. It doesn't actually explain the OS/360 case, though. Gah4 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OS/360 uses both ; the TIME macro uses the TOD clock; STIMER uses the TOD clock for real intervals longer than an hour and the interval timer for real intervals shorter than an hour and for task (CPU time) intervals.

Requested move 18 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The discussion appears to have concluded in a consensus that the current, abbreviated title is more common and less clunky than the spelled-out version. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

OS/VS2 (SVS) → Single Virtual Storage – Or Operating System/Virtual Storage 2, depending on which name you want to use - the current hybrid title is an unreadable mess. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what WP:COMMONNAME would recommend here:
 * I couldn't find any instances of "SVS" in any of Bitsavers' OS/VS2 Release 1.6 documents, but the searchability comes from OCRing those documents (which results in some instances of "SYS" being misOCRed as "SVS"), but in OS/Virtual Storage 2 Single Virtual Storage (SVS) Features Supplement it speaks of "OS/Virtual Storage 2 Single Virtual Storage (SVS)", "OS/Virtual Storage 2 (OS/VS2) SVS", and "OS/VS2 SVS" (as well as of "MVS"), so "SVS" might have been a retronym used for the first VS2 release after then second one came out as "OS/VS2 MVS".
 * I don't know how third parties referred to it.
 * "Operating System/Virtual Storage 2" is not the right name, given that MVS was release 2 of Operating System/Virtual Storage 2, even though it eventually got called just "MVS". That may have been after OS/VS1 and OS/VS2 SVS were discontinued. Guy Harris (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Operating System/Virtual Storage 2" *is* a correct name; Release 1 is SVS and everything after is MVS. The "2" in OS/VS2 is to distinguish it from OS/VS1. Think of OS/VS1 as OS/360 MFT with paging and OS/VS2 as OS/360 MVT with paging. Third parties generally just used the terms SVS and MVS. I believe that IBM only started using the SVS name with release 1.7; IAC, the feature guide is very clear: Support of multiple virtual storages (MVS) and loosely and tightly coupled multiprocessing configurations is provided. in OS/VS2 MVS, which consists of OS/VS2 Releases 2 and up.
 * OS/VS1 continued for half a dozen releases. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Operating System/Virtual Storage 2" *is* a correct name ...for a page that covers both SVS and MVS.
 * It would not, however, be the correct name for the current OS/VS2 (SVS) page, as it's one of two pages that covers "Operating System/Virtual Storage 2".
 * (And, yes, I know how both VS1 and VS2 started out, i.e. "do MFT and MVT, respectively, but in a common virtual address space rather than in the physical address space". IBM presumably started using "SVS" when there was an "MVS" from which to distinguish VS2 v1.) Guy Harris (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But what is the WP:COMMONNAME? I suspect OS/VS2 is right. Gah4 (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Before MVS, OS/VS2 referred to SVS, because that was the only version of VS2. After OS/VS2 2.0 came out:
 * did "OS/VS2" refer only to SVS, with MVS being referred to as MVS from the beginning, and "SVS" not being used?
 * did "OS/VS2" refer to both, with SVS being referred to as just SVS (or as OS/VS2 SVS) and MVS being referred to as MVS (or as OS/VS2 MVS, at least until SVS faded into the background)?
 * something else? Guy Harris (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * did "OS/VS2" refer to both, with SVS being referred to as just SVS (or as OS/VS2 SVS) and MVS being referred to as MVS (or as OS/VS2 MVS, at least until SVS faded into the background)?
 * something else? Guy Harris (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I have manuals that refer to both by release and never use the terms SVS and MVS. I also have manuals that use the abbreviation VS2, rather than the longer OS/VS2, to abbreviate Operating System/Virtual Storage 2. Bitsavers has manuals that never mention any OS/VS2 beyond Release 1 and never mention either the term SVS nor the term MVS.

As best I can tell, the term SVS came in with Release 1.7 and the term MVS came in with Release 3.6 or 3.7. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It... varies. One manual from November 1973 repeatedly uses the term MVS, e.g. "Throughout this publication the term MVS is used interchangeably with VS2 Release 2. MVS refers to the multiple virtual storage concept of this release." Another manual from March 1974, with a September 13, 1976 technical newsletter update, speaks of both SVS and MVS, with MVS "[consisting] of OS/VS2 Releases 2 and up"; not having the pre-TNL version, I don't know whether the references to MVS were added by the TNL, given that the lines mentioning it are marked with change bars, but at lest some references to SVS have no change bars.  The OS/VS2 Release 3 Guide also speaks of MVS, so "MVS" as a term appears to have come into use prior to 3.6.
 * If by the term MVS came in with Release 3.6 or 3.7 you mean the term MVS used without "OS/VS2" preceding it, that term is used by itself in earlier manuals, and the 3.7 "OS/VS2 MVS Overview" largely speaks just of "MVS", but also speaks in the tile of "OS/VS2 MVS" and speaks, at the beginning of chapter 1 ("Introduction"), of "the IBM Operating System/Virtual Storage with Multiple Virtual Storage".
 * Going back to the original question, I'm not sure what qualifies "OS/VS2 (SVS)" as either a "hybrid title" or an "unreadable mess". Is it any worse than, say OS/VS1, or MVS?
 * If the objection is to the "(SVS)", we could turn OS/VS2 into a page with subsections "SVS", or "Single Virtual Storage", or "Single Virtual Storage (SVS)", or "SVS (Single Virtual Storage)", and "MVS", or "Multiple Virtual Storage", or..., with the contents of OS/VS2 (SVS) moving into the first subsection and with a summary of MVS in the second section, with that section beginning with, leaving the detailed story of MVS to that article.
 * (If the objection is to things not being spelled out, I'll just note that:
 * I suspect WP:COMMONNAME would vote in favor of "OS/VS2" rather than "Operating System/Virtual Storage 2", "SVS" rather than "Single Virtual Storage", and "MVS" rather than "Multiple Virtual Storage";
 * The fully spelled-out names sound really clunky to me, which may be why IBM's manuals, at least, seem to pay lip service to them at most once or twice in the manual and then go with the initialisms;
 * If we're going to spell stuff out here, we'd better go after OS/360 and successors and MVS and OS/VS1 while we're at it.) Guy Harris (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * By I meant that
 * I was not able to find the term SVS in the OS/VS2 R1.6 manuals that I checked.
 * All of the OS/VS2 R1.7 manuals that I checked used the term SVS.
 * Note that GC20-1753-1, the edition you cited, is for Release 1.7.
 * By I meant that
 * I was not able to find the term MVS in the OS/VS2 R3.0 manuals that I checked.
 * I couldn't find any of the OS/VS2 Release 3.6 manuals.
 * All of the OS/VS2 R3.7 manuals that I checked used the term MVS.
 * Given all of that, it appears that the term MVS is older than the term SVS.
 * As to initialisms, I prefer the more common OS/VS2 to the shorter VS2. I agree that using the full names, except in leads, is clunky.
 * As a side note, at least one of the manuals used the term OS/VS2 (MVS), which suggests the legitimacy of the term OS/VS2 (SVS). -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As a side note, at least one of the manuals used the term OS/VS2 (MVS), which suggests the legitimacy of the term OS/VS2 (SVS). -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

<-- keep after last sig -->

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.