Template talk:IBM mainframes

700/7000 machines - are they mainframes?
I removed the 700/7000 line from this table. Charles Webb, a System z processor engineer and IBM Fellow wrote this: "I would be inclined to drop the 700/7000 line as well. This was a predecessor to S/360 and contributed a lot of genetic material, but I think of the real "mainframe" era as starting with S/360 and the common ISA across multiple computer models." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlharlan (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any basis for this. IBM was the dominant force in computing in the 1950s and 60s based on the 700/7000 series. They certainly were the mainframes of that era and were the basis for everything from the SABRE airlines reservation system to the NASA Gemini program. IBM's history page considers them mainframes, see: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_intro.html--agr (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The thought wasn't about the importance of the 700/7000 but about the definition of the mainframe category itself. I have no problem with your interpretation if you feel strongly about it. Davidlharlan (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, I do feel strongly. The 700/7000 series created and defined the mainframe category at IBM. I don't think anyone who was around at the time would dispute this. For example, when the mid-size 1401/1410 architecture grew to mainframe size, it got a 7000 series nomenclature, the 7010. Of course their capabilities look puny by today's standards (so does the System/360) but they were awe inspiring in their time.--agr (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I grew up in that era, and it was universally acknowledged that such machines as the Bendix G-20, CDC 1604, CDC 3600, GE-625, Honeywell 800, IBM 709, Philco  TRANSAC S-2000, RCA 601, UNIVAC 1107 were mainframes. OTOH, the IBM 1400 series machines were considered entry level. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for including?
I find it questionable to label the 1400 series as mainframes, although the 7010 certainly is a mainframe, and puzzling that the list doesn't include, e.g.,


 * 303x
 * 43x1

I'm not sure whether the 9370 also belongs. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Make it a navbox
Would be much better. See navbox. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 18:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Link for ESA/370
While I understand the motivation for changing to, IBM System/390 contains technical details on ESA/370 while IBM System/370 does not. I believe that the best way to proceed would be to retitle ESA/390 as ESA/370 and ESA/390 rather than to create a separate ESA/370 article or to copy most of the material in ESA/390 to S/370. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So which pages should there be for S/370, S/370-XA, ESA/370, and ESA/390? Guy Harris (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to have separate articles for 370, XA and ESA, with sections in S/370 for XA, ESA/370 and ESA/390, with main templates. ESA/370 and ESA/390 are too similar to justify separate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs) 23:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So "IBM System/370", "IBM System/370-XA", and "IBM Enterprise Systems Architecture", for example? Guy Harris (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the expanded IBM System/370 Extended Architecture (S/370-XA) might be better. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So step 1 would probably be to rename IBM System/390 to "IBM Enterprise Systems Architecture" and have it talk about both ESA/370 and ESA/390, putting back stuff about ESA/370. Guy Harris (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Step 1's done - see IBM Enterprise Systems Architecture. I've updated this template to link to ESA/370 and ESA/390, which link to the apropriate sections of that page. Guy Harris (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Step 2's done for now, as IBM System/370-XA; rename it to the longer name if you think that makes more sense. It also needs to have the section on the I/O subsystem changes filled in, and could use information on SIE as well. Guy Harris (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)