Talk:Amdahl Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removal of mostly IBM-relevant paragraphs[edit]

Just for the record: I removed two paragraphs of text which went on about IBMs later mainframe offerings and plans; if someone wants to use that material for covering IBM, please grab the stuff from the previous version of this article (via the history tab). --Wernher 21:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PLEASE use the original Amdahl logo. The Fujitsu-ized logo is widely despised. I can provide it to you if necessary. redducatist2 (at) hotmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:11, 20 November 2006

I've added the original logo to the "Company origins" section. Terry Carroll 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (Senior Computer Architect, Amdahl Corp. 1991-94)

Also, you might want to mention Platform Solutions ( where the core Amdahl engineers are now working on a new plug-compatible product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:29, 20 November 2006


The original design, announce as the 470, was dropped and as far as I know it was never shipped. It was replaced by the 470V line, with the first model being the 470V/6. I have seen no Amdahl manuals referring to it as 470V6, 470/V6, 470 V6 or the like. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Was the console notable?[edit]

At the time that the 470V/6 was current, Amdahl was quite proud of it's use of a Data General Nova 1200 as a console processor, although the large motherboard had reliability problems because it sagged. Was that console processor notable enough to justify including in the article? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

31-bit addressing[edit]

For the last several years, this article documented that the architectures supported by the XA and later Amdahl systems used 31-bit addressing. Last weekend, in a series of edits by an anonymous editor ([1], [2], [3]). This was "corrected" to 32-bit. I think this was a good-faith edit, but the editor was unfamiliar with the architecture and 31-bit addressing, and assumed it was an error for the more familiar 32-bit scheme. I undid those changes, restored it back to the correct 31-bit ([4]). My undo, was itself undone with the comment Data are still 32 bits ([5]). I'm just documenting this here to avoid an edit war as I restore it to the status quo. This was 31-bit, not 32-bit. For an example of a discussion of this, see, e.g., the IBM pub at [6]. If there is still any belief that this should be called 32-bit, please discuss here and reach a consensus before changing it from the longstanding article content. TJRC (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an incorrect description of my edit; I did not change 32-bit addressing to 32-bit addressing. What I changed were 31-bit mainframes and 31-bit support, neither of which refer to addressing. Current IBM mainframes in the IBM System/360 line have 64-bit registers as opposed to 32-bit, and *that* is what Amdahl is not supporting. Please don't confuse a select edit with a reversion and don't confuse me with the poster at [ ]. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no 470/5[edit]

There is no 470/5, only a 470/6, 470V/5, 470V/6, ... I assume that the image is a console for the 4705, a replacement for the IBM 3705. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly a 4705. The accompanying text makes no sense, either:
Amdahl Corp. launched its first product, the Amdahl 470/6, in 1975, competing directly against IBM's high-end machines in the then-current System/370 family, but with IBM's announcement of Dynamic Address Translation (DAT), Amdahl announced the 470V/6 and dropped the 470/5.
TJRC (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I only had a few seconds in the warehouse to snap a few photographs, without any context, so I had to make some guesses as to what they were. Nearby was this Amdahl control panel, but I don't have any details on it, either. -- Autopilot (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, thanks for the photo. Photo contributions are more scarce than text, so it's very much appreciated. TJRC (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)