Jump to content

Talk:IBM

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uwaisis (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 4 February 2008 (→IBM and the holocaust should be a footnote at most). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. March 2004 – August 2006

History section

The history section begins with the heading "1888 – 1924: The founding of IBM" and the picture's caption reads "Tabulating Machine Corporation plant in 1893". However, below it says Tabulating Machine Corporation was founded in 1896. What's correct and what's not? Klehti 06:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The 1588 date is way wrong (unless they were counting Gutenberg bibles); 1896 seems correct according to the Herman Hollerith entry on WikiPedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.131.191 (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to fill out gaps in the article

  • Add in a timeline history of computers produced by IBM ( a single line with a link to related article on that computer)
  • I see no mention of System 34, 36, 38 - one transformed into AS400 which continues as "Iseries". For a good article, why not ask IBM for this input?
  • Move the diversity subsection towards the end of the article because it is significantly less important than IBM's other history
  • Add a seperate timeline of how IBM contributed to the development of modern programming languages, modern database systems (e.g., sequential tape -> direct access records -> isam -> vsam -> network databases -> relational databases)
  • Add a seperate subtopic on IBM research contributions
  • Add a seperate subtopic or article on IBM's point of sale products which are extensively used today even with some of them being 25+ years old
  • How can then date of foundation be 1888, all the the companies that formed CTR were founded after that (89, 91, 96), CTR istself forming in 1911
  • List of IBM campuses, sites, manufacturing facilities, etc?

Pop music hits from IBM

I am looking for an infromation on an unusual topic: pop music hits from IBM!

In late 1960s or early 1970s, IBM released an LP full of parodies of pop songs with context related to computers. My weak senile memory keeps only two of them:

The latter one goes something like,

I've bought a terminal
The day I lost my gal.
... etc.
Now I have girls galore
I my new mem'ry core
I put them on disk file
To store them for a while... etc.
Refrain:
Memory d'amour,
Put the core to the printer
Or to the display
Please without delay.

I'd very much like to find more info about this IBM music. Surprisingly, I cannot find its traces in the internet. I thought that April issues of Datamation could have kept them, but alas! mikka (t) 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search on the IBM internal newsgroup on IBM history for "music", but found nothing on such a LP. I found references to company songs (lots of them; here's a link: "We don’t pretend we’re gay / We always feel that way" is the start of one song :-) or early electronic music or how to make music using a punch-card reader, but nothing on this. Anyway, I'll post a question on that newsgroup. bogdan | Talk 21:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got an answer that said that there were some song parodies inside IBM, but it would be rather surprising if the IBM lawyers allowed them to be released. :-) bogdan | Talk 21:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen and listened them myself, and guess where? In the USSR! (It was the time when IBM/360 machines were sold to USSR, and the owner of the vinyl I am speaking about frequented IBM on this occasion (and he had a daughter, but this is another story... :-).) Of course, the songs were not released by some regular label. I guess it was a piece of promo, made very professionally, I must say. It is a pity that this piece of computer folklore is lost. mikka (t) 22:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At Lotusphere 2006 they sang the Sametime song, there is an annual jamfest at Lotusphere. Also check out Red Box Panic which was the Iris/Lotus band and is still going

Automatic generated suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.

  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, - David Björklund (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Split away the History section

The history section is far too bulky for the main IBM article. I suggest it be spun off into a separate article, with just a short summary of IBM's history left in the main article.

As an example of this approach, have a look at Anglo-Saxons and the way that the history section links to History of Anglo-Saxon England.

Gavin Wilson 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this article is too long. Kat, Queen of Typos 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure why not. (Wikimachine 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Agreed.—a thing 07:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBM, DOS, and Microsoft

I think that the history behind DOS (disk operating system) and IBM/Microsoft is incredibly relevant to this article and to IBM's history. I feel it should be included.

MIcrosoft didnt need them anymore cuz they were sucessfull, hopefully more people use linux now, on this article and their site they say they support Linux, thats good payback for Micro$oft!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Realg187 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Holocaust

I think this article could use some more information regarding IBM's role during the Holocaust. Would this be relevant for a criticism/affairs section? 82.92.64.247 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBM and the Holocaust

This page needs "criticism/affairs section," reguarding IBM's tecnology manufacturing and willful collaboration with the Nazi regime directly corresponding to the systematic deaths of victims of the WW2 Holocaust. A usefull starting point would be Edwin Black's Book "IBM and the Holocaust" <http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com>. Count of Cascadia 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been discussed before, at length. I believe there was consensus regarding including information about roles by IBM, the US government, Spain, etc. CMacMillan 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the "consensus" to Include information within this page under a criticism section, or within the holocaust page under collaboraters? Count of Cascadia 10:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is including mention of IBM/holocaust in summary on the main page "pov" pushing? I would direct you to the page of Ford Motor Company, I.G. Farben, and ITT as examples of how other companies have allegations listed on their front page. Thus, it would seem that IBM's particular exclusion would be POV insofar as one might infer the allegations are less important than the other inclusions. I'm not suggesting i believe them to be true, only that this particular exclusion seems rather glaring. --Chalyres 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" became a long-running New York Times bestseller, it behooves Wikipedia to at least acknowledge the intense legal and political controversy. The book, written by Edwin Black in collaboration with over a hundred holocaust scholars, clearly established IBM's close ties to the Nazi government, development of census data used to identify, locate, and execute minorities, and collaboration with German military in 1939, 1940, and 1941 invasions of European countries. Of course, once America entered WWII, Thomas Watson downplayed his admiration for Nazi Germany. Yet, business was business, and he continued to directly control the German subsidary that made the trains run on time to the camps, kept detailed recornds of camp inmates and fates, and played a critical role in various German military divisions. The fact that Watson avoided trial as a collaborator seems stunning in light of the documented history. Regardless of one's admiration for various IBM products, services, or slogans, the bottomline remains that Wikipedia must include a discussion of this topic. Silence equals acceptance, if not consent. -- 76.168.69.7

Your probably better putting that in the History of IBM page or it's own seperate page. To me to put it on this page appears to be breaking NPOV. --Archeus 11:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That book was a best-seller for a while but it was largely discounted by the NY Times book review [1] as sensationalistic and not historically accurate. –Shoaler (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it must be mentioned on the main article I feel. I have added a mention of the holocaust to the history section, this time with a link to the main article. Please remove it if you feel it inappropriate. 217.42.222.146 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thank you for both being bold and making the change as well as discussing it here. After some consideration I have removed the sentence. No other historical accomplishments or controversies are mentioned in the main article, and doing so in this case violates the undue weight clause. /Blaxthos 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Blaxthos, but isn't that an argument for including a selection of all controversies, rather than for not mentioning the holocaust controversies? This said, I understand it must be discluded from the article untill this is implemented. (This the same person as User:217.42.222.146|217.42.222.146) 86.146.199.173 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spanish version of this entry includes a brief comment about the allegedly relations between an IBM subsidiary and the nazi regime. At LEAST that should be included in this entry (you can underline the word "allegedly"). Besides, this entry looks like an extension of the IMB website, giving more importance to the corporation's product than its history.

If it's reasonably well documented, then it should be included. If there's already a good source of information on it, the discussion here should be kept brief, with links to where more information resides. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt the factual accuracy of this part... There is no definitive, verifiable evidance that points out ANYTHING about IBM willfully collaborating with the Nazi regime... On the side note, I did add an accuracy dispute to the article under controversy. Lets find out once and for all if this is factual ;) Javascap (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly factual that some people -- including Edwin Black -- believe that IBM supported the holocaust in some measure. Black claims that IBM have never denied his claims, though in fact they have repudiated them. I believe that the best thing to do here is to try to be as neutral as possible about the controversy, and to point interested readers to other articles. NOTE: I work for IBM. I am not an agent for them in this matter, but one could certainly doubt my neutrality on the subject. --ubiquity (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ubiquity, Thanks for that comment, but just something that I have been looking up. There is no verifiable evidance that I could find after looking around on the web for a while. Blacks claims seem to qualify as original research, and as per wikipedia guidlines, original research is forbidden. And on the side not, dont worry about working for IBM, one of my parents works there. Thanks for trying, as we all should, to be neutral =D Javascap (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1888

How can it be around for that long?? They didnt have computers!! unless it was a Babbage Box Realg187 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does History of IBM answer your question? — Aluvus t/c 19:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So my computer is made by a company that made guns in WWII??? LOL!! And they mkaed punch card things?! RealG187 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, "yes". /Blaxthos 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WOw, she's as fast as a bullet! RealG187 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest?

Please note the conflict with the Wikipedia reference for HP/Hewlett Packard: IBM: "IBM is the largest information technology company in the world" HP: "HP, is the world's largest information technology corporation" I think a little qualification is in order.

Though I don't have a source at the ready (will do some research), IBM dwarfs HP in terms of technology research & development, market capitalization, and corporate locations worldwide. /Blaxthos 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key market measure is revenue and IBM has lost the crown to HP in 2006. Article has been adjusted to reflect 2006 results. 59.167.56.72 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever asked for a citation for this, here's 2 sources (I don't know how to properly cite 2 sources for comparison: HP: http://h30261.www3.hp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71087&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1079613 IBM: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22728690/ $104B HP v $98B IBM Drhamad (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by different user: I edited the article because of that.The article only reflected 2006 results and the new quarter results are in and IBM is once again leading.Hence"It has been known through most of its recent history as the world's largest computer company".I simply think know it's more general,because if we decided to actually state the results of each quarter, it would never end.Every single quarter, somebody else is leading and it is kind of wrong to compare HP and IBM generally like that since they differ in alot of points.And i've always believed and have seen enough proof to think that IBM is the world's largest computer company especially after it's current revolution with the RFID Tags. It simply has more to offer.

POV?

These 'savings' are used each year to distort the company's balance sheet and pay ever inflated salaries to President Palmisano and his cronies. There is very little actual growth in revenues. Stock price has remained largely stagnant for several years - unlike Palmisano's pay package.

Staff who have been with the company for 20 years or more face severe cuts in their pension payments and huge hikes in their health care costs and general abondonment by the company they have given a large part of their lives to.

The general view within the organization is that the company has changed beyond recognition in the last 10 years - not for the better.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.210.143.74 (talk)

Definitely original research and doesn't really feel neutrally worded. /Blaxthos 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However its worded its sadly true. When you look at their financial reports you see their costs going down slightly during some years and greater during others. While I would happily admit it was due to improvement in the business process removing massive amounts of ineficencies. However if you examine those years and compare the years they have a lay off you'll notice the trend that, for example, in 1998 they laid off X thousands of workers, in 1999 they reduced costs Y hundreds of thousands of dollars. A 1 year lag for severence pay, buy outs, other fees and costs associated with removing employees is easily found. Each year they cut more, sell the same, and then make more of a profit. Secondly, IBM has stated that employee benefits can not be garunteed, I take this from their law suit to use the IBMers' pension fund to an end that will benefit the company first and the employee second, however Mr. Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. was given and garunteed a $1 Million a year pension. IBM has also anounced a reduction of a significant portion of their work force, by some reports 1/3 of their total work force will be gone. The more menial positions will be filled by low paying temps, like in IBM East Fishkill and IBM Poughkeepsie, from Manpower or another temporary agency. Incase your wondering the IBM is approximatly 4 times greater in cost than a Manpower employee. The IBMer gets; hourly wages/salary, pension, 401k, paid time off, paid sick days, reduced medical insurence cost, and yearly raises if their preformance is good enough. The Manpower employee gets wages, no paid time off, no sick days, and pays for all of their medical coverage, and no yearly raises. Manpower employees at certain IBM sites have the opportunity to recieve a raise after 90 days so long as they have no days missed and recieve an excelent review. Note this is also only if their manager remembers to do the review and has the time to do said review. As one last note, has anyone checked out IBM's new initiative called LEAN? According to some Global Services employees they were 'strongly discouraged' from talking about or mentioning this initiative to their customers. Colour me confused but wouldn't a company that is trying to improve its quality of a product want their customers to know that the products are going to improve? 69.119.121.133 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from IBM Software Group

Old merge proposal on the IBM Software Group article page that doesn't appear to have been tagged or discussed here. No opinion. Pairadox 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBM SG is so tiny, might as well be bold and merge it and redirect. If anyone feels strongly about it, move it back. Dreadstar † 05:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of the move, but if anyone feels it should be moved or restored, feel free. Dreadstar † 06:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere Tie

Could someone elaborate just a but on what a "Sincere Tie" is. Maybe one or two words in a parenthetical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.127.229 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced short and long sections

I think the history section should be longer. Also the article should mention that IBM sold its HDD division to Hitachi.

The "Jam" and "Project Management Center of Excellence" are too long. These seem largely to deal with internal affairs and I think not very concrete, notable or interesting (salient).

Why do the mainframes of IBM get so little attention in this article?

What hardware does IBM still develop apart from processors for video game consoles and what does it still manufacture and what hardware does it still sell? I guess IBM manufactures at the moment very little hardware. Andries (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major current products should be listed

Major money making products or notable products that are not end of marketing should be listed, I think. The article makes it now not very clear how IBM makes its money. See list of IBM products. Andries (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IBM and the holocaust should be a footnote at most

I think the controversy about IBM and the holocaust is a footnote in IBM's history and not worth mentioning here. There is limited space here in the summary of IBM's history and this is not notable and important enough. Andries (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

    I think it should be a paragraph at least. IBM probably monitor there own page so I couldn't think it's possible. --Uwaisis (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IBM&oldid=189069311"