Talk:IBM 700/7000 series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Computing / Early (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Early computers task force (marked as High-importance).

7070 as 650 replacement?[edit]

I'd be interested in seeing some backup for the claim "The IBM 7070, IBM 7072, and IBM 7074 were designed to provide a "transistorized IBM 650" upgrade path. They replaced the drum memory with core memory, but were not instruction set compatible with the 650 (so a simulator was needed to run old programs)." The 7070 did have a 10-digit decimal word length, same as the 650, but that is the end of the similarity. I attended one talk in the 1959-1960 time frame where someone from IBM presented the 1620 as the replacement for the 650. I have no doubt that IBM sold some 7070's to large 650 shops that wanted more capacity, but the 7070 was a much more expensive machine. And I never heard of anyone simulating the 650 for production purposes on any machine. Computer time was considered more valuable than programmer time back then, and my recollection is that 650 programs that were still needed were rewritten for whatever machine was leased as a replacement. Anyone have a different recollection or documents?--agr 22:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have an article that was written by Bob Bemer, and was posted on his website until he died and some casino took over the URL, that explains how the 7070 was originally planned as a unified upgrade path to replace both the 650 and 705. Because it was incompatible with both it was not that well liked (several incompatibilities resulted from engineering to management communication problems with managment making the decision to go with a more 650 like machine when the programmers were recommending a more 705 like machine). Ultimately IBM resolved the issue by also building the 7080, which was compatible with the 705.
As Bob Bemer's website is no longer available and the casino site that took the URL has blocked archiving, it is hard to get copies of this article (titled BIRTH OF AN UNWANTED IBM COMPUTER). Let me know if you want a copy of the HTML file. -- RTC 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to see it. You can follow the link from my user page for my e-mail address. This sort of thing needs to be preserved. I wonder if the computer history museum would host it?--agr 19:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Bemer's site is back, including the article; I've linked to it in the "External links" section. Guy Harris (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The 700/7000 series is not a series[edit]

Is the definition of a series all the machines built in some time period using the technology of that time period and the naming conventions of that time period? No, series, or families, share architectural features and you can say useful things that apply to all of the machines in a series. Like the IBM 1400 series.

Saying that all these machines were built during the same time period and that they were obsoleted by the machines that followed them is a tautology. Other than that, the article is divided by architectures and it is those architectures that define families, that define series.

This article should be deleted, replaced by new articles, one for each architecture listed in this article. New articles like IBM 702/705/7080 series. 02:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Series" is the term generally used for these machines, see for example, Your definition is a more modern one and results in no small measure from IBM's problems developing software for so many different architectures. One reason to keep the article intact is to make clear to the reader how different these machines were from a programming point of view and how they each influenced the next-generation System/360 architecture.--agr 17:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly include this content[edit]

FORTRAN Assembly Program (FAP) was a macro assembler for the IBM 709, 7090, and 7094 computers of the 1950s and 60s. Its pseudo-operation BSS, used to reserve memory, is the origin of the common name of the "BSS section", still used in many assembly languages today for designating reserved memory address ranges of the type not having to be saved in the executable image.

I am going to turn that article into a redirect since it doesn't seem likely it can ever carry a proper article. Up to you guys whether this is worth adding to this article. (note that the claim of origin is contradicted by .bss) Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did a partial merge. Sorry I couldn't clean up the presentation, but I think it'd be better to leave that to the experts. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:IBM7040.jpg[edit]

The image Image:IBM7040.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Price" of machines that were rented or leased but not sold?[edit]

There is talk of the price or cost of these machines, but they were never sold, only rented or leased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Price" no longer appears in the article; "cost" does, but machines that are rented or leased have a "cost" just as machines that are bought do. Guy Harris (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


Any objection to my sorting the lines of the "Timeline" section to make it an actual timeline, that is, in chronological order? At the moment it's a list of model numbers which happens to mention their introduction dates. (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, this is done. (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Are dates when announced or when first shipped[edit]

Are the dates intended to be when they were announced (put on sale) or when they were first shipped. 'Announced' I think would be better (if IBM had them working before announcing them?) but the 7040 is noted in 1963 (when it shipped) rather than 1961 when it was announced. We should add "announced" or "shipped" to the date column or qualify each date ? With the 7030 it was shipped in 1961 but it's not clear when 'it' was announced - so perhaps first shipment would be better to use. - Rod57 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't they pre-announce vapor-ware by ridiculous intervals before the consent decree that made them stop that? Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer that both dates be given if known. If only one date is given, it should be clearly labeled as announced or First Cusomer Shipment (FCS). Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

NACA vs. NASA[edit]

About the caption to the photo, NASA didn't exist until 1958, so in 1957 it was still National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)