Talk:IBM document processors

Computing Low‑importance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The MICR coding on cheques[edit]

The MICR coding on cheques for Cheque 21 should comply to E13B and CMC7 as standards for accepting the cheques. If i have to pogram a MICR encoder What kind of code-line layout is required for the MICR encoder FZ 1047 - thanks Mani

What is FZ 1047? In the US, the MICR layout corresponds to the ABA standards. It is shown at:

http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/bookmgr/pictures/b1fa1a00.p1z.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.10.44 (talk) 23:45, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Cheque vs Check[edit]

The Wikipedia style guide here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling appears to prefer cheque to check. So I converted the whole article to use just cheque. I know US readers may find this annoying. I don't know if there is a happy medium. Note that the C in CPCS stood for 'Check' but this is because is a product originated in the USA, so this is the only use of "check" in the article. AVandewerdt (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors[edit]

Would be good to document some competitors The B-101 shown here is an example: https://umedia.lib.umn.edu/item/p16022coll90:333 The NCR sorters used by BoA as part of the GE sold solution would also be interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVandewerdt (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link[edit]

The following links were in the main article but are all dead

American Bankers Association - Check 21 http://www.aba.com/Consumer+Connection/checksarechanging.htm

3890/XP Series SCI Reference http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/B1FC1A00/CCONTENTS?SHELF=EFA01A03&DN=SC31-2703-00&DT=19900330073315

3890/XP and 3890/XPE Series SPXServ Reference http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/B1FB2A00/CCONTENTS?SHELF=EFA01A03&DN=SC31-4070-00&DT=19980218084147

3890/XP Series Programming Guide http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/B1FA1A00/CCONTENTS?SHELF=EFA01A03&DN=GC31-2662-01&DT=19910117152148

I tried to find the docs but so far have not had any luck. If we can find working links this would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVandewerdt (talk • contribs) 00:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IBM 2956[edit]

I have had quite a few IBMers confirm the 2956 was a 1419 with an extra 1419 stacker tied together. Getting IBM proof is harder, but I am still working on it. AVandewerdt (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I have had quite a few IBMers confirm the 2956 was a 1419 with an extra 1419 stacker tied together." And the 26th pocket sliced off and thrown away?

"Getting IBM proof is harder, but I am still working on it." Good - anything would be an improvement over short phrases from advertisements. Guy Harris (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely trying to make the article better. As I commented on your Talk page, I really don't appreciate the sarcasm. I don't have an explanation for the missing pocket yet, but I suspect in the act of joining the units they had to lose some hardware. The search continues. AVandewerdt (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So IBM Archives found and scanned two documents out of their physical archive. This is what they said:

"Attached are two documents that I have scanned from the collection. One is about the Model 2 and the Model 3 and the other references the Model 5, but unfortunately only seems to be a physical planning guide and not a complete description. I was not able to find anything else related to the Model 5."

So I just updated the article with the details I can reference from the document. I am now working on getting the document into an online repo (IBM did not give me permission to publish them online). However the document can be requested by emailing IBM Archives or I am happy to email them to anyone who requests them. AVandewerdt (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]