Talk:IBM Series/1

Relatively recent airline usage

S/1 was also used in the airline industry, but in a white rack-high box. They have been equipped with 8 inch floppies to load the microcode and OS.

The funny thing on that kind of machines have been the line of LED blinking like K.I.T.T in knight rider, indicating the CPU load (slow=high CPU load, fast=low CPU load)

I know a airline where a couple of this machines have been used for X25 communications until mid 2001 (Yes, they have been made Y2K!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.82.138 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 September 2005

Fair use rationale for Image:Ibmser1.jpg

Image:Ibmser1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some information - date and price

[1] Marlagram (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Event Driven Language

Event Driven Language was merged here after three posts on a merge and/or delete discussion. View AfD One editor of which complained that he his nearest computer library was 250 miles away. It is as if Wikipedia existed for his convenience. Now we have the most ridiculous situation of a wikilink pointing to itself. The fact of the matter is, is that the IBM Series/1 required operating software. This software was in many cases "Event Driven Language". The fact that Event Driven Language was lost to active development due to the march of progress and history, does not make it un-notable, despite the fact that some editors may be inconvenienced by the fact that it is not recent enough to warrant a Google hit. I suggest that the EDL page be restored and improved. Barring that, a improving its treatment here is warranted. It never ceases to amaze me how many editors deny history because they cannot find it on Google. WP:verifiablity does not require Google assets. In fact it specifically mentions University Libraries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 December 2010

A Google hit is not a requirement, notability is. What editors on the AfD claimed was that since the subject does not appear on Google Scholar or Google Books (where did you take the part about Google hits from?) they themselves don't have a way to establish notability. In other words, as the requirement is that the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", and sadly no other editor was able to provide such sources, the article had to be merged. If you have such sources, I'm sure no one would object if you restored and improved that article. Improving the treatment here is also an option, feel free to do that too. As for the circular link, that's the simplest problem, fix it. --Muhandes (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Read the AfD. The link is above, here, on this page. The third individual posting his opinion, determined lack of notability by lack of Google results, as if that was the beginning and ending of the universe. And the merger was for crap. My references were left behind. The first reference was to an encylopedia of minicomputers. The second was to a lawsuit about a program written in this language. And some others I forget about. We can dispute notability. I have no problem with that at all. But I think that the arguments should be about notability, not about whether someone is not capable of driving to a university library, or too lazy too look at the references given, or whether Google contains links. I don't think I should have to do the work twice. It should have been the merger to actually merge. Thanks. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I read that AfD differently, as being all about notability, with Google Scholar and Google Books (not Google Search) being mentioned by the way and not as the main argument. But this is a futile discussion. I thought you were proposing to make improvements to the article/recreate the merged article, and seeking opinions whether this improvements will be appropriate. If you are not going to do any changes, apparently no one else will, so lets not waste any more time on this. Best regards, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Muhandes. You've been a gentleman. I appreciate it. I am still a beginner in the Wikipedia ways, and I must get a better handle on all of this. I believe in Wikipedia, but I think that the protocols are only a beginning. Wikipedia has an almost limitless potential in the future to make the world a better place. But we must have better judgment on these issues. And I include my judgments in that assessment. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a comment using Mike Newman's recollections and added the ref to the court case from 388443965, but I don't know enough to use the other two.

Concerning notability, I think that EDL was quite notable within the relevant circles and rates its own article. Unfortunately, I have only my memories and little documentation and even less time, but I will keep watching here. Hpvpp (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

good image of a Series/1

I noticed this image in another section of the wiki. While it is not identified as such, the tall unit (and the screen/printer) is a business version of a Series/1 system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Automatic_Meter_Reading_and_Load_Management_System.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicray (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You should like that to this main page. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Which Unix?

A quick Google search suggests it was CPIX (developed by the University of Ohio, Cleveland and Rutgers University; and marketed by IBM's Telecommunications Group) and Microsoft XENIX. 99Electrons (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Storage, anyone?

If Series /1 could run Xenix, surely it must have had other storage than the 8 inch floppie that can be identified. Xenix on floppies were about 30 something disks... So I guess there must have been a what they called at that time "winchester drive"... 134.247.251.245 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Strange" indication for the text mode display resolution

In the current version of the article I read this: "8-inch green monitor with 25 × 80 character resolution"; it seems quite strange, because in the usual way of indicating text mode displays resolution the figure related to the number of columns (i.e. 80) comes before the number of rows (25). So it should have been written 80 x 25.--Corrado72 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)