Talk:International Computers Limited

General discussion

Not being intimately familiar with the British computer industry, let alone specific products, I find the article very hard to read, due to the mix of technical, organizational and timeline aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.217.204.95 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

COMPANY NAME

I think it should be "International Computers Limited" not "...Ltd". How does one change the name of the page?

Michael Kay

By "moving" the article, in effect Wiki creates a new page called "... Limited" and keeps the old " .... Ltd" page as a link to the new one. However, I suggest you click on "What links here" before you move it, to check that the links don't break.Pyrotec 19:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

At one stage it was ICL Plc.Iccaldwell (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that being for a period of a year, some legal manoeuvre to do with the pension scheme, or maybe I am conflating two events? Pterre (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The time I am remembering was in the late 70s.Iccaldwell (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) frowns on plc or Ltd in article names. In my experience the company was sometimes referred to informally just as 'International Computers', but much more commonly as 'ICL'. Without the 'Limited' it wouldn't have been ICL, so I would agree that the article should be called "International Computers Limited". Pterre (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) again. By comparison with British Overseas Airways Corporation - which requires the word 'Corporation' in the article title because it was generally known as BOAC - it should be "International Computers Limited". Pterre (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at my archive from my time at ICL (1977-80). On its documents it's either "ICL" , "International Computers Limited" or interestingly "International Computers Group" but never "International Computers Ltd". So I agree the article name should be "International Computers Limited". Iccaldwell (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, unless anyone objects (PDQ), I hereby nominate myself to rename the article, probably tomorrow. It will take a little while for me to mend the many "what links here" links, unless they already point to the correct name (which at present is a redirect). Pterre (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's not that much mending that will be needed. Just delete the the current "International Computers Limited" page, move this page to that name, and I think there's just 2 redirect pages that will need to be pointed to the new name. The other pages that point here will be automatically redirected. -- Arwel (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now renamed the article and edited most of the links to "Ltd." and to "Ltd". That leaves Category:International Computers Ltd, which includes 16 articles. So far I've just edited the 'main article pointed' to by this category. does anyone think this should also be changed? There s no 'move' button for categories. Pterre (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Glenn Read

I dont understand something about this page - it states that ICL in part was a merger of Elliot Automation and Marconi Computers, but I worked for GEC computers which was very much a merger of Elliot Automation and Marconi Computers and was in the old Elliot Borehamwood site - can anyone shed any light on this discrepency.

I think there is some confusion here between Elliot and English Electric (who had the System 4). I certainly don't remember being told about Marconi at all in my Induction (we did a potted history of the company) but it was nearly thirty years ago so probably unreliable memory. Wilmot1 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

English Electric was at one time "English Electric Leo Marconi" (EELM). They merged with Elliott to become "English Electric Computers"; it was this company which merged with ICT to become ICL. I remember working on an Elliot 803 emulator on 1900s - Elliott is in the pedigree. Have a look here [1], where the Borehamwood site is shown to have become part of Marconi TraceyR 06:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that you remind me - yes that's correct. Wilmot1

Fujitsu

Internal gossip at the time of the Series 39 launch had it that the development code name "Estriel" came about as a result of the Japanese having difficulty pronouncing the actual code name, which was "S3L". Can anyone confirm this? Elio1 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

- it's a nice story and it's probably half true, but I think it belongs here on the talk page rather than in the main article! Michael Kay

Mhkay 10:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's true Wilmot1 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have a reference, but my recollection was that S3L was interpreted by the Japanese as "Estriel", and they had written said name into the contract to which it related. (ICL provided the design, Fujitsu the manufacturing capability). I was then easier to change the product name than the contracts (and anyway ICL did not want to risk causing offence and Estriel is quite a nice name anyway).Exicler (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I also don't have a reference, but this is what a retired ex-ICL colleague related to me. (I wish there were more published interviews with ex-ICL employees; they played a significant role in computing history, and my colleague's stories range from hilarious to fascinating.)—Jordan Gray (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference found: Campbell-Kelly, M, 1995. ICL and the British Mainframe. The Computer Journal, vol. 38 no. 5, p. 411.—Jordan Gray (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Office Power

Any one remember this?. This was a word processor (no colour) and email system. I used it in 1990-92 at Nortel.

Office Power was originally a development by Concurrent Computer Corporation in the US for their Department of Transportation (I think!). This was licenced to part of STC and when the merger between STC and ICL happened that (and other IT elements of STC) were transferred to ICL management. Subsequently OfficePower moved forward to work on a standard Unix platform with various tweaks and changes along the way. I can't remember what happened to CCC but I believe ICL finished up with the exclusive rights.

There was of course major competition with ICL's other "Office Automation" offerings of the time EXAC and DRS-Office. As in many cases ICL designers took the best engineering/technological solution only to be overtaken by (US) market power.

Office Power was implemented in Arabic for Egypt and, I believe, in Japanese. It was very easy to use, especially the dynamic 'soft-key' displays for the function keys. --TraceyR 15:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added brief mentions of OfficePower and CCI (Computer Consoles Inc - not Concurrent Computer Corp!). The source is an ancient copy of STC Gazette found in my loft - how sad is that - so should be reasonably accurate! I used OP for several years - WP, X400 mail, 20-20 spreadsheets and UDAPS (user defined applications). Eventually dragged kicking and screaming into the world of MS Office and Exchange when Y2K was used to terminate OP. Pterre 12:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Most OfficePower systems were probably sold to local authorities and the like. Officepower had a dedicated terminal and keyboard, with a very rich set of keys (and no mouse): very ergonomic and efficient to use, once you had learned your way around it; though increasingly impractical as the IBM PC with its lousy keyboard design became ubiquitous. It's true that in the early days most users would have been using green 80x24 screens, though I think there was support for 8-colour display if you could afford it. Mhkay (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Written like an advert?

Anna.kolesnik: Would you expain why you have tagged this article as being like an advert? Without a justification for your opinion it is hard to know what, if anything, needs to be changed. Don't forget that ICL no longer exists under that name, so there is no danger of the article being an advertisement. --TraceyR 15:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is not an advert. I have added {{hangon}} to the main article.

If she can't be bothered to justify her action, we are justified in ignoring her. --TraceyR (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Locations

Like some similar articles, the company history is dehumanised by making little or no reference to where its base(s) and/or production facilities were. For example, ICL employed 2,000 people at Winsford, Cheshire. 82.36.228.136 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A Locations section has been added JXM 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Amongst others too numerous to mention, notable locations include: Feltham (at least 5 sites that I know of), Basingstoke (Defence?), Winnersh, Dublin (IRE09, the ITC), Slough, Wakefield (call centre). Besides superstructure and Unix development, Bracknell also notably had Retail (BRA02), PC design (BRA04) and ICL UK's posh Waterside Park HQ (BRA05/06). Manchester also had a noteworthy (award-winning) manufacuring plant at Ashton (MAN01) and training at the Arndale Centre (MAN12) until notably blown up by the IRA. And of course overseas R&D/manufacturing sites including Utica, Reston, Irvine etc.Pterre 12:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hedsor House (senior exec. presentations etc) also deserves a mention, and definitely Moor Hall at Cookham (training centre prior to Beaumont). --TraceyR 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ICL patent for "Microprogrammed data processing systems "

A patent for "Microprogrammed data processing systems" is documented at [2]; the patent is assigned to ICL, the authors being

• Whitby, Anthony Maurice (Hitchin, EN)
• Harper, John Martin (Hitchin, EN)
• Procter, Brian John (Welwyn, EN)

Can anyone shed light on this patent - was it describing the work which resulted in the 2903 (it mentions a DDE facility)? What was its overall significance? Did it bring in revenue for ICL? Whatever, this would appear to be a very significant patent indeed and should perhaps be mentioned in the appropriate place in ICL-related articles. --TraceyR 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the date (1974) makes it much too early for the 2903. Much more likely to be related to New Range. Mhkay (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I joined a "remote outpost" of ICL in April 1974 specifically to support the 2903, which had just been launched in South Africa, so it would have been in development probably a couple of years before that.Elio1 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo call

A photo of the building in which the Hamburg offices of ICL Germany were once (long ago) situated has appeared at the head of this article, showing a rather derelict "ICL International Computers" sign. IMHO this picture, while accurate, doesn't do ICL justice. Has anyone a photo of e.g. Bridge House North/South, West Gorton, Bracknell (or in fact any other ICL building! :-) ) which would be more representative? --TraceyR (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have various old publications with photos - BRA01, KID01, STE04, Beaumont, probably MAN12. These would all be copyright but it might be worth asking FJ if they could be used - does anyone have a suitable contact? The only one of my own shows BRA01 end-on in Fujitsu days; it does not show the FJ logo, but this probably rather defeats the object. Pterre (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I remember receiving by email (Earwig?) a photo someone took of the ICL sign coming down from one of the Manchester sites - probably MAN05. Some serious archive digging required to see if I've still got it, and who sent it. Pterre (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fry and Laurie

Mentioning the actors used for a promotional video seems a little peripheral to the subject of the article. Mentioning what recent TV shows the same actors have appeared in seems to me clearly out of scope.

(Fry and Laurie of course were Jeeves and Wooster in the BBC series at the time)

Mhkay (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal knowledge

The piece on iBank systems was added with the comment "Added some of what I know of an ICL subsidiary based on my personal knowledge, having worked there."

Now, this seems on the face of it absolutely reasonable - Wikipedia looks like a good place to capture "oral history" from those who were there at the time. And we've all probably done it. But it has to be said that Wikipedia policy is expressly opposed to that. The policy is that you shouldn't write from personal knowledge unless you can find reputable documentary sources to back up what you say.

So if you can find some written material to confirm what you've written, even if it's only company press releases, then please add the references.

Mhkay (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

The page is getting large now (over 41k), so I propose that the DRS section be moved out to its own page. --ClickRick (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly if you can write a good article on the DRS range then do so. Wherever possible, the main company article should only have a brief mention of the most important facts about individual products, and the product should have its own article with detailed technical information.

Mhkay (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As the person guilty of adding DRS, I would support a split. Pterre (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the disambiguation entry on DRS, I change my proposal for the name for the new article from ICL DRS to Distributed Resource System. Sound right?

--ClickRick (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know only DRS 20 was (originally) known as Distributed Resource System; it subsequently became "just a brand label like BMW". I'm not exactly sure when, but probably before the release of DRS 300 which I don't think was ever associated with the full name. Pterre (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, done, with a redirect from the full name to the abbreviation.

The content still looks a bit rough on its own page but that can be tidied up easily enough.

--ClickRick (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Stub sorting

I don't know why someone added a stub template to this article. The article could certainly do with improvement and perhaps expansion, but the Wikipedia definition of a stub is "an article of a few sentences" which seems inappropriate here. Unless someone can defend this classification, I shall remove it. Mhkay (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2903 based on PF56? What?

"The hardware was the 2900 DFC (Disk File Controller), which was used on the 1900 range as the PF56 disk controller and used the MICOS engine. It was born about the time that RAM memory (the PF56) became available for the 1900 series."

The 2903/4 was developped as PF73, PF56 was a 1900 disk/communications controller. I can't understand what "It was born about the time that RAM memory (the PF56) became available for the 1900 series." could mean. All 1900's had RAM. If this means semiconductor memory instead of core then the 1900 had core starting with the "S" series, there was no connection between the PF56 and the S series that I know of. HughesJohn (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Writing On The Wall

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-chief-lambasts-the-uk-for-its-technophobic-luvvie-culture-2344672.html.Twobells (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I notice edit-warring going on about whether ICL was a British or an English company. What it clearly was not was London-based, as distinct from London-head quartered. Pterre (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This company was actually created by the BRITISH government and I find the attempt to change the description firstly to English, and then to London-based highly offensive. Even were that not case however, the United Kingdom is the sovereign state - not England - and, per the standard WP approach, should rightly be included.

Absolutely - The "white heat of the technological revolution" and all that. The great majority of the company was based in Manchester, Bracknell, Stevenage, Letchworth, Kidsgrove, etc. Sure there were HQ functions in central London and Putney, but it was hardly London-based. Pterre (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And I absolutely stand by my comment in the edit summary that the editor in question appears to be on a systematic and long-running WP:CAMPAIGN to remove references to the UK from articles and replace them with England or Scotland. I have noticed this in the past and AGF but having seen the editor in action here, and looked at their editing behaviour carefully, this is undoubtedly the case. On their motives I make no comment, on their actual behaviour there can be no doubt.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoever this person is has obviously never heard of Dalkeith Palace Number774 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

PERQ

I see no mention of PERQ here. Can anyone provide content? 86.29.245.68 (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a separate PERQ wiki article... Perhaps just a wiki link and/or a few words would suffice? 82.25.154.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Information Processing Architecture (IPA)

I don't see any mention of IPA on wikipedia. Can anyone start such a wikipedia page and provide content? I recall C-03/X.25/OSLAN bearers, and RSA, FTF, DP, RVC, ADI, DAF/DTS and CM (Community Management as in CMIP/CMIS) applications. See http://uk.ts.fujitsu.com/teamservers/tools/docs/guides/fsgu0001/sconet2.doc and IBM SNA's competitors. 62.254.68.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What was this mid-1990s ICL product?

Around 1995 my GCSE computing class had a school trip to ICL, and I remember they showed us an operating system based around room and object metaphors, like Microsoft Bob. Anyone know what it was? Equinox ◑ 14:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Promotional record album

I don't know if this is worthy of incorporation in the article... I have here an LP disc, "A New Way of Seeing", produced by Media for ICL, consisting of four pieces of specially-commissioned music by Richard Harvey that were used for audio-visuals at product launches in, one presumes, the late 1970s/early 1980s. I note that the products these were written for are not all discussed in the article.

The tracks are:
A New Way of Seeing - Composed for the launch of ICL ME29 Computer System;
Tangents - Composed for the launch of ICL 9500 Retail Business Systems;
Patterns and Horizons - Composed for the launch of ICL 7700 Information Processing System;
Reaching Out - Composed for the launch of ICL 9600 Factory Terminal System

The album cover indicates "Produced by ICL for free distribution" and was given to employees AFAIK. The cover is gatefold with clouds on the outside with a pseudo-embossed square ICL logo centre front and production information and titles on the rear. The interior shows a night-time shot of the two Putney Bridge HQ buildings with an uncredited poem bottom right:

"There are no constellations
Only stars
Scattered in three dimensions
Over space.
Man maps,
Scans scraps
Of information.
Forms patterns and horizons
Of his own conception

Now absorbing from the formless Universe
Atoms of truth, like memory,
Are changed
Arranged
In new perspectives.
And dawn reflects our vision
...a new way of seeing"
Richard E (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Operating system

A minor correction. At the time of the merger of ICT and EELM there were two operating systems in use: George 3 which was a system largely targeted at the efficient use of the ICT 1900 range machines, and Multijob (known as by users as Multibodge) in use on the EELM System 4 machines which was somewhat similar to the operating system in use on IBM machines. George 3 created much interest from the user base because the performance of the ICL 1900 range working under George 3 clearly brought about significant advantages in throughput. As a direct result of the throughput gain users were clamouring for bugs to be fixed and enhancements Users banded together in vociferous and frequently meeting user groups to make their point. When the difference in performance between the ICL 1900 and the IBM range became a matter of public knowledge there was a degree of concern in IBM - so much so that even in my lowly position I was rung up by the IBM (UK) marketing director and asked for comparative performance figures for my IBM machine and my ICL 1905F. The figures did not make easy reading for IBM. Unfortunately, partly in response to Benn's illogical demand to take on IBM and partly as a result of failing to listen to users (mistaking enthusiasm for criticism. perhaps) VMEB's foundation was Multibodge and the significant advantage offered by George 3's potential development path was thrown away. At one point I had a dual 2970, a dual 2960, a 2960 emulating a 1900, and a 1904A. At the rock face we could see where the future lie and it wasn't with the 2900 range. Meanwhile our Board were being asked by independent consultants why we had so many system programmers supporting the 2900. It was always going to end in tears. 2A00:23C4:4A8E:6E01:546B:D22B:FA43:35E6 (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

EMAS

Surprising there's no mention on the main page in the section on 4/50 and 4/70 operating systems of EMAS on the 4/75. The EMAS O/S and the compilers written at Edinburgh Regional Computing Center (E.R.C.C.) were much better than the manufacturer's ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.38.160 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

British Post Office Scandal

Wow. This company is the heart of one of the biggest scandals in UK history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal and there is not a single mention of it on neither the article nor the talk page. I find that absolutely incredible. But "Ah Happy Days" working there! 81.110.137.4 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's there, but under the Subsidiaries heading. I added Horizon to the heading to make it a bit easier to find.

Also zapped most of the "happy days" stories on this talk page. -- Wire723 (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)