Talk:PC-based IBM mainframe-compatible systems

Unnamed section

Here is a list from a patient troll regarding the AT/370, and its patents.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DkCPMHbIYpYJ:www.patentstorm.us/patents/6006277.html+BYTE+Magizine+XT/370+index&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

1. IBM, Product Announcement, Models 919 and 939 of the AT/370-5170, Apr. 2, 1986
2. IBM, Product Announcement, IBM VM/PC Version 2.01, Nov. 4, 1986
3. IBM, Product Announcement, IBM VM/PC Version 2.0, Nov. 5, 1985
4. IBM, Product Announcement, IBM VM/PC Host Server, Nov. 5, 1985
5. 4 charts from the IBM PC-XT/370 Planning and Installation
6. 2 charts from non-contiguous pages of a unnamed source for IBM's PC-XT/370
7. Letter to Mike Scroggie from D. G. Serfass of IBM regarding IBM's PC-XT/370
8. 2 Pamphlets advertising the PC-XT/370
9. Bill Machrone, The Mainframe Marketplace: XT/370 and 3270 PC, PC Magazine, Jan. 24, pp. 146, 154, 1984
10. Off-Loading Mainframe Program Development to Micros Gains Momentum, unknown author & source
11. Paul Korzeniowski, Price, Software, Delivery Delays Hamper IBM XT/370 Acceptance, Computerworld, Oct. 22, pp. 1, 4, 1984
12. Eric Bender, AT/370 unveiled, enhancements to XT/370, 3270-PC, Computerworld, Oct. 29, pp. 1 and 6, 1984
13. Sam Whitmore, XT/370 Promise Seen Unrealized as Market Now Prepares for the AT/370, PC Week, pp. 3
14. Joe McLean, New IBM PC Workstations Target Professional Users, Electronic News, Oct. 24, 1983
15. PC World, article about IBM's PC-XT/370
16. Wendy Rauch-Hindin, IBM's VM/CMS Operating System Moves to Micros, Systems & Software, Dec., pp. 47-51, 1983
17. PCs as Programmer Work Stations, Software Maintenance News, Nov., p. 24, 1986
18. Microfocus Product Announcement, Microfocus Announces PC-CICS for the IBM PC, Sep. 8, pp. 1-11, 1986
19. Microfocus Press Release, Microfocus Annouces PC-CICS for the IBM PC, Sep. 8, 1986
20. Jeffry Beeler, CICS Development and Code Testing Moves to Micros, pp. 1 and 4
21. Micro Focus Development Software Allows Mainframe Programming on the PC, PC Week
22. What's New, Byte, May 1985

This link is a performance evaluation of the XT/370 by NASA citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.2382.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.207.6 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Title

I'm not really happy with the title. These things were mainframe emulators, not mainframes themselves. Is there a better name for this class of product? "PC-based mainframe emulators" might be better. Did any other mainframe company also make a desktop with the same instruction set? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it a mainframe emulator when the CPU runs the mainframe instruction set natively? The P/370 and P/390 processor boards did just that, even if you don't agree the XT/370 and AT/370s did. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's running the instruction set, but isn't a "mainframe" defined by a lot more than its instruction set? The little desktop box huffing and puffing away at a 5 1/4 inch hard drive isn't doing anywhere near the sort of job the roomfull of racks is doing. What did IBM call this class of product? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. IIRC, the P/370 and P/390 were called "personal mainframes", but I could easily be wrong, too. I do know the Multiprise systems were called mainframes with no qualifiers. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that wouldn't be the first instance of hype in the computer business, but it still sounds a little like calling a garden tractor a "personal locomotive". I wish the title was a little better but it has kind-of the right associations - running some types of mainframe software on a micro, even if it doesn't have the performance. I should ask myself "Is anyone going to seriously confuse the desktop box with the dinosaur pen?" - probably not. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, but compare to the bottom of the line S/360 or S/370 machines, such as the 370/115. I suspect that the P/370 is somewhat faster, and has a lot more memory, than a 370/115, the latter being called a mainframe. There are some (not me) that argue that any microcoded implementation is an emulation. Otherwise, the machines described here use the PC side for I/O, and the on-board processor for processing. As well as I know it, the IBM 303x machines use 370/158 hardware for the channel processor. Much of the time you try to make some distinction, you find a counterexample. Better to not try. (And if you do, it is probably WP:OR.) Gah4 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This article says nothing about the processor boards containing RISC processors but they did. I was part of a study to determine the value of the AT/370 for mainframe programmers. I remember them saying that the processor board had a RISC processor; I think a Power PC. I think but I cannot prove that IBM has been using RISC processors to implement their 370 and subsequent architectures for years. In about 1971 I was in an IBM branch office looking for manuals to purchase and I saw a manual about microcode. I asked if it was available and the woman went away and came back and said no, it is not available. It probably was the equivalent of the RISC programming of one of their 370 computer models. The processor board for the AT/370 was probably close enough to a real 370. Sam Tomato (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

AT/370 DMA

The Mueller book says the AT/370 cards were the same as those for the XT/370, but *this* article says the AT/370 could do 16-bit DMA, an impossiblility for a card that fits in an XT slot. We need a citation for 16-bit DMA. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It probably depends on the definition of "same". Sam Tomato (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely the AT/370 has a 16 bit bus and 16 bit memory access. As above, I think it depends on the meaning of "same". There is not a lot of difference between them, but bus width is one. The XT/370 bank switches 512K into 384K of XT memory, the AT/370 maps into 128K of AT memory. They use different look-up tables for virtual memory, too. But the actual processor chips are pretty much the same. Gah4 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

PI-ZZA

This section seems to contain a bit of puffery. Twice as much text as Hercules? Peter Flass (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it might have been merged from separate article. I'll par it down. This page badly needs to cover the present and only IBM-made/supported product for this, the zPDT. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RISC Processors

The 370 processor boards probably all had RISC processors; that should be mentioned. Sam Tomato (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak directly to the P/370 and P/390, but the XT/370, and likely the AT/370, were built from remicrocoded 68000s. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a pair of 68000s, one of which had the standard microcode. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IBM PS/370 and P/370

The article appears to have confused the Personal System/370 (PS/370) with the Personal/370 Adapter/A (P/370). The article describes the P/370 as having been available to select customers in late 1989, citing a 1989-11 InfoWorld article that only mentions it in passing. This is consistent with "IBM 'personal mainframe' goes public this summer" (Juli Cortino, PC Week V. 6, No. 16, 1989-04-24), which describes the PS/370 (which is a renamed IBM 7437), but is inconsistent with "PS/2 may gain mainframe card" (Susan E. Fisher, PC Week V. 10, N. 30, 1993-08-02), which describes the P/370 MCA card. The article's description of the Personal/370 is also consistent with the P/370, but not the PS/370. 99Electrons (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Disregard my OP; the article never made this error; it seems I didn't read the article properly! 99Electrons (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

{{Multiple issues|section=yes| 2014

What a stupid template that is destroying Wikipedia slowly. The bastard who wrote that is too lazy to do anything to actually improve it, and 7 f'n years later, nothing has been done. I think the best thing those of us trying to actually improve wikipedia should shoot ourselves in the head. What a hopeless mess!

Wrong image for PC/390

The P/390 section contains an image of an IBM PC Server containing a P/390, which is indistinguishable from an IBM PC Server not containing a P/390. Does anybod have an image file for the actual P//390? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

How about a picture of a P/370 board? Also, XT/370 and AT/370? Gah4 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd like images for all of

• boards
  • Personal S/370
  • PC-based IBM mainframe-compatible systems#P/390
  • PC-based IBM mainframe-compatible systems#R/390
  • PC-based IBM mainframe-compatible systems#S/390 Processor Card
• systems
  • PC-based IBM mainframe-compatible systems#7437
  • PC-based IBM mainframe-compatible systems#AT/370
  • PC-based IBM mainframe-compatible systems#S/390 Integrated Server
  • PC-based IBM mainframe-compatible systems#XT/370

I'd be surprised if we can find them all. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously?! How many references to Byte, Fall '84 ??!!??

Please redo references. 2603:300B:133D:D000:2188:7F9E:8FB3:9A4 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)