Talk:IBM Series/1
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Event Driven Language page were merged into IBM Series/1. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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
Please go to
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
- A Google hit is not a requirement, ]
- 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)
- 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 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)
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)