Template talk:IBM mainframes

I removed the 700/7000 line from this table. Charles Webb, a System z processor engineer and IBM Fellow wrote this: "I would be inclined to drop the 700/7000 line as well. This was a predecessor to S/360 and contributed a lot of genetic material, but I think of the real "mainframe" era as starting with S/360 and the common ISA across multiple computer models."

I don't see any basis for this. IBM was the dominant force in computing in the 1950s and 60s based on the 700/7000 series. They certainly were the mainframes of that era and were the basis for everything from the SABRE airlines reservation system to the NASA Gemini program. IBM's history page considers them mainframes, see: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_intro.html--agr (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The thought wasn't about the importance of the 700/7000 but about the definition of the mainframe category itself. I have no problem with your interpretation if you feel strongly about it. Davidlharlan (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I do feel strongly. The 700/7000 series created and defined the mainframe category at IBM. I don't think anyone who was around at the time would dispute this. For example, when the mid-size 1401/1410 architecture grew to mainframe size, it got a 7000 series nomenclature, the 7010. Of course their capabilities look puny by today's standards (so does the System/360) but they were awe inspiring in their time.--agr (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]