Talk:IBM 7070

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Early computers task force.

This IBM source says the 7070 was introduced in 1958: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV2070.html --agr (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IBM 7070. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150827134534/http://www.cozx.com/~dpitts/ibm7090.html to http://www.cozx.com/~dpitts/ibm7090.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All you needed to do was remove the "~" from before "dpitts", but that took a bit more work than could be expected from a script. Guy Harris (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede contains material that, while appropriate for the article, belongs in a separate section.

Given that the 705 stored a character in six bits (64 possible values) and the 7070 stored a character in two digits (100 possible values), the claimed inability to fully represent the 705 character set needs an explanation and a citation.

There really ought to be a section on architecture.

There is no initial discussion of I/O, so the name IBM 7070#Additional or optional I/O units is confusing. Further, the I/O devices that are not mentioned, e.g., 729 tape drive, are more important than those that are. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The {{infobox}} has |name=IBM 7070 but |image=IBM 7070 (7074).jpg; should it not be re-titled 7074 with a 7070 predecessor, or have a 7070 image, e.g., |image=IBM 7070.jpg?

There are redirects from IBM 7072 and IBM 7074, but the only mention of those is that they are successors, which is somewhat misleading in the case of the 7072. The 7072 is a less expensive model with 7330 tape dives instead of the faster729 tape drives used on the 7070 and 7074.

The 7074 was a faster model and could take up to 30K words of core storage; however, the program had to use the +04 instruction with a modifier digit of 1 (ASSN) to turn on the additional storage switch prior to using 5-digit addresses. . -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

So should the infobox be for the entire line of processors, or just for the 7074?

If it's for the entire line, the name should be something like "IBM 7070/7072/7074", with no predecessor.

If it's for the 7074, the date should be the date the 7074 was introduced, not the date the 7070 was introduced, and there should perhaps be an infobox for the 7070 as well. Guy Harris (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that it be for the 7070 with an image for the 7070 and a successor of 7074; the only reason that I changed the title was to bring it in line with the image. I'm not sure what to do about the 7072, since it had a faster processor but slower tapes. Note that the 7080 is not a successor to the 7070.

Would it be reasonable to use the picture of an SMS card rather than one of a 7070 console? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that it be for the 7070 with an image for the 7070 and a successor of 7074 Should there be a single "it", or should this page, the current title nonwithstanding, really be considered to be a page for all of the 7070, 7072, and 7074, either with independent infoboxes, plural, for all three of those, or with a single infobox "IBM 7070/7072/7074" for all three of them?

Would it be reasonable to use the picture of an SMS card rather than one of a 7070 console? As long as it's an SMS card for a 7070. It would also be reasonable to have an infobox with no image.

I'm not sure what to do about the 7072, since it had a faster processor but slower tapes. Faster as in "same CPU, higher clock rate" or faster as in "different, faster design"? If the latter, is it the 7074 CPU design, or do all three have different CPU designs? Guy Harris (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify

single versus multiple

Currently there are redirects to the article from 7072 and 7074. Those redirects are only appropriate if the article covers all three.

Perhaps a new title?

Perhaps structure it like IBM 7090?

7074

The 7104 High Speed Processor on the 7074 replaces the 7601 Arithmetic and Program Control on the 7070 and execute all of the instructions on the 7070, with better performance. There are a few additional instructions on the 7074; I'm not sure about the 7072. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

During some additions to the page, I realized that IBM pretty consistently uses title case for component names while wiki typically uses sentence case. The case convention in the article is currently mixed. Should it be changed to sentence or title? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the 7070 is in general much faster than the 650, there is one quaint anomaly. One the 650, the table lookup instructions took 98 microseconds per word while on the 7070 they took 108 microseconds per word. I have a guess as to why this is, but no evidence to back it up. Is a discussion of this discrepancy TMI? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose introducing #History and #Architecture sections, and moving all but the first paragraph in the lead. At a minimum the new #Architecture section should address addressing, instruction format and I/O. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]