Talk:IBM AS/400

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

is this acurate?

I know of so many companies using some very old, dos like software - and they call it the IBM AS/400 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.199.99.252 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

?POV I'm reading through the comments; it sounds like an ad. My experience with the AS/400 is that it's a clunky dinosaur. What's up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.199.99.252 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is mostly accurate. What's your actual experience on the AS/400? Is it actually programming for it and administering it, or is it just using some app that your company uses? It isn't wise to dismiss a system just because of inexperience or because its different from what you're accustomed to. There is nothing in common between OS/400 and DOS except that they both use text-based user interfaces (even then, OS/400 has a consistant menu and dialogue system which DOSes do not). -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-27 20:42Z

Clunky Dinosaur? IBM i runs on Watson technology, IBM POWER Systems with POWER7. Comparing this to an AS/400, would be like saying PC's are clunky dinosaurs based on the PC-XT. Or like saying Windows is a dinosaur because 3.1 came out in what year? The object-based paradigm used in IBM i operating system provides integrity and security that other operating systems cannot achieve.

1988. Says it all really - what on earth is this article all about? I got a joke through with AS/400 on it and came here hoping for some enlightenment - who is using this ting at the moment - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.14.215 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this article about? This line of computers.

Who's using it? These people are using it. Guy Harris 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The Intel 80386, which more or less introduced the first form of what we know as 32-bit x86, came around in 1986. Windows NT was introduced in 1993. The modern incarnations of both those technologies are obviously more capable and advanced than their ancestors. Anyway, Guy answered your questions. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-28 02:48Z

There are more of these systems in use than any other family of computers from any other vendor. It is a designed top to bottom for business applications, and it has been frequently sold via Independent Software Vendors with applications for particular industries. This success is due to the software vendors believing in the system as the best platform for their package and for their customers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenTea (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Workhorse

I object to my section being deleted!

22:19, 17 January 2021 Guy Harris talk contribs 30,840 bytes −546 Undid revision 1000956023 by Cosnahang (talk) - rv promotional text. undothank Tag: Undo

The iSeries is known as a reliable workhorse that has supported tens of thousands of businesses not in a flashy way but as a background core to their systems. It is used by over 16,000 banks to run coresystems even in the 2020s. It is noted for its robustness, lack of attackable vectors, scalability and upgradability.

This is not promotional but a fact. the iSeries is a reliable stable and highly functional system which is why it has survived when virtually all it contemparary systems such as the DPD, ICL3900 etc are consigned to history. I even backed it up with a great link. On a personal level I still work with an iSeries which undergirds key processes.

if The other Guy does not have good reason to put forwards I will reinsert in a week or so. Guy --Cosnahang (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PUFFERY, WP:NPOV. Guy Harris (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Will https://www.serverwatch.com/hardware/ibm-as400/ work for you - there needs to be a section saying why the AS400 is still there! Cosnahang (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Seems this should be AS/400

Generally speaking, we name articles after the more widely used term if multiple terms are used. In this case it would appear that AS/400 is dramatically more widely used than System i.

Following IBM's timeline, the term AS/400 was used from 1988 until 2000, it became iSeries until 2006, and System i for only two years before the entire series was rebranded. This suggests that System i is the least used name, historically speaking, and a bit of googling suggests this is very true in practice as well.

So, I would argue this should be called AS/400 and redirs into it, as it was in the past I believe. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and I was thinking of suggesting this myself. I think there are more redirs to this article via AS/400 than there are direct links. Vt320 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

---

IBM System i → IBM AS/400 – See discussion on talk page. Most links to this page are through the AS/400 redirect. Most references for this system refer to the system as the AS/400, and it is more commonly known by this name. The AS/400 name was used for 12 years, compared with the 2 years in which the System i name was used. WP:UCN Vt320 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The bold text in the lead agrees too. And move IBM i to OS/400 on the same basis.--Verbarson (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, it’s probable that more people refer to the current IBM i as AS/400 than its proper name. So IMO, AS/400 should very obviously be the article rather than the redirect.Jacona (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping IBM i as-is - I don't see many people talking about OS/400 as something distinct from the AS/400, so to my mind, IBM i is at least as commonly used of a name as OS/400 Vt320 (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's sad... IBM sold about a million of these under the AS/400 name, I would be surprised if its anywhere near 10,000 under the i branding? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. For the reasons given by User:Vt320. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support as the more widely known and used WP:COMMONNAME. TiggerJay (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add additional historical information on AS/400 hardware and OS for the years 1988 to 2006

EWLwiki I ask Vt320 and Guy_Harris for your permission, guidance, and consensus, in adding additional content of the rich history of the AS/400 platform, with the hope that you do not revert sincere, honest edits.

The AS/400 article lacks clarity in the chronological, extensive incremental advances to hardware and operating system occurring in the years 1988 to 2006.

The brand names eServer iSeries, System i5, System i, and each processor, can add important clarity to the family that became so different over time, until the platform was discontinued in 2008 with the introduction of IBM Power Systems. Many people lack understanding and appreciation for the significant changes that occurred.

For example, it would be very helpful be more chronological in the article. Example: describe more in dept the Dynamic Logical Partitioning that was introduced with eServer iSeries on POWER4. LPAR was a huge technological advance.

Example: the Integrated File System (IFS) did not exist on the platform in the early years. We should describe in detail at what version release (and processor level) the IFS was implemented into the architecture, and how significant the IFS became to the later generations of AS/400. IFS is just one of the many things that show that AS/400 began as an midrange computer. It was not a server, not connected to the internet, and very proprietary, not easy to connect to other systems.

IBM has always made it so that application code is forward-compatible to a newer machine and OS version, so that customers do not need to recompiled source code IBM RPG II or IBM RPG III or IBM COBOL or IBM ControlLanguage when migrating to a newer machine onnewer IBM POWER microprocessors or OS/400, not IBM i version level.

But as customers incorporate into their application code the hundreds of features of the computer language and hardware, that new code is NOT backward-compatible, that is, cannot run on an older processor or OS level because the those language features and OS features did not exist on the older machines.

What say you? EWLwiki (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

IFS is a software feature, not a hardware feature.

> But as customers incorporate into their application code the hundreds of features of the computer language and hardware, that new code is NOT backward-compatible, that is, cannot run on an older processor or OS level because the those language features and OS features did not exist on the older machines.

That's also a software issue. As time goes on, old hardware goes out of support, and vendors will no longer support old hardware with new versions of the OS or development tools. There is no technical reason why old AS/400s could not support new versions of RPG, IBM simply made the decision not to support them.

I agree that LPAR support could probably be elaborated on. Vt320 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

There's hardware, there's software, and there are computing platforms. Unless you're toggling raw machine code in from the front panel, or loading hand-encoded raw machine code with a load button, platforms aren't hardware-only - there's some software involved in getting your own software running (even if it's running on another machine as a cross-development tool). And many platforms include at least some hardware, e.g. a personal computer's keyboard and mouse, or other I/O peripherals.

The Macintosh platform has changed its CPU instruction set several times, so, for example, the macOS platform isn't identified by being based on PowerPC, x86, or ARM; to that extent, the CPU is obviously necessary, but, for most developers, isn't a key part of the platform (I suspect most developers don't develop for those instruction sets, unless they need to write CPU-specific low-level code). So it's not necessarily the case that all of the hardware is a key part of the platform.

The "400" platform also changed its CPU instruction set, and the majority of programmers had no reason to care (the main ones who did were the VMC/SLIC developers, who also changed programming languages). The main significant part of the CPU for the 400 platform is, as far as I can tell, the presence of tag bits protecting pointers.

So what hardware changes to the platform added significant capabilities?

And what parts of the platform should be covered by IBM i and what parts covered by AS/400 and IBM Power Systems? Guy Harris (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

To my mind, it is precisely the hardware-independent capabilities which should be covered by the IBM i article. This includes things like TIMI, the file/object system, development tools, PASE, etc.

The hardware articles should cover the specifics of those machines, the various models, CPUs, I/O hardware, etc. LPAR is another good example of something which belongs to hardware, since that is a capability provided by the hardware at a layer below the operating system. Vt320 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

From a quick look at the Power ISA 3.0 specification, it appears that at least some of the LPAR support is provided by the chip; presumably there's also a hypervisor involved - is that provided in system ROM or in something booted from secondary storage? In either case, that'd count as something belonging on the AS/400, IBM System p, and IBM Power Systems pages; is the LPAR support similar in the RISC AS/400, System p, and Power Systems machines? Currently, AS/400 and IBM System p mention LPARs, mostly relying on logical partition, Dynamic Logical Partitioning, and Micro-Partitioning to provide the details. All three of them should perhaps be synced up.

(And what about the VMC/SLIC? I'd count them both as low-level OS software top which IBM i run, and put them on the IBM i page, with a note on the AS/400 page about them as well.) Guy Harris (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

References