Talk:IBM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
---|
Contents |
[edit] History section
The history section begins with the heading "1888 – 1924: The founding of IBM" and the picture's caption reads "Tabulating Machine Corporation plant in 1893". However, below it says Tabulating Machine Corporation was founded in 1896. What's correct and what's not? Klehti 06:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions to fill out gaps in the article
- Add in a timeline history of computers produced by IBM ( a single line with a link to related article on that computer)
- I see no mention of System 34, 36, 38 - one transformed into AS400 which continues as "Iseries". For a good article, why not ask IBM for this input?
- Move the diversity subsection towards the end of the article because it is significantly less important than IBM's other history
- Add a seperate timeline of how IBM contributed to the development of modern programming languages, modern database systems (e.g., sequential tape -> direct access records -> isam -> vsam -> network databases -> relational databases)
- Add a seperate subtopic on IBM research contributions
- Add a seperate subtopic or article on IBM's point of sale products which are extensively used today even with some of them being 25+ years old
- How can then date of foundation be 1888, all the the companies that formed CTR were founded after that (89, 91, 96), CTR istself forming in 1911
- List of IBM campuses, sites, manufacturing facilities, etc?
[edit] Pop music hits from IBM
I am looking for an infromation on an unusual topic: pop music hits from IBM!
In late 1960s or early 1970s, IBM released an LP full of parodies of pop songs with context related to computers. My weak senile memory keeps only two of them:
-
- Press the Magic Button (or Push the Magic Button?) based on Puff, the Magic Dragon
- Memory D'Amour, a pun on Melodie D'Amour by The Ames Brothers
The latter one goes something like,
- I've bought a terminal
- The day I lost my gal.
- ... etc.
- Now I have girls galore
- I my new mem'ry core
- I put them on disk file
- To store them for a while... etc.
- Refrain:
- Memory d'amour,
- Put the core to the printer
- Or to the display
- Please without delay.
I'd very much like to find more info about this IBM music. Surprisingly, I cannot find its traces in the internet. I thought that April issues of Datamation could have kept them, but alas! mikka (t) 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- I did a search on the IBM internal newsgroup on IBM history for "music", but found nothing on such a LP. I found references to company songs (lots of them; here's a link: "We don’t pretend we’re gay / We always feel that way" is the start of one song :-) or early electronic music or how to make music using a punch-card reader, but nothing on this. Anyway, I'll post a question on that newsgroup. bogdan | Talk 21:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- I got an answer that said that there were some song parodies inside IBM, but it would be rather surprising if the IBM lawyers allowed them to be released. :-) bogdan | Talk 21:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've seen and listened them myself, and guess where? In the USSR! (It was the time when IBM/360 machines were sold to USSR, and the owner of the vinyl I am speaking about frequented IBM on this occasion (and he had a daughter, but this is another story... :-).) Of course, the songs were not released by some regular label. I guess it was a piece of promo, made very professionally, I must say. It is a pity that this piece of computer folklore is lost. mikka (t) 22:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Automatic generated suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
- Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,allegemight be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, pleasestrikethis comment).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I amnowusing a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, - David Björklund (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Split away the History section
The history section is far too bulky for the main IBM article. I suggest it be spun off into a separate article, with just a short summary of IBM's history left in the main article.
As an example of this approach, have a look at Anglo-Saxons and the way that the history section links to History of Anglo-Saxon England.
Gavin Wilson 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed - this article is too long. Kat, Queen of Typos 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sure why not. (Wikimachine 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
- Agreed.—a thing 07:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IBM, DOS, and Microsoft
I think that the history behind DOS (disk operating system) and IBM/Microsoft is incredibly relevant to this article and to IBM's history. I feel it should be included.
- MIcrosoft didnt need them anymore cuz they were sucessfull, hopefully more people use linux now, on this article and their site they say they support Linux, thats good payback for Micro$oft!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Realg187 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Holocaust
I think this article could use some more information regarding IBM's role during the Holocaust. Would this be relevant for a criticism/affairs section? 82.92.64.247 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IBM and the Holocaust
This page needs "criticism/affairs section," reguarding IBM's tecnology manufacturing and willful collaboration with the Nazi regime directly corresponding to the systematic deaths of victims of the WW2 Holocaust. A usefull starting point would be Edwin Black's Book "IBM and the Holocaust" <http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com>. Count of Cascadia 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think this has been discussed before, at length. I believe there was consensus regarding including information about roles by IBM, the US government, Spain, etc. CMacMillan 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Was the "consensus" to Include information within this page under a criticism section, or within the holocaust page under collaboraters? Count of Cascadia 10:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
How is including mention of IBM/holocaust in summary on the main page "pov" pushing? I would direct you to the page of Ford Motor Company, I.G. Farben, and ITT as examples of how other companies have allegations listed on their front page. Thus, it would seem that IBM's particular exclusion would be POV insofar as one might infer the allegations are less important than the other inclusions. I'm not suggesting i believe them to be true, only that this particular exclusion seems rather glaring. --Chalyres 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Given the fact that "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" became a long-running New York Times bestseller, it behooves Wikipedia to at least acknowledge the intense legal and political controversy. The book, written by Edwin Black in collaboration with over a hundred holocaust scholars, clearly established IBM's close ties to the Nazi government, development of census data used to identify, locate, and execute minorities, and collaboration with German military in 1939, 1940, and 1941 invasions of European countries. Of course, once America entered WWII, Thomas Watson downplayed his admiration for Nazi Germany. Yet, business was business, and he continued to directly control the German subsidary that made the trains run on time to the camps, kept detailed recornds of camp inmates and fates, and played a critical role in various German military divisions. The fact that Watson avoided trial as a collaborator seems stunning in light of the documented history. Regardless of one's admiration for various IBM products, services, or slogans, the bottomline remains that Wikipedia must include a discussion of this topic. Silence equals acceptance, if not consent. -- 76.168.69.7
Your probably better putting that in the History of IBM page or it's own seperate page. To me to put it on this page appears to be breaking NPOV. --Archeus 11:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That book was a best-seller for a while but it was largely discounted by the NY Times book review [1] as sensationalistic and not historically accurate. –Shoaler (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- But it must be mentioned on the main article I feel. I have added a mention of the holocaust to the history section, this time with a link to the main article. Please remove it if you feel it inappropriate. 217.42.222.146 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- First off, thank you for both being bold and making the change as well as discussing it here. After some consideration I have removed the sentence. No other historical accomplishments or controversies are mentioned in the main article, and doing so in this case violates the undue weight clause. /Blaxthos 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough Blaxthos, but isn't that an argument for including a selection of all controversies, rather than for not mentioning the holocaust controversies? This said, I understand it must be discluded from the article untill this is implemented. (This the same person as User:217.42.222.146|217.42.222.146) 86.146.199.173 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 1888
How can it be around for that long?? They didnt have computers!! unless it was a Babbage Box Realg187 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Does History of IBM answer your question? — Aluvus t/c 19:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
So my computer is made by a company that made guns in WWII??? LOL!! And they mkaed punch card things?! RealG187 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um, "yes". /Blaxthos 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- WOw, she's as fast as a bullet! RealG187 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Largest?
Please note the conflict with the Wikipedia reference for HP/Hewlett Packard: IBM: "IBM is the largest information technology company in the world" HP: "HP, is the world's largest information technology corporation" I think a little qualification is in order.
- Though I don't have a source at the ready (will do some research), IBM dwarfs HP in terms of technology research & development, market capitalization, and corporate locations worldwide. /Blaxthos 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Key market measure is revenue and IBM has lost the crown to HP in 2006. Article has been adjusted to reflect 2006 results. 59.167.56.72 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
These 'savings' are used each year to distort the company's balance sheet and pay ever inflated salaries to President Palmisano and his cronies. There is very little actual growth in revenues. Stock price has remained largely stagnant for several years - unlike Palmisano's pay package. Staff who have been with the company for 20 years or more face severe cuts in their pension payments and huge hikes in their health care costs and general abondonment by the company they have given a large part of their lives to. The general view within the organization is that the company has changed beyond recognition in the last 10 years - not for the better.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.210.143.74 (talk)
-
- Definitely original research and doesn't really feel neutrally worded. /Blaxthos 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)