Talk:IBM System/34

Computing Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Organize

Can everybody tell me more about the OCL ORGANIZE command. I have to migrate an application to as/400 with the ORGANIZE command, but i don't know the command structure

ORGANIZE is an SSP procedure from the days of the System/34. The function of ORGANIZE is to copy data from one file to another, usually excluding records based on a code placed in a certain position. With the introduction of COPYDATA, which was more functional than ORGANIZE, use of ORGANIZE declined. I suggest using COPYDATA instead of ORGANIZE. Jessemckay 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Hmm... about cleanup... portions of text about hardware configuration look like they've been translated from Japanese or something. Odd... --Arny 03:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How sad. I can tell you that this is an original submission. Jessemckay 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles

Large chunks of the second half of this article appear to be very similar or identical to the similar pr=ortion of the System/36 article - could they be meregd into a new common article? Alimat 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer two articles -- one S/34 and one S/36 -- to a single article that of necessity might become even longer and more complex than both articles combined. Jessemckay 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Acronyms

Seeing as these are very standard IBM acronyms; I find it hard to believe these should be referenced as "Crazy". --aboxbayz 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Perhaps it's a game show phenom but I happen to take issue with odd acronyms.

The article says:

"Since PTFs were only temporary in the sense that they were superseded by later releases of SSP, using the name 'PTF' was considered odd."

Doesn't that say it all?

POV

Whether the marketing campaign for the System/34 was "offensive" or not isn't really an encyclopedic matter, is it? Or if it is, isn't there a better way to write about it? And is there a neutral reference existing somewhere to back this claim? Too many questions regarding the statement, not enough answers...it probably should be taken out unless someone comes up with something to support the position that it was offensive. Alan 14:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IBM System/34 was a business computer, not a pop song by Timbalake. Thus, to say an advertisement was "offensive" brings neither the social stigma nor the culture phenom of the disaffected rock-loner to mind. Business computing is about teamwork and not isolation. The verbage described in the article could have reasonably shocked or offended the values of an average person in the commercial's audience.

In 1989, pop singer Madonna associated her "Like A Prayer" video with the Pepsi-Cola soft drink in a commercial that appeared on television in the USA. Pepsi received a large number of complaints and pulled the ad. It was judged offensive, not by Pepsi, who granted artistic license to Madonna, but to the customers who complained, who reasonably represented the general public viewpoint.

For these reasons, I defend the assertion that the System/34 ad, circa 1977, was offensive. It is fair and balanced to remark that equivocating the Virgin Birth in some way with a brand-new business computer system offended the mass market.

Jessemckay 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if there's an available image somewhere of the actual ad that can be linked to for support of this, I'd be more inclined to agree. However, since I haven't seen the ad in question, there's still the very subjective position of its offensiveness...which is the point of my WP:NPOV assertion. Alan 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But such an assertion by definition intends that there is a subjective point of view, not that there is a question of fact. There is a separate wiki challenge for that. I do not defend the fact of the 1977 ad. I haven't seen it. But, if it does exist, as described, then it most certainly is offensive.

Jessemckay 13:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]