On 4/12/19 11:15 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: My tendency has been to consider 7000 xeries machines as transistorized 700 series. Certainly that applies in the case of the 7090. --Chuck

On 4/12/2019 1:15 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: Furthermore, like the 8000 series would have been, the 7000 series (and the 700 series, and the 1400 series, for that matter) was more of a series of *technology* rather than a series of compatible computers. The 7000 series used SMS ECL (current mode), at least in a lot of places, whereas the 1400 series were essentially RTL with some DTL sprinkled in on the 1410. For example, the IBM 7010 was an IBM 1410 done up in 7000 series technology (and was a compatible super-set of the 1410 and, via a toggle switch, the 1401). It had no architectural relationship with the 7090/7094, nor did the 7070 or 7080, near as I can tell. longer memoirs document, which was not itself published, to my knowledge) https://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-bbfinkel/bob_o_evans_… "Flush with the success of the 1401 and the 1410 in process ? I was not willing to abandon those winners to join the 8000 series plan, which did not sit right with me in the first place because the 8103, 8104, 8108 and the 8112 were architecturally incompatible and I was certain compatibility was fundamentally important." "By May 1961 I concluded the 8000 series would be a serious blunder, in part because of the lack of compatibility within the systems family. I did not buy Dr. Brooks? arguments that recompilation would be acceptable to make it possible for the programming from all the dissimilar architectures of existing products to work effectively on the dissimilar architectures of the 8000 series. There were other important reasons to scrap the 8000 series plan including technology choice. Jerrier Haddad backed my decision; the 8000 Series plan was killed." My experience with a couple of magazine authors during my career tells me that many of them do not understand much of what they are writing, and errors like this 7000/8000 thing are common. Another half truth in the article reads: "The power of compatibility was demonstrated in the fall of 1960, when IBM introduced the more powerful 1410 to replace the 1401. Software and peripheral equipment for the 1401 worked with the newer machine. " That was only true to the extent that the 1410 included a 1401 compatibility mode switch, which literally changed the logic so that it became a (somewhat faster) 1401. In its normal 1410 position, it could not run 1401 programs, and vice/versa. JRJ