Discussion:
April 7, 1964 IBM Announces "System 360" Computer Family
(too old to reply)
Knutson, Sam
2011-04-07 17:27:26 UTC
Permalink
From http://www.computerhistory.org/tdih/


April 7, 1964

IBM Announces "System 360" Computer Family

IBM announces the release of its "System 360" mainframe computer
architecture--embodied in five new models--launching its most successful
computer system of all time. Called the "360" because it was meant to
address all possible sizes and types of customer with one unified
software-compatible architecture, the 360 family of machines generated
in excess of $100 billion in revenue for IBM.
After five years of turbulent development, the Models 30, 40, 50, 60/62,
and 70 were introduced along with 150 new supporting products, with IBM
proudly claiming that software written for one model of System/360 could
run on any other. This allowed customers to add or remove computing
capacity without losing their investment in software. This had been a
serious problem before the 360 with IBM alone having seven different,
mutually-incompatible mainframe computer systems.
The 360 architecture was the basis for all subsequent mainframe
architectures developed at IBM, as well as at IBM's many
"plug-compatible" imitators. Its standardization of interfaces and
methods allowed other companies to carve out a niche in the
360-dominated computer ecosystem. Throughout most of the 1960s, the
System/360's success gave IBM a 65% market share, prompting observers to
term the industry "Snow White (IBM) and the Seven Dwarfs." In 1965, the
relative market shares were:

1. IBM: 65.3%
2. Sperry Rand (formerly Remington Rand): 12.1%
3. Control Data Corp.: 5.4%
4. Honeywell (formerly a division of Raytheon): 3.8%
5. Burroughs: 3.5%
6. General Electric: 3.4%
7. RCA: 2.9%
8. NCR (National Cash Register): 2.9%
9. The oft-forgotten eighth dwarf, Philco: 0.7%







====================
This email/fax message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this
email/fax is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy all paper and electronic copies of the original message.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
2011-04-08 16:14:41 UTC
Permalink
In
<***@GP2K0084V3.GEICO.corp.net>,
on 04/07/2011
Post by Knutson, Sam
9. The oft-forgotten eighth dwarf, Philco: 0.7%
What about Bendix, DEC, LGP, SDS, Sylvania, TRW and various European
vendors?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Rick Fochtman
2011-04-08 21:01:00 UTC
Permalink
-----------------------------------<snip>---------------------------------------
Post by shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
Post by Knutson, Sam
9. The oft-forgotten eighth dwarf, Philco: 0.7%
What about Bendix, DEC, LGP, SDS, Sylvania, TRW and various European
vendors?
--------------------------------------<unsnip>------------------------------------
Reminds me of an old joke from years ago: "IBM didn't kill RCA; RCA
committeed suicide." :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
shmuel+ (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.)
2011-04-12 13:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Fochtman
Reminds me of an old joke from years ago: "IBM didn't kill RCA; RCA
committeed suicide." :-)
Joke? From RCA's testimony[1] at the anti-trust trial, it was more
like a tragedy. Allegedly RCA had been making a profit but thought
that they were losing money.

[1] I always thought that the first rule for a l;awyer was to never
put anyone on the witness stand unless you knew how they were
goint to testify.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Loading...