Shipping & IBM Parts...

From: Philip.Belben_at_powertech.co.uk <(Philip.Belben_at_powertech.co.uk)>
Date: Mon Sep 22 09:58:07 1997

> 1) Is there a FAQ somewhere that lists all IBM part nubmers and what they
> are? I've got a friend offering me an IBM 3278, and I can't remember
> if that's a dumb terminal or if it's something more exciting.
>
> not that i know of, although i think you can call boulder parts for parts
> lookup. 800.388.7080 i can look up fru part numbers when i'm at work though.
>
> 3278 isnt worth much unless you have an ibm mainframe to connect it to. its
> just a plain old ugly terminal. i think the 3279 was colour and the 3278 was
> monochrome. I do have most of the parts to an ibm xt3270 around here
> somewhere...

"xt3270"? When I was at IBM, we called it the "3270-PC". Very nice machine,
but not as nice as the 3270-PC/G or 3270-PC/GX, the graphics terminal versions.
The latter had a graphics coprocessor box almost as large as a PC, and a 19 inch
monitor (I think 1280x1024 resolution)

3278 is an extremely dumb terminal. It not only needs a mainframe, but AFAIK it
needs a 3274 or 3174 "terminal controller" - a minicomputer dedicated to MUXing
terminals to an IBM channel, which also ran most of the local loop on the
terminal and sent packets to the mainframe (a sort of PAD, I suppose). I can't
remember how much of the "dumb terminal" functionality was in the 3274 but I
used to suspect it was quite a lot...

3278 is indeed monchrome, 3279 the colour version. Superseded (mid '80s) by
3178 and 3179, and some cheaper monochrome ones (3196?)

To reply to some other comments on the recent IBM thread,

Yes, I might take a system/38 if someone offered it to me. I don't have
anywhere to put it but I might find room at the back of my garage. I'd prefer a
System/34 though - mainly because that's the machine I worked on when I was at
IBM.

I agree with Tony, though - difficult to maintain with all the custom chips.

Allison, I don't think when [previous contributor] described it as a "room-sized
8088" he was talking about the processor involved. The processor is a custom
IBM minicomputer on ?several boards, based on the System/32 and System/34 and
things. I think he was making a performance comparison, and probably being a
bit unfair.

The IBM AS/400 is, I am told, based on the S/38.

Philip.
Received on Mon Sep 22 1997 - 09:58:07 BST