Talk:IBM 4300

No ES/4381 models

This article misses the ES/4381 ESA-capable models. Martin Packer (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects?

Shouldn't there be redirects here from, e.g., 4381? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

At least for 4381, there now are. Guy Harris (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

CMOS?

Are these CMOS processors? When did IBM make the transition to CMOS? Gah4 (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No, and "1994" according to IBM System/390 ES/9000 Enterprise Systems Architecture ESA family#S/390 computers and "by 1995" according to IBM's "A Brief History of the IBM ES/9000, System/390 and zSeries" (they explicitly speak of the 1995 machines as CMOS, but don't say anything one way or the other about the 1994 machines). Guy Harris (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Model comparison table.

The model comparison table has significant flaws.

1. It doesn't use a consistent metric for performance, making it impossible to compare the various models.
2. It lumps together model groups with different performance levels.
3. It doesn't indicate which model groups support XA and which support ESA.

Also, it may be appropriate to cite announcement letters from the IBM web site https://ibm.com/common/ssi as sources for announcement and withdrawal dates. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Nominclature

@Guy Harris: IBM uses the term model group rather than sub-model. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't introduce the term, I copied it from the first sentence of IBM 4300 § Models - "Each model - 4331, 4341, 4361, and 4381 - had various sub-models, such as the 4341 model 1 (or 4341-1) and 4341 model 2 (4341-2)." That was introduced in the edit that created the article.

Whatever the right terminology is, it should be used throughout the article. Guy Harris (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, IBM originally used the term model for configurations of the 4341 processor, but switched to model group with the introduction of new 4300 processors. I propose changing the name of § models to § processors and the wording Each processor - 4331, 4341, 4361, and 4381 - had various models, which IBM referred to as model groups,, mentioning the nomenclature 43xx-MGxx, replacing the term sub-mode globally and changing the column header to Model group. User:Chatul/References# Hardware timeline has dates for the 4381 model groups, but not for the 4331, 4341 or 4361 processors. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Guy Harris (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

So what's the difference between "model" and "model group"? Does a 4381 model group correspond to a 4331/4341/4361 model, or does it contain multiple models? Guy Harris (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Some later IBM publications applied the term model group to the 4341. I've always treated it as a term of art and not tried to parse it as a phrase.

References