Talk:IBM 5100

John Titor: Pop Culture Reference?

i'd like to see this page have a link to the John Titor page due to the pop-culture reference. 14:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.104.227 (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC) linked to the John Titor page Wbm1058 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Stein’s Gate is regarded as an important cultural item in Japan, and as such the IBM 5100 pages in several other language Wikipedia’s, including Japan and Germany reflect this. However, it appears particular members of the English Wikipedia team disagree with this statement. As such, let us talk responsibly about this before I bring it up as vandalism to the mod team. AlexeiVolkoff (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a reference, citing the specific and pre-existing page already present on Wikipedia (full of source references), but without any tentative discussion it has been completely deleted by a nitpicking sciovinist. Is this the climate of respect for free collaboration in current days Wikipedia? And by the way which could be wrong in providing referenced information on popular culture topoi when their knowledge is quite famous and widespread? Corrado72 (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

PALM processor/microcode

User:MadIce: The PALM microcode was not "ported" from another system. The PALM only has a very small amount of Control ROS, and it was custom written specifically for PALM. No IBM processor at that time used 32-bit microcode; most used horizontal microcode words of more than 60 bits.

Perhaps the porting effort you are alluding to was the porting of APL\360 or Series/3 BASIC. These programs are in the "Language ROS" which is not part of the PALM processor. In fact, to the PALM the Language ROS acts as a peripheral device rather than as conventional memory.

The PALM microcode (Control ROS) is just a tiny ROM that implements the PALM instruction set, as described in an appendix of the IBM 5100 Maintenance Information Manual. The PALM processor executes PALM instructions from the "Executable ROS", or from RAM.

The Executable ROS contains the system initialization code, diagnostics, I/O routines, and processor simulators. There is a System/3 simulator for running BASIC, and a System/360 simulator for running APL\360.

The actual BASIC interpreter (in System/3 code) and the APL\360 interpreter (written in System/360 code) are stored in the Language ROS. These language interpreters are the only IBM 5100 ROM code that can be said to have been "ported" from earlier IBM systems. --Brouhaha 07:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Brouhaha: Thanks for pointing that out.

Brouhaha: You talked about the Executable ROS containing "processor simulators". Was the 5100 able to emulate other processors and if so which ones did it emulate?

Brouhaha: I don't want to be a PITA, but can you please read the design decisions for the IBM 5100 starting at page 425 (Small machines) of the IBM Systems Journal, Volume 30, Number 4, 1991?

I am quoting page 426: "This time, however, although the same Palm internal engine was used, System/360 architecture was emulated rather than 1130 architecture, so that the up-to-date APSLV product system could be used as the APL facility with virtually no modification."

This leads me to believe that the processor was emulated by the PALM, instead of APL/360 being ported to the machine.

---

By IBM's own definitions, portions of the code in the Executable ROS (written in PALM assembly language) simulate the System\360 and System/3 processors, to run APLSV and BASIC, respectively. (My earlier reference to APL\360 was incorrect.) The APLSV code was ported in the sense that although the IBM 5100 is simulating a System\360 processor, it is not running a normal System\360 operating system. Some changes to the APLSV code were made to get it to run on the IBM 5100; I don't have any details on the extent of these changes, but I expect one could consider it to be a relatively minor port. Probably more work than porting a program from OS/MVT to CMS, for instance, but much less than porting a program from a System/360 to a VAX.

I was mostly trying to correct the notion that the PALM microcode (Control ROS) was ported from somewhere else. The Control ROS is specific to PALM and only serves to implement the PALM instruction set.

With the introduction of the System/360, IBM defined processor emulation as the simulation of another processor using special-purpose hardware and/or microcode. In the article you cite, IBM has apparently become somewhat sloppy in their use of the term "emulation". It seems commonplace now for the term "emulation" to be used where "simulation" is more appropriate, but this is unfortunate as it conveys less useful information. In the case of the IBM 5100, the System\360 and System\3 simulation are not particularly assisted in any way by special-purpose hardware or microcode, thus there is no good reason to refer to it as "emulation". --Brouhaha 04:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Burroughs had a smaller machine, the B1700, that allowed machine instructions to be emulated in micrcode, which came out at about the same time as the 5100. And I'm sure someone else had done it before. So, it wasn't all that "innovative." --205.175.225.5 23:56, 11 August 2006

The B1700 series machines were *much* larger than the IBM 5100. For instance, the B1712 and B1714 processor cabinet alone weighed 900 lb., vs. about 50 lb. for the IBM 5100. And the 900 lb. of the Burroughs machine didn't include a terminal (keyboard and display) or tape drive; those added hundreds of lb.

The IBM invention of emulation was with the System/360 in 1964, not the IBM 5100 in 1975. To the extent that the use of emulation was innovative in the IBM 5100, it was because they did it in a desktop computer weighing approximately 50 lb.

The B1700 series was definitely interesting and very sophisticated, but comparing it to an IBM 5100 is silly. They are very different machines with very different capabilities. --Brouhaha 02:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have suggested that IBM PALM processor be merged into this article for these reasons:

• Article is orphaned
• Article does not seem to be notable when standing alone

Any questions can be answered on my talk page, -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - It is the first IBM Portable Computer in the 5100 series, that included the IBM 5150. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NevilleDNZ (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, provided IBM 5100 is the resulting article, since I reached it via a link from IBM PC. I suggest leaving IBM PALM processor as a redirect to IBM 5100. Philcha 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Merge - The PALM processor is also used in the IBM 5110 and 5120, and possibly other IBM products. --Brouhaha 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Don't merge - the PALM article is too short and could be labeled as a stub; if the pages are merged, they will need to be split again when someone who knows about the PALM adds more information about it.

212.159.102.166 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Price?

In the info box it says “$8,975” and “$19,975”, in the text below it says “Prices ranged from $11,000 (16k model) to $20,000 (64k)” and later on again “the 5100 sold for between $8,975 and $19,975”. That’s a bit misleading and should be clarified by one who has access to first hand information.

Additionally, the statement “(between $38.9 thousand and $86.7 thousand in today's dollars)” seems a bit strange two me for two reasons: a) unusual notation (why write “$11,000” but “$38.9 thousand”) and second: when’s today? The time when the article was written? That will soon be outdated.

Ghoffart (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would agree this needs to be fixed. The 5120 article claims the 5120 was the lowest price to date (1980) for a computer at $9,340. Something is very wrong with the less than $9000 price for this model. --DaleDe (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

List of trivia

The article contains a list of trivia, nominally a "popular culture" section, but actually just a bit of coat racking that points to articles of no practical relevance to this model of computer. The articles in question are John Titor, which is an article about an urban legend concocted by some joker on Usenet, and to a Japanese visual novel that features a computer with a similar name.

There have been at least two separate attempts to remove this pointless trivia over the past six months, by me most recently and by Wtshymanski in February. Each time the trivia had been restored by the same editor 70.44.146.177 without comment.

So here we are. Let's discuss this section. Two editors day it's trivia and our policy says we don't do trivia. Do I hear any counter arguments that can be reconciled with our policies? --TS 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are no policy-based arguments on this topic by 13:14 UTC on 13th (seven days from the above comment, I propose to provisionally remove the section. It can be restored or replaced at any time after that, but is unlikely to remain without clear consensus. --TS 13:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's literally in popular culture. What exactly is the problem suddenly after over a decade? There are numerous other similar sections on this site. Are those a threat to wikipedia too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.146.177 (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles are about their subjects. We do not link to Serdar Argic in Armenian genocide. We do not link Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel in green card lottery. These were *much* more magnificent tempests in the teapot of Usenet, though hardly "popular culture" - Usenet was never a popular culture phenomenon on the order of, oh, I don't know, bridge tournaments. We should not link Usenet practical jokes that have nothing to do with the IBM 5100 to the article about the IBM 5100. The Titor stuff could have as easily cited an Apple II or a PET or a Sorcim, for all the relevance that prank had to the particular model of computer. That's the great thing about fiction, it can be written about anything. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

But the Titor story didn't concern an Apple II, it cited the IBM 5100. Just about the only popular mention the 5100 got. Is John Titor notable? Yes, we have an article on him (and if you want to challenge that, there's AfD). But if John Titor is notable (so far we seem to be saying he is), and he's the only reason almost all of the small number of people who've heard of a 5100 have heard of it, then we should mention him here.

As to Cantor & Siegel, then I'd mention them in the green card lottery too, for similar reasons (I'm in the UK - we first heard about green cards as a result of their spam). For Serdar Argic, then I wouldn't, mostly because he's so much later than the genocide itself. However I might mention the Kardassians in it, as they've made mention of it and although only minor, their media profile today means that they too have become the primary reason that many people have heard of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out Steins;Gate is one of the most acclaimed and best-selling visual novels of all time, and its anime adaptation is likewise one of the most acclaimed and popular anime series of all time. John Titor is a major character in Steins;Gate, and a significant portion of the story is about obtaining the elusive 'IBN 5100'. The John Titor story, and particularly Steins;Gate which makes use of it, are very significant in how people view the IBM 5100. It's not just trivia. VDZ (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at what links to this page, 4 out of the 34 links are related to the John Titor legend (and two specifically related to Steins;Gate). It makes sense to include these in the article if it is notable enough to be mentioned in other articles. It doesn't seem like there is enough of a consensus on this talk page to remove it, and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content does not seem to indicate this would be a bad inclusion. However, finding references might be a good idea. Alexwho314 (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I happened to revisit this article today because I’m reading Meryle Secrest’s Olivetti book, a subject of which is the claim they created the world’s first desktop computer, an appellation most think is overblown. As one with fond memories of both the IBM 5100 and Usenet, both of which were readily accessible at Duke in the early 80s–the 5100, dozens of which were available to walk up and use for many non-technical classes, and Usenet was co-developed at Duke and UNC Chapel Hill–I am surprised to see the “In Popular Culture” John Titor story missing. I know many more heard of the 5100 when the story was broadcast outside of Usenet on the quirky but popular AM Coast to Coast. I would definitely put content in on this and probably will when I have some time. Dhugot (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Steins;Gate & the 5100

Doing a https://www.google.com/search?q=%22IBM+5100%22+appears+in+the+anime+%22Steins%3BGate%22+as+the+%22IBN+5100%22 google search will find various hits. One of them says "The world of Steins;Gate contains many references to real world subjects or people." This makes reference(s) in IBM 5100 to S;G not unique, and less encyclopedic for an In Popular Culture section, if there is to be one. What about a STAR TREK/DS9 episode where a 5100 is found somewhere out there . . . ? Pi314m (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As another user pointed out, the IBN(M) 5100 is an integral part of the game's story, and John Titor is one of the main characters. It isn't just a throwaway pop-culture gag that could just as easily be excised; the events of the game revolve around Titor's need for the computer. Theotherchairduck (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A lighter IBM 5100 (under a pound)

The word luggable was used to describe an early day pre-Compaq PC. Here's a link to an under-a-pound/Kg alternative: http://rockybergen.com/whatsnew/2018/12/19/ibm-5100-portable-computer (hint, it's made of paper). Pi314m (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Floppies on 5100?

@Grwasserman: please note:

Not to quibble, but from http://computermuseum.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/dev_en/ibm_5110/index.html it looks like adding floppy storage

was a 5110 peripheral, not the 5100. Is there a source re floppies on 5100?

The text

An optional external dual 8" floppy disk drive was available. The drives were dual density dual sided format and could store 2MB per disk. The external floppy drive was about the size of a two drawer filing cabinet.

is for now commented out within the article. Pi314m (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

deletion of "problem-solver libraries"

I thought the subsection "Problem-solver libraries- IBM offered three problem-solver libraries, contained in magnetic tape cartridges, with the IBM 5100 to provide more than 1000 interactive routines applicable to mathematical problems, statistical techniques and financial analyses." seemed only appropriate for programmers and not very intelligible to any other audience. If more context could be provided on the definition and use of such libraries, it might be be re-included

John Titor, Stein’s Gate and pop culture

Hi there! This discussion pertains the object of the Wikipedia page - the IBM 5100. It is the opinion of this editor that the IBM 5100 deserves a Pop Culture section within it’s relevant Wikipedia article, including it’s important references in cultural media such as the John Titor internet phenomenon, as well as the heavily-related reference said phenomenon has towards the anime Steins’ Gate.

There are plenty of references and citations, as seen in previous edits, to the IBM 5100 being referenced within pop culture media; this includes references in the equivalent Wikipedia pages in other languages, such as the German Wikipedia (.de) and Japanese Wikipedia (.jp). It must also be noted the cultural impact of both the John Titor phenomenon and the anime Stein;s Gate, which is recognised as a cultural landmark for Japanese animation, as well as one of the most viewed anime of all time - and the IBM 5100 represents a huge plot point within this important cultural item.

Simultaneously, in regards to my contemporaries concerns, I must ask that if this “obscure item” in “some cartoon” isn’t relevant to the page, then what of other similar Wikipedia articles that have pop culture references? Should we remove references to the Police Box in Doctor Who, or the Bike Skid from Akira? It sets a bad precedent; and, for the comment saying that other language Wikipedia pages are relevant to their respective languages, I ask whether or not the IBM 5100, or John Titor or Stein;s Gate, has had a greater cultural impact in Germany than it has in the English language? I think not.

As such, it is of my opinion and argument that the Pop Culture section of this Wikipedia page should remain; and, should the persistent edits from a certain group of editors continue - unless it is completely debated otherwise - then I shall have to seek higher mediation, as is Wikipedia policy. Please feel free to respond. 2A02:C7F:146D:7700:C49B:6B70:684D:ABB1 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]. An unmotivated listing of random appearances on TV or in your favorite video game is not encyclopediac content. There's no third-party scholarly assessment of the "popular culture" aspects of the IBM 5100. Wikipedia articles have enough trouble separating fact from fiction. It's unimportant to understaning the topic of the article; it is as out-of-place and irrelevant as mentioning that the Toyota Corona Wagon appeared in the film "When Harry Met Sally", which quite possibly has been seen by more people than have ever heard of Usenet or a particular comic book series. The place to discuss pop trivia is on a pop trivia fan site. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this page and such like this is that a good 90% of all edits are made to add the reference. This is where the Toyota comparison doesn't work as the IBM computer is a major plot point. If we search the computer name one of the top related searches would be related to the anime show (other related searches being mostly related to the price) meaning a large portion of people trying to find info about the machine look for it with the anime in mind.

Even as early as 2010 we had this discussion. Multiple times. ScruffyFox (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"There's no third-party scholarly assessment of the "popular culture" aspects of the IBM 5100." Is this the standard we hold all pop culture sections across Wikipedia to? Theotherchairduck (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the standard is clearly WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If one can't find three other editors to build sacred consensus, all one has to do is go to the sock drawer and enroll an army of McGregors. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely enjoying all the attacks in your responses. FWIW I also think further discussion on this is kind of pointless since everyone has their POVs set in stone and we all just keep reiterating the same points. Theotherchairduck (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Solve this content dispute some other way than edit warring, or there will be blocks next time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I definitely feel for sure the John Titor info should be kept, as it is a very fascinating story with the computer at its focal point.

On the same note, Steins;Gate game and show use the computer as a major plot point and would be worthy of note.

As mentioned, other countries have the notes too about Titor and Steins;Gate, so it makes sense for it to be here too to be consistent with other languages. At the very least, have a link to those articles for relevancy. Nyghtwynd (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

IMSAI 8080 (as an example)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSAI_8080#In_popular_culture

Someone just seems to love this particular piece of kit a lot, which is ok in the end. But, if the IMSAI has an "In Popular Culture" why not this article? or does the lurky weird nature of the John Titor stuff and its derivatives not qualify as popular culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojmorales0002 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)