3 ms·

Man I wish I could get a job at IBM naming things - what a sweet gig that would be. “Need a name for an operating system? OS/1! Oh, there’s already one of th

by DougN7 2y ago

Man I wish I could get a job at IBM naming things - what a sweet gig that would be. “Need a name for an operating system? OS/1! Oh, there’s already one of those? OS/2! Database? DB/1! Oh… OK then, DB/2!”

skissane 2y ago
> Need a name for an operating system? OS/1! Oh, there’s already one of those? OS/2! The OS/1 was actually PC-DOS / MS-DOS. OS/2 began life as IBM and Microsoft's shared desire to make DOS multitasking. The rarely adopted multitasking version of MS-DOS 4.0 (sometimes called "European MS-DOS 4.0", since it was mainly used in Europe) represents an early phase of it. (As distinct from mainstream DOS 4.0, which was single-tasking – and, unlike most versions of DOS, was actually developed by IBM, not Microsoft – single-tasking MS-DOS 4.x is Microsoft's fixes/enhancements on top of IBM's PC-DOS 4.x codebase.) It went through various internal names with IBM and Microsoft, including "Advanced DOS" and "CP/DOS" (Control Program for DOS–a name inspired by IBM's use of "Control Program" for various mainframe and minicomputer operating systems, and possibly also by CP/M), before they eventually settled on "OS/2" > Database? DB/1! Oh… OK then, DB/2! Just like OS/2, there never actually was an IBM database product called DB1 or DB/1. But, the "DB1" was meant to be IBM's IMS hierarchical database. The idea being conveyed is that DB2 as a relational database is a successor to "DB1" the hierarchical database. In the wider industry, network model databases (as in CODASYL) represented an intermediate phase in-between hierarchical databases such as IMS and relational databases such as DB2 and Oracle – but IBM themselves never really got in to network model databases, although network model databases from other vendors were popular on IBM mainframes (particular IDMS–now from Broadcom, formerly CA, and before that Cullinet, who were originally called Cullinane)
- DougN7 2y ago
  I don’t doubt any of what you say. I have this opinions because I worked at IBM MANY years ago and saw a product list and it was almost all two or three letters / number. AND there was a _committee_ created with coming up with these oh so unique names! PS/1 PS/2 AS/400 System/3 System/36 System/360 I love it :)
  - skissane 2y ago
    It really represented a certain historical period of IBM naming conventions – that originated with the IBM System/360 (before which IBM computers generally had numeric model numbers, e.g., for high-end mainframes, the vacuum tube IBM 70x series and its 707x transistorised successors), and ended in the early 2000s as IBM switched to radically different nomenclature (first the z/i/p/x Series, then z/i/p/x Systems). But, back in those days, many other vendors emulated those IBM style naming conventions (ACRONYM/DIGITS, etc). Nowadays, they look old-fashioned and overly technical, the kind of branding most marketing people would recommend against. Most of them weren't recommending against it 40 years ago (well, ignoring they are by and large two different sets of people – marketing juniors 40 years ago are nearing retirement now, many of the seniors are already dead)

by DougN7 2y ago

skissane 2y ago

> Need a name for an operating system? OS/1! Oh, there’s already one of those? OS/2! The OS/1 was actually PC-DOS / MS-DOS. OS/2 began life as IBM and Microsoft's shared desire to make DOS multitasking. The rarely adopted multitasking version of MS-DOS 4.0 (sometimes called "European MS-DOS 4.0", since it was mainly used in Europe) represents an early phase of it. (As distinct from mainstream DOS 4.0, which was single-tasking – and, unlike most versions of DOS, was actually developed by IBM, not Microsoft – single-tasking MS-DOS 4.x is Microsoft's fixes/enhancements on top of IBM's PC-DOS 4.x codebase.) It went through various internal names with IBM and Microsoft, including "Advanced DOS" and "CP/DOS" (Control Program for DOS–a name inspired by IBM's use of "Control Program" for various mainframe and minicomputer operating systems, and possibly also by CP/M), before they eventually settled on "OS/2" > Database? DB/1! Oh… OK then, DB/2! Just like OS/2, there never actually was an IBM database product called DB1 or DB/1. But, the "DB1" was meant to be IBM's IMS hierarchical database. The idea being conveyed is that DB2 as a relational database is a successor to "DB1" the hierarchical database. In the wider industry, network model databases (as in CODASYL) represented an intermediate phase in-between hierarchical databases such as IMS and relational databases such as DB2 and Oracle – but IBM themselves never really got in to network model databases, although network model databases from other vendors were popular on IBM mainframes (particular IDMS–now from Broadcom, formerly CA, and before that Cullinet, who were originally called Cullinane)

DougN7 2y ago
I don’t doubt any of what you say. I have this opinions because I worked at IBM MANY years ago and saw a product list and it was almost all two or three letters / number. AND there was a _committee_ created with coming up with these oh so unique names! PS/1 PS/2 AS/400 System/3 System/36 System/360 I love it :)
- skissane 2y ago
  It really represented a certain historical period of IBM naming conventions – that originated with the IBM System/360 (before which IBM computers generally had numeric model numbers, e.g., for high-end mainframes, the vacuum tube IBM 70x series and its 707x transistorised successors), and ended in the early 2000s as IBM switched to radically different nomenclature (first the z/i/p/x Series, then z/i/p/x Systems). But, back in those days, many other vendors emulated those IBM style naming conventions (ACRONYM/DIGITS, etc). Nowadays, they look old-fashioned and overly technical, the kind of branding most marketing people would recommend against. Most of them weren't recommending against it 40 years ago (well, ignoring they are by and large two different sets of people – marketing juniors 40 years ago are nearing retirement now, many of the seniors are already dead)