Talk:IBM RS64

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Don't merge IBM POWER Architecture into this article

RS64 AND POWERx are not the same..........No if you want to merge somthing why dont you merge amd and intel, amd and intel have more similarities then does RS64 and POWER..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.137.108 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 November 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

The "IBM POWER" page 1) covers the IBM POWER and POWER2 instruction-set architectures (whence PowerPC and Amazon were derived), 2) discusses to some degree derivative architectures (such as PowerPC) and some implementations thereof, and 3) lists the various IBM "POWER" processors (and single-chip derivations of those processors that were multi-chip) implementing various of those architectures. My inclination would be to have some page, perhaps the IBM POWER page, at least list the IBM-proprietary implementations of various POWER-family architectures; however, there are already pages for POWER4 and POWER5, at least, and the IBM POWER page mentions them as well as RS64, so my inclination would be to have the IBM POWER page mention the implementations, but not be responsible for giving details on those implementations, so the POWER4 and POWER5 pages, as well as the RS64 page, would remain (and, frankly, I think there should be POWER1, POWER2, and POWER3 pages, referred to by the IBM POWER page, with all the detailed information). Guy Harris 01:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, merging the IBM POWER page into this page makes no sense to me. RS64 is a set of particular implementations of POWER and PowerPC; I don't see a reason to swallow up an entire architecture, with multiple implementations, into a page describing some of the implementations. Guy Harris 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, I've removed the urge-to-merge item from this page. Guy Harris 08:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page for PowerPC-AS?

I think some of the (undocumented outside IBM?) extensions that PowerPC-AS makes to PowerPC (I think they include some fixed-point-decimal-addition-and-subtraction assists, as well as tag bits) are also in the instruction set implemented by POWER4 and successors, to allow them to run AS/400^Wi5^WIBM i and its SLIC as well as AIX and Linux. Currently, there's no page for PowerPC-AS, and the Power Architecture infobox points to RS64 under the name "PowerPC-AS" in a section that lists POWER/PowerPC/etc. implementations rather than instruction set architectures. If there were a separate PowerPC-AS page, the Power Architecture page could link to the PowerPC-AS page in the entry for it in the glossary, the infobox could point to RS64 in the aforementioned section (and could perhaps also have a section for instruction set architectures such as IBM POWER and PowerPC along with PowerPC-AS, and the POWER4 page could explicitly link to the PowerPC-AS page. Guy Harris (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Material copied from IBM POWER to here

Text and/or other creative content from this version of IBM POWER was copied or moved into IBM RS64 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IBM RS64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]